FEATURED EDITORIAL:
HOME FEATURED EDITORIAL
Published on June 27, 2016
In the wake of tragedy or natural disaster, Americans want to help. Many send money electronically or write a check to the American Red Cross.
What organization could be more solid? People have long trusted that the Red Cross would responsibly apply their contributions.
Not so, apparently.
A U.S. Senate investigation into how the agency managed a half billion dollars in donations for relief following the Haiti earthquake in 2010 not only raises questions about how the Red Cross handled donor funds, but reveals troubling details about its operations.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) has released a 300-page report so disturbing that a shakeup at the charity seems in order. Other members of Congress recommend an independent outside auditor — on a permanent basis.
● The Red Cross has long told the public that 91 percent of contributions go directly to clients in need. But this cannot be verified in the case of Haiti. There is no evidence for such a number. It was hype, a sales pitch, a lie.
● In Haiti, other groups were sub-contracted to do work the Red Cross lacked the manpower or expertise to accomplish. Much of that work was never done. But those groups charged another 11 percent in administrative costs.
● The Red Cross collected almost $500 million for Haiti and built only six permanent homes there. Six.
● The report says the Red Cross attempted to stymie and was not open with federal authorities.
The public first came to know what the charity was doing — or not doing — from media reports. Senator Grassley launched his investigation after learning about Red Cross handling of funding and other matters from National Public Media and ProPublica. The senator concluded that a whopping 25 percent, or $125 million, of the $500 million received from donations for Haiti, was used for in-house expenses.
Some 1.5 million Haitians’ homes were destroyed. Six homes is scandal.
The Grassley report reveals that additional funds were spent on oversight, to ensure proper use of Haiti aid. However, the senator’s office learned that the organization “is unable to provide any financial evidence that oversight activities in fact occurred.”
Senator Grassley’s office also said Gail McGovern, chief executive officer of the charity, made false statements as to whether it cooperated with congressional investigators. He said there was little cooperation with federal authorities, and that after a year of talking back and forth with the Red Cross, “We did not get satisfactory answers. It was like pulling teeth.”
The Red Cross could not even provide a complete list of all its projects in Haiti.
American Red Cross leaders have obviously forgotten that they are accountable to the public, and have a higher duty to keep faith with both their givers and those in need. It broke faith with both.
The American Red Cross has now been tainted and needs a complete leadership overhaul.
It also needs a watchdog.
Finally, someone needs to go to jail here. Fraud on the backs of almost unfathomable human suffering is about as shameless as shameless gets.
http://www.toledoblade.com/Featured-Editorial-Home/2016/06/27/A-tarnished-Red-Cross.html
lundi 27 juin 2016
American Red Cross exposed as massive, incompetent fraud: built just six homes after collecting half a billion dollars in Haiti earthquake donations
Sunday, June 26, 2016
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: American Red Cross, Haiti earthquake, donations fraud
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054476_American_Red_Cross_Haiti_earthquake_donations_fraud.html#ixzz4CmJrGY6Y The Red Cross received an outpouring of donations after the quake, nearly half a billion dollars.
The group has publicly celebrated its work. But in fact, the Red Cross has repeatedly failed on the ground in Haiti. Confidential memos, emails from worried top officers, and accounts of a dozen frustrated and disappointed insiders show the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.
The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people. But the actual number of permanent homes the group has built in all of Haiti: six.
In effect, the Red Cross exploited the Haiti earthquake as a way to get gullible donors to wipe out its massive operational debt. Check this out:
Inside the Red Cross, the Haiti disaster was seen as "a spectacular fundraising opportunity," recalled one former official who helped organize the effort. Michelle Obama, the NFL and a long list of celebrities appealed for donations to the group.
The Red Cross kept soliciting money well after it had enough for the emergency relief that is the group's stock in trade. Doctors Without Borders, in contrast, stopped fundraising off the earthquake after it decided it had enough money. The donations to the Red Cross helped the group erase its more-than $100 million deficit.
The American Red Cross: Where donation money disappears into a massive bureaucratic black hole
So what did the Red Cross actually do? Like all big bureaucracies, its top officials all stood around shoving thumbs up each other's asses and calling it "success." Via ProPublica:
The Red Cross' initial plan said the focus would be building homes -- an internal proposal put the number at 700. Each would have finished floors, toilets, showers, even rainwater collection systems. The houses were supposed to be finished in January 2013. None of that ever happened. Carline Noailles, who was the project's manager in Washington, said it was endlessly delayed because the Red Cross "didn't have the know-how."
So the Red Cross collects half a billion dollars from gullible donors, but doesn't know how to build homes for the victims it claimed to be helping? This reality reeks of so much waste that I'm now nominating the Red Cross to be a full-fledged government agency, where it's amazing waste-amplified talents can be put to use on a larger scale, wasting far more taxpayer money than ever thought possible.
Millions spent teaching impoverished children with no water or soap how to wash their hands
While all the Red Cross's home building plans were being laughed off the table, the organization decided to use its half a billion dollars in funding to -- and I'm not even making this up -- teach hand washing skills to children who have no water and no soap. F-Yeah! Why didn't I think of that?
Instead of making concrete improvements to living conditions, the Red Cross has launched hand-washing education campaigns. The internal evaluation noted that these were "not effective when people had no access to water and no soap." (The Red Cross declined to comment on the project.)
You might think that somebody at the Red Cross would first realize that washing hands requires running water, but that would be giving them way too much credit. It's not about actually helping people, you see... it's all about raising money to raise Red Cross salaries and bonuses!
Bottom line: If you give a single dollar to the American Red Cross, you're a fool. The organization is a fraud. Pick a more honest non-profit next time, and do your homework before giving money to these donation fat cats who pay themselves huge salaries and bonuses while doing next to nothing to actually help real people in the real world.
SOURCE: Propublica.org
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-re... Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054476_American_Red_Cross_Haiti_earthquake_donations_fraud.html#ixzz4CmJ0Qra3
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: American Red Cross, Haiti earthquake, donations fraud
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054476_American_Red_Cross_Haiti_earthquake_donations_fraud.html#ixzz4CmJrGY6Y The Red Cross received an outpouring of donations after the quake, nearly half a billion dollars.
The group has publicly celebrated its work. But in fact, the Red Cross has repeatedly failed on the ground in Haiti. Confidential memos, emails from worried top officers, and accounts of a dozen frustrated and disappointed insiders show the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.
The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people. But the actual number of permanent homes the group has built in all of Haiti: six.
In effect, the Red Cross exploited the Haiti earthquake as a way to get gullible donors to wipe out its massive operational debt. Check this out:
Inside the Red Cross, the Haiti disaster was seen as "a spectacular fundraising opportunity," recalled one former official who helped organize the effort. Michelle Obama, the NFL and a long list of celebrities appealed for donations to the group.
The Red Cross kept soliciting money well after it had enough for the emergency relief that is the group's stock in trade. Doctors Without Borders, in contrast, stopped fundraising off the earthquake after it decided it had enough money. The donations to the Red Cross helped the group erase its more-than $100 million deficit.
The American Red Cross: Where donation money disappears into a massive bureaucratic black hole
So what did the Red Cross actually do? Like all big bureaucracies, its top officials all stood around shoving thumbs up each other's asses and calling it "success." Via ProPublica:
The Red Cross' initial plan said the focus would be building homes -- an internal proposal put the number at 700. Each would have finished floors, toilets, showers, even rainwater collection systems. The houses were supposed to be finished in January 2013. None of that ever happened. Carline Noailles, who was the project's manager in Washington, said it was endlessly delayed because the Red Cross "didn't have the know-how."
So the Red Cross collects half a billion dollars from gullible donors, but doesn't know how to build homes for the victims it claimed to be helping? This reality reeks of so much waste that I'm now nominating the Red Cross to be a full-fledged government agency, where it's amazing waste-amplified talents can be put to use on a larger scale, wasting far more taxpayer money than ever thought possible.
Millions spent teaching impoverished children with no water or soap how to wash their hands
While all the Red Cross's home building plans were being laughed off the table, the organization decided to use its half a billion dollars in funding to -- and I'm not even making this up -- teach hand washing skills to children who have no water and no soap. F-Yeah! Why didn't I think of that?
Instead of making concrete improvements to living conditions, the Red Cross has launched hand-washing education campaigns. The internal evaluation noted that these were "not effective when people had no access to water and no soap." (The Red Cross declined to comment on the project.)
You might think that somebody at the Red Cross would first realize that washing hands requires running water, but that would be giving them way too much credit. It's not about actually helping people, you see... it's all about raising money to raise Red Cross salaries and bonuses!
Bottom line: If you give a single dollar to the American Red Cross, you're a fool. The organization is a fraud. Pick a more honest non-profit next time, and do your homework before giving money to these donation fat cats who pay themselves huge salaries and bonuses while doing next to nothing to actually help real people in the real world.
SOURCE: Propublica.org
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-re... Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054476_American_Red_Cross_Haiti_earthquake_donations_fraud.html#ixzz4CmJ0Qra3
Stevenson to defend boxing crown, seeks 15th win in a row
Montreal (AFP) – Haitian-born Canadian Adonis Stevenson, the World Boxing Council light-heavyweight champion for the past three years, will defend his crown July 29 against American Thomas Williams at Quebec City.The showdown of southpaws will be Stevenson’s seventh title defence of the crown he took from US fighter Chad Dawson by knockout in June 2013.
Stevenson, 27-1 with 22 knockouts, is on a 14-fight win streak since suffering his lone loss to Darnell Boone in 2010, a defeat he avenged by knocking out the American in 2013.
In all, Stevenson has 12 knockouts in his past 14 bouts, the 38-year-old most recently stopping American Tommy Karpency in the third round last September in Toronto.
“I am very happy to return to the ring on July 29,” Stevenson said. “I’ll demonstrate that like fine wine, I’m even better with age. Even though I haven’t boxed in 10 months, I’ve never left the gym and I’m willing and ready to defend my crown.”
Stevenson, who hasn’t fought outside Canada since 2011, holds the lone belt in the division not owned by Russian fighter Sergey Kovalev, who had hoped to meet Stevenson to decide an undisputed crown but instead is set to defend his titles in Russia next month against Malawi’s Issac Chilemba.
Williams, 20-1 with 14 knockouts, has won three times since suffering his only loss to Spanish former world champion Gabriel Campillo in 2014. In April, Williams stopped Dominican Edwin Rodriguez in the second round.
“There were many people who had lost trust in me two years ago after my loss, but here I am,” Williams said.
“I’m coming off of the best performance of my career and I’m ready to hold that belt. Stevenson has never faced a puncher like me.”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/stevenson-to-defend-boxing-crown-seeks-15th-win-in-a-row-7/
dimanche 26 juin 2016
LE DESTIN DE JOCELERME PRIVERT ET LA CRISE POLITIQUE EN HAITI DEUX POSITIONS
UN GESTE ! UN SACRIFICE DES EGOS ET DES INTÉRÊTS
PERSONNELS ET DE CASTES POUR SORTIR ENFIN DE LA CRISE!
LAISSONS PRIVERT ET LE CEP ORGANISER DE VRAIES ET BONNES ÉLECTIONS !
Je n'ai jamais apprécié l'ensemble du comportement de Monsieur Privert qui voulait être président à tout prix. Dès lors il était vu par l'ensemble des parlementaires comme la meilleure option pour une vraie mainmise du pouvoir législatif sur les autres pouvoirs.
LAISSONS PRIVERT ET LE CEP ORGANISER DE VRAIES ET BONNES ÉLECTIONS !
Je n'ai jamais apprécié l'ensemble du comportement de Monsieur Privert qui voulait être président à tout prix. Dès lors il était vu par l'ensemble des parlementaires comme la meilleure option pour une vraie mainmise du pouvoir législatif sur les autres pouvoirs.
Les préceptes de la Constitution n'étaient ni assez
clairs ni assez adaptés.
Les voix de l'opinion publique qui réclamaient la
présence d'une personnalité ayant un certain vécu politique, ne furent non plus
entendues.
Aujourd'hui Privert ne défend plus les intérêts de
l'ensemble du parlement.
L'évincer aujourd'hui serait reculer pour reculer
et s'enfoncer dans la crise.
Il faut donc un geste magnanime de tous pour comprendre de quel côté se trouvent les intérêts de la nation.
Il faut donc un geste magnanime de tous pour comprendre de quel côté se trouvent les intérêts de la nation.
Accordons-lui une confiance prudente et restons
vigilants.
Dr Jonas Jolivert
21/06/2016
Un geste magnanime, mon ami Jonas se trouve dans le
choix du Président de la cour de Cassation.
La constitution le veut ainsi .
Les promesses d’un assassin valent elles mieux que
les écrits de loi mère ?
Privert ne connait rien au vrai amour du pays. Il est un pur lavalassien et ne mérite pas le bénéfice du doute !
Il n’a pas de parole d’honneur .
Privert ne connait rien au vrai amour du pays. Il est un pur lavalassien et ne mérite pas le bénéfice du doute !
Il n’a pas de parole d’honneur .
Tout pour lui est prétexte à se gonfler les poches
de sous.
Pourquoi ferais-je pour lui ce que je n’ai pas voulu faire pour Martelly, quand je me suis rendu compte que lui aussi trahissait les espoirs d’une pauvre nation !
D’autres leaders sous d’autres cieux s’élèvent au-dessus de CE QUI SE PASSE dans les tripots malsains de nos politiques pour penser pays .
Pourquoi ferais-je pour lui ce que je n’ai pas voulu faire pour Martelly, quand je me suis rendu compte que lui aussi trahissait les espoirs d’une pauvre nation !
D’autres leaders sous d’autres cieux s’élèvent au-dessus de CE QUI SE PASSE dans les tripots malsains de nos politiques pour penser pays .
Avec Privert c’est le contraire :
Il est un corrompu .
Il est un corrompu .
Il est un menteur sans pareil .
Il se complait dans les limites de son imbécilité
cultuelle qu’il assume être la manifestation d’une intelligence supérieure.
A la limite de la magnanimité, si telle est la disposition de notre esprit citoyen, on ne peut faite confiance qu’à ceux qui ont erré mais qui partagent encore nos idéaux .
A la limite de la magnanimité, si telle est la disposition de notre esprit citoyen, on ne peut faite confiance qu’à ceux qui ont erré mais qui partagent encore nos idéaux .
Privert n’a jamais été de ceux-là.
Qu’il foute le camp cet oiseau de mauvais augure !
S’il faut une guerre civile pour nous débarrasser
de cette canaille et sa racaille il nous faut accepter les conséquences.
J’en ai marre des excuses qui donnent à tous nos faux leaders les moyens extraordinaires de nous plonger au plus profond de la merde.
J’en ai marre des excuses qui donnent à tous nos faux leaders les moyens extraordinaires de nous plonger au plus profond de la merde.
Geraldo Berroueto
21/06/2016
Grand ami Geraldo Berroueto;
j'ai plusieurs questionnements par rapport à
l'option de la guerre civile qu'elle soit menée contre Privert ou contre un
autre.
Mon premier souci réside dans le fait que j'habite
en dehors d'Haïti et les justifications de cette guerre ne me paraissent
pas assez solides pour me pousser à joindre les rangs. Et je ne voudrais pas
assurer la promotion d'une guerre dans la quelle je ne prendrai pas
partie.
Je suis totalement de ton avis que l'on aurait dû dès le départ exiger que l'on suive les préceptes de la loi mère pour régler le problème après le départ de Martelly.
Je suis totalement de ton avis que l'on aurait dû dès le départ exiger que l'on suive les préceptes de la loi mère pour régler le problème après le départ de Martelly.
Je continue à me demander pourquoi le pouvoir
judiciaire par son silence indifférent s'est laissé transformer en vassal des
deux autres pouvoirs et n'a pas pris part à la solution de la crise que posait
le départ de Michel Martelly.
Une guerre menée par la société civile pour exiger
le respect de la Constitution m'aurait convenu.
Notre histoire a débuté avec des guerres civiles
opposant des mulâtres menés par André Rigaud et les nègres libres de Toussaint
Louverture. Puis les guerres ont opposé des régions, des garnisons et des
hommes pour arriver au pouvoir. Aucune de ces guerre n'a fait du bien au pays.
J'ai du mal à intégrer le bien fondé d'une guerre
civile opposant des lavalassiens à des tetkaleistes. Nous savons tous ce que
sont devenus les lavalassiens et nous avions vu à l'oeuvre la bande de Michel
Martelly.
J'aurai beaucoup de mal à rejoindre un des deux camps.
J'aurai beaucoup de mal à rejoindre un des deux camps.
Je ne marcherai pas main dans la main avec Arnel
Belizaire, Rudy Heriveaux, kplim et consorts pour exiger la validation d'une
farce électorale destinée à mettre à la tête du pays un tel Jovenel Moïse,
sorti de l'anonymat et investi leader par Michel Martelly.
La guerre civile n'est pas un match de football à
la fin duquel le vaincu salut le vainqueur au nom du sport.
La guerre reste une option tragique traduisant dans
sa plus belle expression toute la bêtise de l'homme.
Cher ami, je suis convaincu que la vie d'un seul citoyen haïtien est plus importante que les intérêts de ces deux groupuscules érigés en éventuels camps.
S'il existe une troisième option portée par un
troisième camp, un secteur mu par les vrais intérêts de la nation je rentre
dans les rangs sinon, au nom de la cohérence et la logique élémentaire je suis
partisan d'un dépassement de soi des camps opposés pour sauver ce qui peut
l'être encore aujourd'hui.
Dr Jonas Jolivert
21/06/2016
AVANT C’ÉTAIT MIEUX CAR MAINTENANT C’EST PIRE ... LE CULTE ET LA CULTURE DU PIRE !
Il m’arrive de regretter le fait de n’avoir pas réaliser d’études littéraires qui me permettrait de me présenter avec un nom un prénom et surtout un titre qui me range parmi ces pseudos nobles du pays. Un Docteur ès quelque chose ferait bien l’affaire et sonnerait beaucoup mieux qu’un PhD.
Des études qui me permettraient d’exhiber des définitions très savantes comme celles que j’ai eues à apprendre avec Monsieur Pradel Pompilus, professeur de français et de littérature, membre du triumvirat qui dirigeait à l’époque le centre d’études secondaires !>br> Des définitions qui permettraient de conceptualiser des expressions évidentes ou des occurrences jugées bizarres.
Depuis quelques temps je me promène volontiers sur la page Facebook d’une personnalité importante déphasée appartenant à l’histoire plus ou moins récente du pays. Elle a joui en son temps d’une très grande célébrité dans les sphères du pouvoir et comme deuxième citoyen d’un régime décrié à travers l’histoire.
Après un long silence et, à la faveur de l’efficacité facilement obtenue par le réseau social, elle revient doucement s’insinuer dans la vie du pays. Elle profite surtout de cette tribune ouverte pour régler ses comptes avec les pourfendeurs du régime dans lequel elle jouait les premiers rôles.
Contre ceux qui s’en ont voulu au nom de la démocratie, elle a dépeint une caricature de la démocratie obtenue depuis la fin de son régime en énumérant tout ce qui ne marche pas et qui n’a jamais marché depuis trente ans.
Sa liste exhaustive énumère les actions douteuses du gouvernement de Michel Martelly telles que les dépenses lapidaires, non justifiées des fonds PetroCaribe, la non réalisation d’élections pendant la durée du mandat, les actes de corruption, l’insécurité, l’état de saleté de la ville de Port-au-Prince, les assassinats qui ne se comptent plus.
Dans ses considérations elle écrivit des mots empreints d’une forte émotion pour évoquer l’assassinat récent d’un jeune père de famille expert en nouvelles technologies.
Mais tout ceci avec comme toile de fond, une intention en sourdine de démontrer que le régime qu’elle a porté était de loin meilleur.
En fait avant c’était meilleur parce que maintenant c’est pire.
Ce qui attira mon attention fut le fait que pour la démonstration de sa théorie, elle ne sut sortir aucun fait positif, aucune réalisation utile d’envergure pour supporter la thèse de la meilleure qualité de son régime par rapport aux autres dont elle n’a énuméré que les aspects négatifs.
Ceci me ramena dix ans en arrière quand en plein régime Lavalassien avec son style JPP et d’autres slogans sous-développés, dans les rues certaines vois plébiscitaient Jean-Claude Duvalier comme l’un des meilleurs présidents des vingt dernières années. A l’époque on n’avait pas encore les cinq ans de René Préval et encore moins les cinq ans d’un certain Michel Martelly.
Pour jauger, avec l’usage, nous ne nous servons plus de cette partie positive de l’échelle. Nous comparons entre le moins bon et le pire ; nous établissons une différence entre rien et mieux que rien.
Nous avons appris à vouer un culte au pire que nous vénérons et cultivons.
Il y a cinq mois, Michel Martelly à tort ou à raison était décrié comme anormal, incompétent, immoral. Aujourd’hui les auteurs intellectuels de la situation que le pays subit, se sont arrangés pour réhabiliter sweet Micky.
En pleine dictature parlementaire, il est difficile d’énumérer un acte positif posé par ce corps dysfonctionnel qui semble avoir la voix au chapitre.
Les parlementaires de cette législature ont déjà fait oublié l’inutilité de la législature antérieure.
Donc dans l’administration publique il n’est pas indispensable d’œuvrer pour l’obtention de bons résultats car celui qui viendra après s’arrangera, quelle que soit l’ampleur de votre bêtise, pour faire encore pire que vous !
Car nous sommes nés dans la culture du pire et nous le vénérons !
Des études qui me permettraient d’exhiber des définitions très savantes comme celles que j’ai eues à apprendre avec Monsieur Pradel Pompilus, professeur de français et de littérature, membre du triumvirat qui dirigeait à l’époque le centre d’études secondaires !>br> Des définitions qui permettraient de conceptualiser des expressions évidentes ou des occurrences jugées bizarres.
Depuis quelques temps je me promène volontiers sur la page Facebook d’une personnalité importante déphasée appartenant à l’histoire plus ou moins récente du pays. Elle a joui en son temps d’une très grande célébrité dans les sphères du pouvoir et comme deuxième citoyen d’un régime décrié à travers l’histoire.
Après un long silence et, à la faveur de l’efficacité facilement obtenue par le réseau social, elle revient doucement s’insinuer dans la vie du pays. Elle profite surtout de cette tribune ouverte pour régler ses comptes avec les pourfendeurs du régime dans lequel elle jouait les premiers rôles.
Contre ceux qui s’en ont voulu au nom de la démocratie, elle a dépeint une caricature de la démocratie obtenue depuis la fin de son régime en énumérant tout ce qui ne marche pas et qui n’a jamais marché depuis trente ans.
Sa liste exhaustive énumère les actions douteuses du gouvernement de Michel Martelly telles que les dépenses lapidaires, non justifiées des fonds PetroCaribe, la non réalisation d’élections pendant la durée du mandat, les actes de corruption, l’insécurité, l’état de saleté de la ville de Port-au-Prince, les assassinats qui ne se comptent plus.
Dans ses considérations elle écrivit des mots empreints d’une forte émotion pour évoquer l’assassinat récent d’un jeune père de famille expert en nouvelles technologies.
Mais tout ceci avec comme toile de fond, une intention en sourdine de démontrer que le régime qu’elle a porté était de loin meilleur.
En fait avant c’était meilleur parce que maintenant c’est pire.
Ce qui attira mon attention fut le fait que pour la démonstration de sa théorie, elle ne sut sortir aucun fait positif, aucune réalisation utile d’envergure pour supporter la thèse de la meilleure qualité de son régime par rapport aux autres dont elle n’a énuméré que les aspects négatifs.
Ceci me ramena dix ans en arrière quand en plein régime Lavalassien avec son style JPP et d’autres slogans sous-développés, dans les rues certaines vois plébiscitaient Jean-Claude Duvalier comme l’un des meilleurs présidents des vingt dernières années. A l’époque on n’avait pas encore les cinq ans de René Préval et encore moins les cinq ans d’un certain Michel Martelly.
Pour jauger, avec l’usage, nous ne nous servons plus de cette partie positive de l’échelle. Nous comparons entre le moins bon et le pire ; nous établissons une différence entre rien et mieux que rien.
Nous avons appris à vouer un culte au pire que nous vénérons et cultivons.
Il y a cinq mois, Michel Martelly à tort ou à raison était décrié comme anormal, incompétent, immoral. Aujourd’hui les auteurs intellectuels de la situation que le pays subit, se sont arrangés pour réhabiliter sweet Micky.
En pleine dictature parlementaire, il est difficile d’énumérer un acte positif posé par ce corps dysfonctionnel qui semble avoir la voix au chapitre.
Les parlementaires de cette législature ont déjà fait oublié l’inutilité de la législature antérieure.
Donc dans l’administration publique il n’est pas indispensable d’œuvrer pour l’obtention de bons résultats car celui qui viendra après s’arrangera, quelle que soit l’ampleur de votre bêtise, pour faire encore pire que vous !
Car nous sommes nés dans la culture du pire et nous le vénérons !
jeudi 23 juin 2016
CANDIDATS AUX ELECTIONS
On est passé de 54 à 27 ce qui est une excellente chose.
On doit remercier sincèrement ces 27 autres candidats qui ont décidé de jeter l'éponge.
Un très beau geste qui vous replace par rapport aux autres.
Cependant , tenant compte de la conjoncture actuelle, on aurait espéré que cette liste se réduise à quatre ou cinq.
Les tests ratés organisés par Michel Martelly ont bien montré la tendance.
Une grande majorité de ces candidats ont obtenu moins de 1%.
Le CEP claironne le manque de moyens financiers pour faire de ces joutes un regain de souveraineté. Donc tout haïtien conséquent devrait se disposer à contribuer généreusement à cette cause qui en elle-même, en dehors de tout cheptel politique reste d'un symbolisme très fort.
Dire que de ces 27 candidats il y en a beaucoup qui ne sont motivés que par la subvention allouée pour la campagne électorale c'est une situation honteuse et dénigrante pour l'ensemble de la classe politique haïtienne et pour ces individus avec si peu de scrupules.
Lors des élections annulées, certains de ces candidats n'avaient pas fait une seule affiche publicitaire. Ce serait bien qu'une modification de la loi électorale soit réalisée assez vite pour stopper cette dérive et que le financement des campagnes électorales se fasse Comme ailleurs sous la forme d'un remboursement en fonction du pourcentage de votes obtenu.
Voici les candidats confirmés pour la présidentielle :
- André Amos - Front uni pour la renaissance d’Haïti
- Bertin Jean - Mouvement d’union républicaine
- Bretous Joseph Harry - Konbit pou ayiti
- Charles Jean Hervé – Parti pour l’évolution nationale haïtienne (Penh)
- Célestin Jude - Ligue alternative pour le progrès et l’émancipation haïtienne (Lapeh)
- Cornely Jean Ronald - RPH
- Dalmacy Kesler – Mopanou
- Desir Luckner - Mobilisation pour le progrès d’Haïti
- Drouillard Marc-Arthur - Parti unité nationale
- Durandisse Joseph G. Varnel - Retabli ayiti
- Dupiton Daniel - Cohésion nationale des partis politiques haïtiens (Conapph)
- Duroseau Vilaire Cluny - Mouvman pou endepandans kiltirel sosyal ekonomik ak politik an ayiti - Gautier Marie Antoinette - Plan d’action citoyenne
- Gerard Dalvius - Parti alternative pour le développement d’Haïti
- Jean Poincy - RESULTA
- Joseph Maxo - Rassemblement des nationaux démocrates volontaires pour l’unité salvatrice
- Magloire Roland - Parti démocrate institutionnaliste
- Narcisse Maryse - Fanmi lavalas
- Sampeur Jacques – KLE
- Beauzile Edmonde – Fusion
- Jeune Jean-Chavannes – CANAAN
- Flecourt Nelson – OLAH
- Moise Jovenel – PHTK
- Moise Jean-Charles – Pitit Desalin
- Ceant Jean Henry – Renmen Ayiti
- Renois Jean Clarens – UNIR
- Monestime Diony – Indépendant
On doit remercier sincèrement ces 27 autres candidats qui ont décidé de jeter l'éponge.
Un très beau geste qui vous replace par rapport aux autres.
Cependant , tenant compte de la conjoncture actuelle, on aurait espéré que cette liste se réduise à quatre ou cinq.
Les tests ratés organisés par Michel Martelly ont bien montré la tendance.
Une grande majorité de ces candidats ont obtenu moins de 1%.
Le CEP claironne le manque de moyens financiers pour faire de ces joutes un regain de souveraineté. Donc tout haïtien conséquent devrait se disposer à contribuer généreusement à cette cause qui en elle-même, en dehors de tout cheptel politique reste d'un symbolisme très fort.
Dire que de ces 27 candidats il y en a beaucoup qui ne sont motivés que par la subvention allouée pour la campagne électorale c'est une situation honteuse et dénigrante pour l'ensemble de la classe politique haïtienne et pour ces individus avec si peu de scrupules.
Lors des élections annulées, certains de ces candidats n'avaient pas fait une seule affiche publicitaire. Ce serait bien qu'une modification de la loi électorale soit réalisée assez vite pour stopper cette dérive et que le financement des campagnes électorales se fasse Comme ailleurs sous la forme d'un remboursement en fonction du pourcentage de votes obtenu.
Voici les candidats confirmés pour la présidentielle :
- André Amos - Front uni pour la renaissance d’Haïti
- Bertin Jean - Mouvement d’union républicaine
- Bretous Joseph Harry - Konbit pou ayiti
- Charles Jean Hervé – Parti pour l’évolution nationale haïtienne (Penh)
- Célestin Jude - Ligue alternative pour le progrès et l’émancipation haïtienne (Lapeh)
- Cornely Jean Ronald - RPH
- Dalmacy Kesler – Mopanou
- Desir Luckner - Mobilisation pour le progrès d’Haïti
- Drouillard Marc-Arthur - Parti unité nationale
- Durandisse Joseph G. Varnel - Retabli ayiti
- Dupiton Daniel - Cohésion nationale des partis politiques haïtiens (Conapph)
- Duroseau Vilaire Cluny - Mouvman pou endepandans kiltirel sosyal ekonomik ak politik an ayiti - Gautier Marie Antoinette - Plan d’action citoyenne
- Gerard Dalvius - Parti alternative pour le développement d’Haïti
- Jean Poincy - RESULTA
- Joseph Maxo - Rassemblement des nationaux démocrates volontaires pour l’unité salvatrice
- Magloire Roland - Parti démocrate institutionnaliste
- Narcisse Maryse - Fanmi lavalas
- Sampeur Jacques – KLE
- Beauzile Edmonde – Fusion
- Jeune Jean-Chavannes – CANAAN
- Flecourt Nelson – OLAH
- Moise Jovenel – PHTK
- Moise Jean-Charles – Pitit Desalin
- Ceant Jean Henry – Renmen Ayiti
- Renois Jean Clarens – UNIR
- Monestime Diony – Indépendant
lundi 20 juin 2016
Senator to Red Cross: Public has ‘right to know’ how Haiti money was spent
HAITI
JUNE 17, 2016 5:02 PM
- Senate report released this week calls into question how the charity spent money meant for Haiti after the 2010 earthquake
- Report says there are ‘substantial and fundamental concerns’ about the organization
- A full 25 percent of the donated money was spent on fundraising, management, a contingency fund and ‘program costs’
A blistering Senate report on the American Red Cross raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the country’s most storied charity and its stewardship of donors’ dollars.
The report, which was released this week by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and contains nearly 300 pages of supporting documents, found:
▪ After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the Red Cross spent tens of millions of dollars more than it has previously acknowledged on internal expenses. The Red Cross told Grassley that the money was largely spent on oversight to make sure the Haiti aid was used properly. But Grassley’s office found that the charity “is unable to provide any financial evidence that oversight activities in fact occurred."
▪ Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern made false statements to Grassley’s office about whether the charity cooperated with congressional investigators.
▪ McGovern and her subordinates have kept the charity’s own internal investigations and ethics unit “severely undermanned and underfunded.” The charity is “reluctant to support the very unit that is designed to police wrongdoing within the organization.”
There are “substantial and fundamental concerns about [the Red Cross] as an organization,” the report concludes.
In an interview about the report, Grassley said that even after a year of back-and-forth with the Red Cross, “we did not get satisfactory answers. It was like pulling teeth.”
Grassley launched his investigation following stories by ProPublica and NPR on Red Cross failures in providing disaster relief, including after the Haiti earthquake. The group raised nearly half a billion dollars after the disaster, more than any other nonprofit. But our reporting found that, for example, an ambitious plan to build housing resulted in just six permanent homes.
Red Cross officials, including McGovern, have repeatedly told the public that the charity retains 9 percent of donations to cover management and administrative costs. But Grassley found that a full 25 percent of donations — or around $125 million — were spent on fundraising and management, a contingency fund, and a vague, catchall category the Red Cross calls “program costs.”
On top of that 25 percent, the Red Cross sent the bulk of the donated money to other nonprofits to do the work on the ground. Those other nonprofits then took their own cuts for overhead costs — as much as 11 percent.
Over a year of written exchanges with Grassley’s staff, the Red Cross repeatedly revised its figures for the same projects.
“The most important thing (from the report) is an unwillingness to level with the people about exactly where the money went,” Grassley said in the interview. “There’s too many questions in regard to how the money was spent in Haiti that it gives me cause to wonder about money being donated for other national disasters.”
“One of the reasons they don’t want to answer the questions is it’s very embarrassing,” Grassley added.
In a statement, the Red Cross said that while it has not yet seen the senator’s report, the charity and McGovern have been transparent, and donors’ money was properly spent. The statement says the costs of the projects are “entirely justifiable given the size and complexity of the Haiti program, the scale of the destruction and the challenging and sometimes dangerous conditions of working in Haiti.”
The Red Cross was created by congressional charter more than a century ago, and receives a range of special benefits from the government.
Here are more details from the report:
On a page recently added to its website, the Red Cross says the so-called program costs for Haiti — roughly $70 million — went to “monitoring the use of donations, informing donors about how their money has been spent, paying skilled staff members to carry out the work, renting secure office space, and ensuring that dollars are leveraged as far as possible.”
But pressed by Grassley’s investigators, the Red Cross could not give an accounting of the oversight it says it did with the money. After repeated requests by Grassley’s investigators over the course of months, the Red Cross finally last month produced a document with a narrative description of oversight but no financial details.
In general, the Red Cross itself doesn’t know how much money it spent on each project in Haiti because of a “complex, yet inaccurate” accounting system, the report found.
The report echoes confidential findings made by consultants hired by the Red Cross, which were previously reported by ProPublica and NPR. An internal evaluation of one of the group’s water and sanitation projects found there was “no correct process for monitoring project spending.” Another assessment found that the group’s figures on how many people helped in a hygiene project were “fairly meaningless.”
In response to Grassley’s investigation, the Red Cross for the first time posted online a list of specific projects in Haiti. But the accounting on the list, along with other materials provided to Grassley, raises more questions than it answers.
Documents provided by the Red Cross to Grassley show that the charity at times spent large sums of money on management even when it appeared to be simply writing a check to other organizations that were doing actual projects.
In 2010, the Red Cross gave $4.3 million to its sister organization, the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) for disaster preparedness work. On top of the $4.3 million, according to budget figures the charity provided Grassley, the American Red Cross spent another $2 million on its own — to “manage” granting money to another organization.
The IFRC then took out its own overhead and administrative costs before using the money to help Haitians.
When asked why the Red Cross needed $2 million dollars to give money to its sister organization, the group said in its statement the costs were “incurred to ensure accountability, monitoring and evaluation of work performed and ensure our partners meet their contractual requirements.”
The Red Cross added that “Implementing a tracking system by project would take a lot of time and would be a waste of donor dollars that could be better spent on delivering services.”
In 2014, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., of the House Homeland Security Committee asked the Government Accountability Office to examine the Red Cross’ disaster services, in part because of problems in its response to Superstorm Sandy in 2012.
McGovern recently told Grassley’s investigators that the Red Cross “gave [the GAO] everything that they asked for.”
That statement was untrue, according to the report: “This is contrary to the documentary evidence of communications between GAO and [the Red Cross].”
The Red Cross, the committee found, “failed to provide to GAO a substantial volume of requested material.”
The report lists eight examples of things the Red Cross declined to provide to government investigators. They range from descriptions of the charity’s internal oversight processes to interviews with chapter officials involved in the response to Superstorm Sandy.
In its statement to ProPublica and NPR, the group doubled-down on McGovern’s earlier assertion: “At no point did the Red Cross refuse to provide requested information.”
McGovern has publicly portrayed the Red Cross as a beacon of openness. “We made a commitment that we want to lead the effort in transparency," she said at the National Press Club in 2011. But Grassley’s report notes that, as ProPublica revealed last year, McGovern hadtried outright to kill the GAO investigation.
Grassley’s report found that while the Red Cross couldn’t kill the investigation, it “was able to limit the scope of the GAO’s inquiry."
In meetings and email correspondence over the course of several months, Red Cross General Counsel David Meltzer questioned GAO’s legal authority to look at the Red Cross.
The Red Cross argued that investigators’ “requests for internal decision-making, internal oversight, and internal funding allocation are outside of GAO’s authority,” according to a GAO’s account included in Grassley’s report.
The negotiations reached an almost absurd denouement when the American Red Cross — or ARC — presented a hypothetical about why handing out blankets would not be subject to federal oversight
. As Grassley’s report puts it:
In a September 26, 2014 follow up phone call with GAO, ARC elaborated on its position and provided an example to provide additional clarity: if ARC is in the coordination tent with FEMA and a need for blankets is identified, and ARC has blankets to dispense, the implementation of the delivery of the blankets is outside the scope of federal involvement, but the conversation in the tent is within the scope of federal involvement. At the end of the September 26, 2014, conversation, GAO notes of that conversation state that ARC did not want “to open the door to a long, endless GAO review,” particularly on internal oversight.
As Grassley’s report notes, the Red Cross’ congressional charter explicitly gives the GAO the authority to scrutinize the group.
The Red Cross has about 20,000 employees. But its ethics office, which investigates waste, fraud, and abuse, is composed of just three people, according to the Grassley report. That’s down from roughly 65 staffers a decade ago.
One of the three remaining employees, the “compliance coordinator,” does intake of phone calls and does not do investigations. Another, the chief investigator, is based in New York, away from Red Cross headquarters in Washington.
Requests by the head of the unit, Teala Brewer, for more staff have gone unfulfilled by the general counsel, Meltzer, according to the report.
The report concludes that the Office of Investigations, Compliance, and Ethics was left so under-resourced that it is “unable to perform its primary function; namely, to perform investigations, ensure compliance, and maintain ethical standards.”
If you have information about the Red Cross, email justin@propublica.org. To anonymously send documents online, visit the SecureDrop site.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article84458967.html#storylink=cpy
- Senate report released this week calls into question how the charity spent money meant for Haiti after the 2010 earthquake
- Report says there are ‘substantial and fundamental concerns’ about the organization
- A full 25 percent of the donated money was spent on fundraising, management, a contingency fund and ‘program costs’
BY JUSTIN ELLIOTT AND LAURA SULLIVAN
ProPublica and NPRA blistering Senate report on the American Red Cross raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the country’s most storied charity and its stewardship of donors’ dollars.
The report, which was released this week by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and contains nearly 300 pages of supporting documents, found:
▪ After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the Red Cross spent tens of millions of dollars more than it has previously acknowledged on internal expenses. The Red Cross told Grassley that the money was largely spent on oversight to make sure the Haiti aid was used properly. But Grassley’s office found that the charity “is unable to provide any financial evidence that oversight activities in fact occurred."
▪ Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern made false statements to Grassley’s office about whether the charity cooperated with congressional investigators.
▪ McGovern and her subordinates have kept the charity’s own internal investigations and ethics unit “severely undermanned and underfunded.” The charity is “reluctant to support the very unit that is designed to police wrongdoing within the organization.”
There are “substantial and fundamental concerns about [the Red Cross] as an organization,” the report concludes.
In an interview about the report, Grassley said that even after a year of back-and-forth with the Red Cross, “we did not get satisfactory answers. It was like pulling teeth.”
Grassley launched his investigation following stories by ProPublica and NPR on Red Cross failures in providing disaster relief, including after the Haiti earthquake. The group raised nearly half a billion dollars after the disaster, more than any other nonprofit. But our reporting found that, for example, an ambitious plan to build housing resulted in just six permanent homes.
Red Cross officials, including McGovern, have repeatedly told the public that the charity retains 9 percent of donations to cover management and administrative costs. But Grassley found that a full 25 percent of donations — or around $125 million — were spent on fundraising and management, a contingency fund, and a vague, catchall category the Red Cross calls “program costs.”
On top of that 25 percent, the Red Cross sent the bulk of the donated money to other nonprofits to do the work on the ground. Those other nonprofits then took their own cuts for overhead costs — as much as 11 percent.
Over a year of written exchanges with Grassley’s staff, the Red Cross repeatedly revised its figures for the same projects.
“The most important thing (from the report) is an unwillingness to level with the people about exactly where the money went,” Grassley said in the interview. “There’s too many questions in regard to how the money was spent in Haiti that it gives me cause to wonder about money being donated for other national disasters.”
“One of the reasons they don’t want to answer the questions is it’s very embarrassing,” Grassley added.
In a statement, the Red Cross said that while it has not yet seen the senator’s report, the charity and McGovern have been transparent, and donors’ money was properly spent. The statement says the costs of the projects are “entirely justifiable given the size and complexity of the Haiti program, the scale of the destruction and the challenging and sometimes dangerous conditions of working in Haiti.”
The Red Cross was created by congressional charter more than a century ago, and receives a range of special benefits from the government.
Here are more details from the report:
On a page recently added to its website, the Red Cross says the so-called program costs for Haiti — roughly $70 million — went to “monitoring the use of donations, informing donors about how their money has been spent, paying skilled staff members to carry out the work, renting secure office space, and ensuring that dollars are leveraged as far as possible.”
But pressed by Grassley’s investigators, the Red Cross could not give an accounting of the oversight it says it did with the money. After repeated requests by Grassley’s investigators over the course of months, the Red Cross finally last month produced a document with a narrative description of oversight but no financial details.
In general, the Red Cross itself doesn’t know how much money it spent on each project in Haiti because of a “complex, yet inaccurate” accounting system, the report found.
The report echoes confidential findings made by consultants hired by the Red Cross, which were previously reported by ProPublica and NPR. An internal evaluation of one of the group’s water and sanitation projects found there was “no correct process for monitoring project spending.” Another assessment found that the group’s figures on how many people helped in a hygiene project were “fairly meaningless.”
In response to Grassley’s investigation, the Red Cross for the first time posted online a list of specific projects in Haiti. But the accounting on the list, along with other materials provided to Grassley, raises more questions than it answers.
Documents provided by the Red Cross to Grassley show that the charity at times spent large sums of money on management even when it appeared to be simply writing a check to other organizations that were doing actual projects.
In 2010, the Red Cross gave $4.3 million to its sister organization, the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) for disaster preparedness work. On top of the $4.3 million, according to budget figures the charity provided Grassley, the American Red Cross spent another $2 million on its own — to “manage” granting money to another organization.
The IFRC then took out its own overhead and administrative costs before using the money to help Haitians.
When asked why the Red Cross needed $2 million dollars to give money to its sister organization, the group said in its statement the costs were “incurred to ensure accountability, monitoring and evaluation of work performed and ensure our partners meet their contractual requirements.”
The Red Cross added that “Implementing a tracking system by project would take a lot of time and would be a waste of donor dollars that could be better spent on delivering services.”
In 2014, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., of the House Homeland Security Committee asked the Government Accountability Office to examine the Red Cross’ disaster services, in part because of problems in its response to Superstorm Sandy in 2012.
McGovern recently told Grassley’s investigators that the Red Cross “gave [the GAO] everything that they asked for.”
That statement was untrue, according to the report: “This is contrary to the documentary evidence of communications between GAO and [the Red Cross].”
The Red Cross, the committee found, “failed to provide to GAO a substantial volume of requested material.”
The report lists eight examples of things the Red Cross declined to provide to government investigators. They range from descriptions of the charity’s internal oversight processes to interviews with chapter officials involved in the response to Superstorm Sandy.
In its statement to ProPublica and NPR, the group doubled-down on McGovern’s earlier assertion: “At no point did the Red Cross refuse to provide requested information.”
McGovern has publicly portrayed the Red Cross as a beacon of openness. “We made a commitment that we want to lead the effort in transparency," she said at the National Press Club in 2011. But Grassley’s report notes that, as ProPublica revealed last year, McGovern hadtried outright to kill the GAO investigation.
Grassley’s report found that while the Red Cross couldn’t kill the investigation, it “was able to limit the scope of the GAO’s inquiry."
In meetings and email correspondence over the course of several months, Red Cross General Counsel David Meltzer questioned GAO’s legal authority to look at the Red Cross.
The Red Cross argued that investigators’ “requests for internal decision-making, internal oversight, and internal funding allocation are outside of GAO’s authority,” according to a GAO’s account included in Grassley’s report.
The negotiations reached an almost absurd denouement when the American Red Cross — or ARC — presented a hypothetical about why handing out blankets would not be subject to federal oversight
. As Grassley’s report puts it:
In a September 26, 2014 follow up phone call with GAO, ARC elaborated on its position and provided an example to provide additional clarity: if ARC is in the coordination tent with FEMA and a need for blankets is identified, and ARC has blankets to dispense, the implementation of the delivery of the blankets is outside the scope of federal involvement, but the conversation in the tent is within the scope of federal involvement. At the end of the September 26, 2014, conversation, GAO notes of that conversation state that ARC did not want “to open the door to a long, endless GAO review,” particularly on internal oversight.
As Grassley’s report notes, the Red Cross’ congressional charter explicitly gives the GAO the authority to scrutinize the group.
The Red Cross has about 20,000 employees. But its ethics office, which investigates waste, fraud, and abuse, is composed of just three people, according to the Grassley report. That’s down from roughly 65 staffers a decade ago.
One of the three remaining employees, the “compliance coordinator,” does intake of phone calls and does not do investigations. Another, the chief investigator, is based in New York, away from Red Cross headquarters in Washington.
Requests by the head of the unit, Teala Brewer, for more staff have gone unfulfilled by the general counsel, Meltzer, according to the report.
The report concludes that the Office of Investigations, Compliance, and Ethics was left so under-resourced that it is “unable to perform its primary function; namely, to perform investigations, ensure compliance, and maintain ethical standards.”
If you have information about the Red Cross, email justin@propublica.org. To anonymously send documents online, visit the SecureDrop site.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article84458967.html#storylink=cpy
VINGT JUIN...QUATRE AVRIL!
Aujourd’hui, on est le 20 juin. Le dernier jour du printemps qui s’enfuit encore une fois, sans se soucier des amoureux nostalgiques des temps plutôt doucereux. Il laisse la place à l’été. Ah oui l’été ! La belle saison des grandes vacances. Le moment propice pour évacuer les pressions et recharger les batteries !
Cette date marquant le passage d’une saison à l’autre reste très significative sous les cieux qui reçoivent régulièrement les assauts des éléments climatiques propres à ces quatre fractions bien distinctes de l’année. En France, un ministre socialiste a eu la brillante idée de dédier le premier jour de l’été à la célébration de la musique. Donc en France se célèbre la fête de la musique le 21 juin.
Chez nous en Haïti, il y a surtout une expression assez souvent utilisée qui fait intervenir le 20 juin.
Cette expression définit les aspects d’un visage sans doute fatigué, désœuvré.
Souvent on l’entend en langue vernaculaire dans un déconcertant « figi timoun lan make 20 jen 4 avril » dont une autre version serait le « Timoun nan ap fè figil fè tè pwa, té mayi »
Comme un curieux passionné de l’histoire de mon pays, j’ai dû déjà me poser cette question me demandant à quoi pourrait correspondre cette période aussi triste. 20 juin - 4 avril. Probablement j’ai dû aussi aller chercher une réponse que je n’ai pas retenue. Peut être, avais-je seulement l’intention de le faire et que cette intention à été supplantée par une autre priorité ?
Pourtant des sources existent pour se renseigner, apprendre et d’édifier sur le sujet. Je fuirais et je conseillerais de s’éloigner de Wikipedia, cette pseudo encyclopédie qui joue sa fiabilité au profit de son aspect trop ouvert et trop démocratique. Un outil qui reste donc dangereux dans des mains non expérimentées.
D’autres passionnés d’histoire nationale seraient sans aucun doute très à même de m’éclairer.
Si je me retrouvais en Haïti, je tacherais de rentrer en contact avec notre Fritz Valesco national alias « Pitit fèy »qui a déjà sondé les entrailles de notre histoire pour retrouver et partager ces événements considérés comme insignifiants pour remplir les espaces cachés entre prouesses et désastres. Pourtant, mis bout à bout, ils participent à la constitution de la vraie histoire de notre nation, celle qui a façonné notre moi identitaire. Je recommanderais et je recommande la collection préparée en créole par le professeur Jean Julien sous le titre « ISTWA PEYI DAYITI », une collection élaborée pour la célébration du bicentenaire de l’indépendance haïtienne. Un grand nom de ce monde ayant eu à dire que « l’histoire est un mensonge que personne ne conteste », et considérant l’existence de ces écoles assurant la promotion du questionnement des faits historiques comme négationnisme ou révisionnisme, je ne dirai pas de prendre les récits du professeur Jean Julien comme une vérité d’évangile .
Cependant c’est un outil d’une valeur inestimable pour tout haïtien qui y retrouvera un moyen simple de revisiter et réviser (dans l’acception scolastique du terme) son histoire.
Personnellement, quand je me sens happé par les engrenages du « homesickness » au lieu de chanter « fok mwen te kitew pou mwen te kapab konprann valew », je mets un CD de cette collection et je me retrouve et me ressource. Je tiens particulièrement à cette collection parce que le fait de les avoir en ma possession constitue un pan de l’histoire de ma vie. Une histoire d’amitié, une histoire de patriotisme, une histoire d’amour pour le pays. Je la reprendrai en quelques lignes comme un hommage à cet ami qui est devenu et qui reste encore un frère de combat, un collègue guerrier pour la cause haïtienne.
En 2004, en pleine crise politique post lavalassienne, j’ai découvert par hasard un forum de discussions entre des dizaines qui, sans substance, faisait la promotion de leurs camps. Je pris le temps de lire des échanges postés sur MOUN.COM et tout de suite je sentis que ce forum sortait du lot.
Des textes tranchant le vif du sujet mettant la réalité du pays et de sa société à portée de toute conscience bien constituée, me conduisirent à faire attention à des pseudos comme élise, Castille, Blekleroc, Dezagreman, Excalibur, Dilibon, Dekabess, Bagaydrol pour ne citer que ceux-là.
Moun.com devint une institution ou les politiciens en panne d’idées venaient volontiers y puiser.
Pour la grande majorité, on vint à s’apprécier sans se connaître personnellement.
Lors d’un voyage aux USA, j’ai établi un contact téléphonique avec l’un d’entre eux. Je me trouvais dans un autre état et un de mes frères devait me reconduire à New York. Avant d’atteindre ma destination j’ai demandé à mon frère de faire un petit crochet vers le bureau de cet ami qui s’identifiait comme moi, comme mouniste et l’on n’utilisait que nos pseudos. J’arrivai à son bureau un peu après midi. Quand je sonnai, il fit comprendre avec raison à la personne qui sonnait que le bureau était fermé à midi et qu’il fallait revenir plus tard. J’insistai sans m’identifier pour lui faire comprendre que c’était urgent et que je ne pourrais pas revenir.
Après avoir décidé de camper sur le principe de sa position, j’ai dû m’identifier avec mon pseudo de Mouniste et non seulement il m’ouvrit largement les portes mais il vint m’accueillir les bras ouverts.
Mon frère nous regardait médusé se jeter l’un dans les bras de l’autre scandant chacun le pseudo de l’autre. In n’y comprit rien.
Il ne pouvait pas s’imaginer qu’il s’agissait de notre première rencontre physique.
Nous discutâmes brièvement d’Haïti et au moment de partir, il mit son bureau à l’envers pour me trouver des cadeaux : Livres, CD de konpa, et la fameuse collection des 10 CD d’histoire d’Haïti préparée par Jean Julien. Ce fut le début d’une amitié convertie aujourd’hui en fraternité patriotique !
Merci encore cher ami !
Peut-être ces amis mounistes peuvent me rappeler la base justifiant l’existence de cette expression 20 juin, 4 avril !
Bon lundi et bonne semaine à tous !
Jonas Jolivert
www.jonasjolivert.net
20/06/2016
Cette date marquant le passage d’une saison à l’autre reste très significative sous les cieux qui reçoivent régulièrement les assauts des éléments climatiques propres à ces quatre fractions bien distinctes de l’année. En France, un ministre socialiste a eu la brillante idée de dédier le premier jour de l’été à la célébration de la musique. Donc en France se célèbre la fête de la musique le 21 juin.
Chez nous en Haïti, il y a surtout une expression assez souvent utilisée qui fait intervenir le 20 juin.
Cette expression définit les aspects d’un visage sans doute fatigué, désœuvré.
Souvent on l’entend en langue vernaculaire dans un déconcertant « figi timoun lan make 20 jen 4 avril » dont une autre version serait le « Timoun nan ap fè figil fè tè pwa, té mayi »
Comme un curieux passionné de l’histoire de mon pays, j’ai dû déjà me poser cette question me demandant à quoi pourrait correspondre cette période aussi triste. 20 juin - 4 avril. Probablement j’ai dû aussi aller chercher une réponse que je n’ai pas retenue. Peut être, avais-je seulement l’intention de le faire et que cette intention à été supplantée par une autre priorité ?
Pourtant des sources existent pour se renseigner, apprendre et d’édifier sur le sujet. Je fuirais et je conseillerais de s’éloigner de Wikipedia, cette pseudo encyclopédie qui joue sa fiabilité au profit de son aspect trop ouvert et trop démocratique. Un outil qui reste donc dangereux dans des mains non expérimentées.
D’autres passionnés d’histoire nationale seraient sans aucun doute très à même de m’éclairer.
Si je me retrouvais en Haïti, je tacherais de rentrer en contact avec notre Fritz Valesco national alias « Pitit fèy »qui a déjà sondé les entrailles de notre histoire pour retrouver et partager ces événements considérés comme insignifiants pour remplir les espaces cachés entre prouesses et désastres. Pourtant, mis bout à bout, ils participent à la constitution de la vraie histoire de notre nation, celle qui a façonné notre moi identitaire. Je recommanderais et je recommande la collection préparée en créole par le professeur Jean Julien sous le titre « ISTWA PEYI DAYITI », une collection élaborée pour la célébration du bicentenaire de l’indépendance haïtienne. Un grand nom de ce monde ayant eu à dire que « l’histoire est un mensonge que personne ne conteste », et considérant l’existence de ces écoles assurant la promotion du questionnement des faits historiques comme négationnisme ou révisionnisme, je ne dirai pas de prendre les récits du professeur Jean Julien comme une vérité d’évangile .
Cependant c’est un outil d’une valeur inestimable pour tout haïtien qui y retrouvera un moyen simple de revisiter et réviser (dans l’acception scolastique du terme) son histoire.
Personnellement, quand je me sens happé par les engrenages du « homesickness » au lieu de chanter « fok mwen te kitew pou mwen te kapab konprann valew », je mets un CD de cette collection et je me retrouve et me ressource. Je tiens particulièrement à cette collection parce que le fait de les avoir en ma possession constitue un pan de l’histoire de ma vie. Une histoire d’amitié, une histoire de patriotisme, une histoire d’amour pour le pays. Je la reprendrai en quelques lignes comme un hommage à cet ami qui est devenu et qui reste encore un frère de combat, un collègue guerrier pour la cause haïtienne.
En 2004, en pleine crise politique post lavalassienne, j’ai découvert par hasard un forum de discussions entre des dizaines qui, sans substance, faisait la promotion de leurs camps. Je pris le temps de lire des échanges postés sur MOUN.COM et tout de suite je sentis que ce forum sortait du lot.
Des textes tranchant le vif du sujet mettant la réalité du pays et de sa société à portée de toute conscience bien constituée, me conduisirent à faire attention à des pseudos comme élise, Castille, Blekleroc, Dezagreman, Excalibur, Dilibon, Dekabess, Bagaydrol pour ne citer que ceux-là.
Moun.com devint une institution ou les politiciens en panne d’idées venaient volontiers y puiser.
Pour la grande majorité, on vint à s’apprécier sans se connaître personnellement.
Lors d’un voyage aux USA, j’ai établi un contact téléphonique avec l’un d’entre eux. Je me trouvais dans un autre état et un de mes frères devait me reconduire à New York. Avant d’atteindre ma destination j’ai demandé à mon frère de faire un petit crochet vers le bureau de cet ami qui s’identifiait comme moi, comme mouniste et l’on n’utilisait que nos pseudos. J’arrivai à son bureau un peu après midi. Quand je sonnai, il fit comprendre avec raison à la personne qui sonnait que le bureau était fermé à midi et qu’il fallait revenir plus tard. J’insistai sans m’identifier pour lui faire comprendre que c’était urgent et que je ne pourrais pas revenir.
Après avoir décidé de camper sur le principe de sa position, j’ai dû m’identifier avec mon pseudo de Mouniste et non seulement il m’ouvrit largement les portes mais il vint m’accueillir les bras ouverts.
Mon frère nous regardait médusé se jeter l’un dans les bras de l’autre scandant chacun le pseudo de l’autre. In n’y comprit rien.
Il ne pouvait pas s’imaginer qu’il s’agissait de notre première rencontre physique.
Nous discutâmes brièvement d’Haïti et au moment de partir, il mit son bureau à l’envers pour me trouver des cadeaux : Livres, CD de konpa, et la fameuse collection des 10 CD d’histoire d’Haïti préparée par Jean Julien. Ce fut le début d’une amitié convertie aujourd’hui en fraternité patriotique !
Merci encore cher ami !
Peut-être ces amis mounistes peuvent me rappeler la base justifiant l’existence de cette expression 20 juin, 4 avril !
Bon lundi et bonne semaine à tous !
Jonas Jolivert
www.jonasjolivert.net
20/06/2016
lundi 13 juin 2016
Did the Clinton Foundation raise ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ for a hospital in Haiti that was never built?
“Hillary Clinton…took in hundreds of millions of dollars for a hospital in Haiti that went to the Clinton Foundation, that was never built — that was years ago. Where is that money?”
–Donald Trump surrogate Michael Cohen, interview on CNN, June 1, 2016
Cohen, the executive vice president of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald Trump, made this accusation while answering questions about Trump’s donations to veterans’ groups. He blamed the media for asking questions about Trump’s donations, yet letting Clinton’s allegedly squandered hospital promise go unquestioned.
While Cohen made the comment in passing, it was picked up by Diamond and Silk, a pro-Trump duo with a Twitter following of more than 80,600. They cited Cohen’s claim and doubled-down on the question in a video, which was retweeted or liked at least 4,600 times:
We reached out to Cohen directly and through the Trump Organization and Trump campaign several times, but he didn’t respond to our request for a source for his claim. So we dug around to see if there were any facts to support it. What we found was all the makings of a mishmash talking point stringing together different information relating to Haiti recovery efforts — like a message from the last player in a game of “Telephone.”
The Facts
The Clintons played a major role in recovery efforts in Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010. Bill Clinton was the public face of U.S. efforts in Haiti through several recovery roles. He was United Nations special envoy to Haiti, co-leader of the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund (with President George W. Bush) and co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, a quasi-government planning body that approved hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. government-funded recovery projects.
The U.S. Agency for International Development supported the commission’s efforts, and Hillary Clinton led the U.S. response in Haiti as secretary of state. The Clinton Foundation raised more than $30 million for Haiti relief projects.
The Clinton family’s charitable work in Haiti has been a mix of success, disappointment and controversy. As our Washington Post colleagues reported, some Clinton-backed projects didn’t come through, like a $2 million housing expo for thousands of new housing units. The Government Accountability Office found poor planning and unsustainable outcomes for taxpayer funded projects through USAID, such as the $170 million power plant and port for the Caracol Industrial Park, which was promoted by the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton’s younger brother had ties to a mining project in Haiti, raising suspicions among Haitians about the Clintons’ motives. Luxury hotel projects paid by the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund promised construction jobs — but for Haitians, it represented another disconnect between Clinton-backed efforts and the realities of one of the poorest countries struggling to rebuild after one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the Western Hemisphere.
There’s real frustration among Haitians over failures in progress promised to them, not just by the Clintons but from the international community at large. In 2015, Haitian activists protested outside the Clinton Foundation in New York, claiming the Clintons mismanaged hundreds of millions in taxpayer money through the Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission.
But there is no evidence Hillary Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation, raised “hundreds of millions of dollars” for a hospital that was never built. We consulted groups that have been critical of recovery delays in Haiti, but they could not point to a specific Clinton Foundation-funded hospital project, either.
“We’ve tried to figure out what he might be citing as well, but we can’t provide you with a source of his claim because one doesn’t exist,” said Craig Minassian, Clinton Foundation spokesman. “The Clinton Foundation never committed to build a hospital, nor did it accept, raise, or spend funds for that purpose. His claim is false.”
There are hospital projects that have been delayed, but there’s no evidence that there were “hundreds of millions of dollars” in foundation money promised to those efforts.
For example, the USAID inspector general found delays in the $99 million reconstruction of medical facilities and medical supply warehouses through the Health Infrastructure Program. This program included the $82.3 million construction of the country’s key public hospital, Hospital of the State University of Haiti in Port-au-Prince, one of the first projects that the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission approved. But the project is backed by money from the U.S. government, Haiti and France — not Clinton Foundation.
Another major hospital project was the University Hospital in Mirebalais, run by Partners in Health, a group that has worked on recovery efforts with the Clinton Foundation. This hospital opened in 2013, and Partners in Health confirmed there was no donation of “hundreds of millions of dollars” committed by the Clinton foundation for the project. (Clinton Foundation is not listed as a supporter.)
The Clinton Foundation helped provide solar panels at Hospital Bernard Mevs in Port-au-Prince, a trauma center. But Minassian said the foundation did not commit hundreds of millions of dollars for construction of a new facility.
Perhaps Cohen was referring to the $500 million in “commitments to action” that the Clinton Foundation announced would be used for projects in Haiti. These “commitments” were secured from private businesses through the Clinton Global Initiative.
These “commitments” are public pledges that companies make at a Clinton Global Initiative conference, promising to do good in the world. The Clinton Global Initiative tracks progress of these “commitments” but is not responsible for their implementation.
The Pinocchio Test
There’s a lot of criticism lodged against the Clintons for their involvement with recovery efforts in Haiti. But Cohen’s claim that Hillary Clinton raised hundreds of millions of dollars through the Clinton Foundation for a hospital that was never delivered is not credible.
There is, indeed, a major public hospital in Port-au-Prince that has been delayed, even though it was one of the first projects approved by the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. The commission was co-chaired by Bill Clinton, who became the face of many recovery efforts in Haiti. Cohen can blame Bill Clinton’s leadership on the commission, or the managing of taxpayer money for this project. But that’s an entirely different claim than what Cohen actually said. Perhaps Cohen was referring to the $500 million in “commitments to action” for Haiti initiatives announced by the Clinton Foundation. But not all of the commitments were relating to health care or building a hospital, and the commitments don’t involve Clinton Foundation money.
We’ve done our part to check out his claim, but the burden of proof still lies with Cohen. If he wants to respond and point us to a specific source, we’re eager to take a look. In the meantime, he earns Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/13/did-the-clinton-foundation-raise-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-for-a-hospital-in-haiti-that-was-never-built/
–Donald Trump surrogate Michael Cohen, interview on CNN, June 1, 2016
Cohen, the executive vice president of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald Trump, made this accusation while answering questions about Trump’s donations to veterans’ groups. He blamed the media for asking questions about Trump’s donations, yet letting Clinton’s allegedly squandered hospital promise go unquestioned.
While Cohen made the comment in passing, it was picked up by Diamond and Silk, a pro-Trump duo with a Twitter following of more than 80,600. They cited Cohen’s claim and doubled-down on the question in a video, which was retweeted or liked at least 4,600 times:
We reached out to Cohen directly and through the Trump Organization and Trump campaign several times, but he didn’t respond to our request for a source for his claim. So we dug around to see if there were any facts to support it. What we found was all the makings of a mishmash talking point stringing together different information relating to Haiti recovery efforts — like a message from the last player in a game of “Telephone.”
The Facts
The Clintons played a major role in recovery efforts in Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010. Bill Clinton was the public face of U.S. efforts in Haiti through several recovery roles. He was United Nations special envoy to Haiti, co-leader of the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund (with President George W. Bush) and co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, a quasi-government planning body that approved hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. government-funded recovery projects.
The U.S. Agency for International Development supported the commission’s efforts, and Hillary Clinton led the U.S. response in Haiti as secretary of state. The Clinton Foundation raised more than $30 million for Haiti relief projects.
The Clinton family’s charitable work in Haiti has been a mix of success, disappointment and controversy. As our Washington Post colleagues reported, some Clinton-backed projects didn’t come through, like a $2 million housing expo for thousands of new housing units. The Government Accountability Office found poor planning and unsustainable outcomes for taxpayer funded projects through USAID, such as the $170 million power plant and port for the Caracol Industrial Park, which was promoted by the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton’s younger brother had ties to a mining project in Haiti, raising suspicions among Haitians about the Clintons’ motives. Luxury hotel projects paid by the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund promised construction jobs — but for Haitians, it represented another disconnect between Clinton-backed efforts and the realities of one of the poorest countries struggling to rebuild after one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the Western Hemisphere.
There’s real frustration among Haitians over failures in progress promised to them, not just by the Clintons but from the international community at large. In 2015, Haitian activists protested outside the Clinton Foundation in New York, claiming the Clintons mismanaged hundreds of millions in taxpayer money through the Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission.
But there is no evidence Hillary Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation, raised “hundreds of millions of dollars” for a hospital that was never built. We consulted groups that have been critical of recovery delays in Haiti, but they could not point to a specific Clinton Foundation-funded hospital project, either.
“We’ve tried to figure out what he might be citing as well, but we can’t provide you with a source of his claim because one doesn’t exist,” said Craig Minassian, Clinton Foundation spokesman. “The Clinton Foundation never committed to build a hospital, nor did it accept, raise, or spend funds for that purpose. His claim is false.”
There are hospital projects that have been delayed, but there’s no evidence that there were “hundreds of millions of dollars” in foundation money promised to those efforts.
For example, the USAID inspector general found delays in the $99 million reconstruction of medical facilities and medical supply warehouses through the Health Infrastructure Program. This program included the $82.3 million construction of the country’s key public hospital, Hospital of the State University of Haiti in Port-au-Prince, one of the first projects that the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission approved. But the project is backed by money from the U.S. government, Haiti and France — not Clinton Foundation.
Another major hospital project was the University Hospital in Mirebalais, run by Partners in Health, a group that has worked on recovery efforts with the Clinton Foundation. This hospital opened in 2013, and Partners in Health confirmed there was no donation of “hundreds of millions of dollars” committed by the Clinton foundation for the project. (Clinton Foundation is not listed as a supporter.)
The Clinton Foundation helped provide solar panels at Hospital Bernard Mevs in Port-au-Prince, a trauma center. But Minassian said the foundation did not commit hundreds of millions of dollars for construction of a new facility.
Perhaps Cohen was referring to the $500 million in “commitments to action” that the Clinton Foundation announced would be used for projects in Haiti. These “commitments” were secured from private businesses through the Clinton Global Initiative.
These “commitments” are public pledges that companies make at a Clinton Global Initiative conference, promising to do good in the world. The Clinton Global Initiative tracks progress of these “commitments” but is not responsible for their implementation.
The Pinocchio Test
There’s a lot of criticism lodged against the Clintons for their involvement with recovery efforts in Haiti. But Cohen’s claim that Hillary Clinton raised hundreds of millions of dollars through the Clinton Foundation for a hospital that was never delivered is not credible.
There is, indeed, a major public hospital in Port-au-Prince that has been delayed, even though it was one of the first projects approved by the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. The commission was co-chaired by Bill Clinton, who became the face of many recovery efforts in Haiti. Cohen can blame Bill Clinton’s leadership on the commission, or the managing of taxpayer money for this project. But that’s an entirely different claim than what Cohen actually said. Perhaps Cohen was referring to the $500 million in “commitments to action” for Haiti initiatives announced by the Clinton Foundation. But not all of the commitments were relating to health care or building a hospital, and the commitments don’t involve Clinton Foundation money.
We’ve done our part to check out his claim, but the burden of proof still lies with Cohen. If he wants to respond and point us to a specific source, we’re eager to take a look. In the meantime, he earns Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/13/did-the-clinton-foundation-raise-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-for-a-hospital-in-haiti-that-was-never-built/
The US Spent $33 Million on Haiti’s Scrapped Elections — Here is Where it Went
Published: 07 June 2016
Haiti’s electoral council announced yesterday that new first-round presidential elections would be held in October after a commission found widespread fraud and irregularities in the previous vote. The prospect of the new vote — to be held alongside dozens of parliamentary seats still up for grabs, has raised questions about how it could be funded. The previous elections — determined to be too marred by fraud and violence to count — cost upward of $100 million, with the bulk of the funding coming from international donors.
But now, donors are balking. Last week the State Department’s Haiti Special Coordinator Ken Merten said that if elections are redone “from scratch” than it would put U.S. assistance in jeopardy. It “could also call into question whether the U.S. will be able to continue to support financially Haiti’s electoral process,” Merten added. In a separate interview, Merten explained:
We still do not know what position we will adopt regarding our financial support. U.S. taxpayers have already spent more than $33 million and that is a lot. We can ask ourselves what was done with the money or what guarantees there are that the same thing will not happen again.
To begin with, that figure seems to include money allocated in 2012 – years before the electoral process began. Local and legislative elections, which former president Michel Martelly was constitutionally required to organize, failed to happen. A significant share of this early funding likely went to staffing and overhead costs as international organizations or grantees kept their Haiti programs running, despite the absence of elections. It’s also worth pointing out that many millions of that money never went to electoral authorities, but rather to U.S. programs in support of elections.
In April 2013, USAID awarded a grant to the DC-based Consortium for Elections and Political Processes. In total, $7.23 million went to the consortium before the electoral process even began. An additional $4.95 million was awarded in July 2015, a month before legislative elections. The consortium consists of two DC-based organizations, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). In a January report to Congress, the State Department explained further what some this money went towards:
1. “the creation and implementation of twenty-six Electoral Information Centers (EICs) … to provide information to the general public on the electoral process”
2. “training more than 100 journalists in several departments on topics such as the international standards for elections …”
3. “Funding through INL supported election security.”
4. “USAID also supported the creation of a new domestic election observation platform that helped build greater transparency into the electoral process by establishing a grassroots coalition of reputable and well-trained domestic observers …”
Some funding also went to increasing women’s participation in the electoral process. But it’s questionable what the return on that $12.18 million really was. Not a single woman was elected to parliament — though it now appears as though at least one was elected, only to have her seat stolen through the bribing of an electoral judge. In terms of providing information to the public about the elections, participation in both the legislative and presidential elections was only about a fifth of the population. The money spent on local observers may have been more successful, but not for U.S. interests. The local observer group, the Citizen Observatory for the Institutionalization of Democracy, led by Rosny Desroches, agreed with other local observation missions that a verification commission (opposed by the U.S.) was needed to restore confidence in the elections. The U.S. spent millions training local observers, only to later ignore their analysis. Instead, the U.S. has consistently pointed to the observation work of international organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and the EU. The U.S. also provided $1 million to the OAS for their observation work.
Perhaps it’s not a surprise the funding didn’t have the intended effect. A 2012 evaluation of NDI conducted by Norway’s foreign development agency found that about “4 out of every 10 dollars” went to overhead, staff in Washington DC or to the expatriate country director who made more than a quarter of a million dollars.
The U.S. contributed $9.7 million to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) “basket fund” for elections. The UNDP controlled the pooled donor funds and also funds contributed by the Haitian government (more than any other individual donor). Funds were used to print ballots, train workers, and for other logistical operations. However, it’s important to note that $3 million of these funds were distributed in 2012 and 2014, well before any election would take place.
An additional $7.57 million went to the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) for logistical operations for the elections, mainly distributing and picking up ballots before and after the election. After the August legislative elections were plagued by violent groups that shut down voting, UNOPS shifted strategy for the October election. In certain “hot spots,” ballots would not follow the normal procedures for transportation to the tabulation center, instead, UNOPS would bypass the chain, picking up electoral information at 67 voting centers and bringing the materials straight to Port-au-Prince. According to diplomatic sources, UNOPS threatened to pull out entirely if additional funds for this measure were not given. The U.S. awarded $1.8 million to UNOPS on September 29, 2015.
An additional $1.77 million was given to UNOPS in December, but the second-round presidential election never took place. Though it was clear to many that the elections would not be held given widespread condemnation by local observers and civil society groups, the U.S. and others in the international community insisted the second round go ahead. With protests increasing, they moved forward and distributed electoral materials for an election that was never going to happen. This strengthened Martelly’s bargaining power over the opposition, but meant millions of dollars were spent for no reason.
In total, funding to UNOPS, UNDP, OAS, IFES and NDI totaled $30.45 million. This is the vast majority of the $33 million the U.S. says it contributed to the electoral process. Additional funds were also awarded through the State Department for election-related security.
So yes, the U.S. spent over $30 million on Haiti’s elections, but not all of that went directly to the elections or was event spent wisely in supporting them. It’s clear it would take far less for the U.S. to support a Haitian-led electoral process next October. And perhaps the best reason for the U.S. to continue to fund the election, if Haiti requests such support, is that it was the U.S. and other actors in the international community that pushed ahead and put millions of dollars into a fatally flawed electoral process that Haitians have now determined was irreparably marred by fraud. The problem is not that Haitian’s wasted U.S. taxpayer dollars by scrapping the election results; it’s that the U.S. was throwing good money after bad. That’s something that can be fixed.
All grantee funding data is from USASpending.gov.
http://cepr.net/blogs/haiti-relief-and-reconstruction-watch/the-us-spent-33-million-on-haiti-s-scrapped-elections-here-is-where-it-went
Haiti’s electoral council announced yesterday that new first-round presidential elections would be held in October after a commission found widespread fraud and irregularities in the previous vote. The prospect of the new vote — to be held alongside dozens of parliamentary seats still up for grabs, has raised questions about how it could be funded. The previous elections — determined to be too marred by fraud and violence to count — cost upward of $100 million, with the bulk of the funding coming from international donors.
But now, donors are balking. Last week the State Department’s Haiti Special Coordinator Ken Merten said that if elections are redone “from scratch” than it would put U.S. assistance in jeopardy. It “could also call into question whether the U.S. will be able to continue to support financially Haiti’s electoral process,” Merten added. In a separate interview, Merten explained:
We still do not know what position we will adopt regarding our financial support. U.S. taxpayers have already spent more than $33 million and that is a lot. We can ask ourselves what was done with the money or what guarantees there are that the same thing will not happen again.
To begin with, that figure seems to include money allocated in 2012 – years before the electoral process began. Local and legislative elections, which former president Michel Martelly was constitutionally required to organize, failed to happen. A significant share of this early funding likely went to staffing and overhead costs as international organizations or grantees kept their Haiti programs running, despite the absence of elections. It’s also worth pointing out that many millions of that money never went to electoral authorities, but rather to U.S. programs in support of elections.
In April 2013, USAID awarded a grant to the DC-based Consortium for Elections and Political Processes. In total, $7.23 million went to the consortium before the electoral process even began. An additional $4.95 million was awarded in July 2015, a month before legislative elections. The consortium consists of two DC-based organizations, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). In a January report to Congress, the State Department explained further what some this money went towards:
1. “the creation and implementation of twenty-six Electoral Information Centers (EICs) … to provide information to the general public on the electoral process”
2. “training more than 100 journalists in several departments on topics such as the international standards for elections …”
3. “Funding through INL supported election security.”
4. “USAID also supported the creation of a new domestic election observation platform that helped build greater transparency into the electoral process by establishing a grassroots coalition of reputable and well-trained domestic observers …”
Some funding also went to increasing women’s participation in the electoral process. But it’s questionable what the return on that $12.18 million really was. Not a single woman was elected to parliament — though it now appears as though at least one was elected, only to have her seat stolen through the bribing of an electoral judge. In terms of providing information to the public about the elections, participation in both the legislative and presidential elections was only about a fifth of the population. The money spent on local observers may have been more successful, but not for U.S. interests. The local observer group, the Citizen Observatory for the Institutionalization of Democracy, led by Rosny Desroches, agreed with other local observation missions that a verification commission (opposed by the U.S.) was needed to restore confidence in the elections. The U.S. spent millions training local observers, only to later ignore their analysis. Instead, the U.S. has consistently pointed to the observation work of international organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and the EU. The U.S. also provided $1 million to the OAS for their observation work.
Perhaps it’s not a surprise the funding didn’t have the intended effect. A 2012 evaluation of NDI conducted by Norway’s foreign development agency found that about “4 out of every 10 dollars” went to overhead, staff in Washington DC or to the expatriate country director who made more than a quarter of a million dollars.
The U.S. contributed $9.7 million to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) “basket fund” for elections. The UNDP controlled the pooled donor funds and also funds contributed by the Haitian government (more than any other individual donor). Funds were used to print ballots, train workers, and for other logistical operations. However, it’s important to note that $3 million of these funds were distributed in 2012 and 2014, well before any election would take place.
An additional $7.57 million went to the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) for logistical operations for the elections, mainly distributing and picking up ballots before and after the election. After the August legislative elections were plagued by violent groups that shut down voting, UNOPS shifted strategy for the October election. In certain “hot spots,” ballots would not follow the normal procedures for transportation to the tabulation center, instead, UNOPS would bypass the chain, picking up electoral information at 67 voting centers and bringing the materials straight to Port-au-Prince. According to diplomatic sources, UNOPS threatened to pull out entirely if additional funds for this measure were not given. The U.S. awarded $1.8 million to UNOPS on September 29, 2015.
An additional $1.77 million was given to UNOPS in December, but the second-round presidential election never took place. Though it was clear to many that the elections would not be held given widespread condemnation by local observers and civil society groups, the U.S. and others in the international community insisted the second round go ahead. With protests increasing, they moved forward and distributed electoral materials for an election that was never going to happen. This strengthened Martelly’s bargaining power over the opposition, but meant millions of dollars were spent for no reason.
In total, funding to UNOPS, UNDP, OAS, IFES and NDI totaled $30.45 million. This is the vast majority of the $33 million the U.S. says it contributed to the electoral process. Additional funds were also awarded through the State Department for election-related security.
So yes, the U.S. spent over $30 million on Haiti’s elections, but not all of that went directly to the elections or was event spent wisely in supporting them. It’s clear it would take far less for the U.S. to support a Haitian-led electoral process next October. And perhaps the best reason for the U.S. to continue to fund the election, if Haiti requests such support, is that it was the U.S. and other actors in the international community that pushed ahead and put millions of dollars into a fatally flawed electoral process that Haitians have now determined was irreparably marred by fraud. The problem is not that Haitian’s wasted U.S. taxpayer dollars by scrapping the election results; it’s that the U.S. was throwing good money after bad. That’s something that can be fixed.
All grantee funding data is from USASpending.gov.
http://cepr.net/blogs/haiti-relief-and-reconstruction-watch/the-us-spent-33-million-on-haiti-s-scrapped-elections-here-is-where-it-went
La Caye Means ‘Home’ in Haitian Creole, and It Shows
By EMILY BRENNAN JUNE 10, 2016
On an 80-degree evening last month, three Beninese brothers in an Afropop band performing that night set up their conga drums and keyboards in a corner of La Caye.
Two women, speaking Haitian Creole at the copper-tiled bar, settled their tab of two red wines — they had a voodoo-song practice to get to.
A couple enjoyed the dimly lighted patio.
Sitting opposite them was a group of six women, with a 3-year-old in tow, who had just seen their teenage children off to a prom. They wanted to celebrate.
La Caye, a Haitian restaurant that opened in Fort Greene across the street from the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 2012, draws all kinds of people for all sorts of reasons — starting with a platter of fried plantains, marinated pork and pikliz, a spicy slaw.
The pikliz was what brought Tara Pierre Louis, who doesn’t get much Haitian cooking where she’s living nowadays, in Manassas, Va. She and her sister-in-law, Natacha Pierre Louis of Canarsie, were part of the party of six on the patio, which was adorned with metalwork and strings of twinkling lights.
With the exception of a few dishes that could be found at any trendy Brooklyn restaurant, La Caye’s menu hews to traditional Haitian cuisine: grilled conch, Creole-style broiled red snapper, stewed goat and pen patat, a sweet potato bread pudding with a rum-raisin sauce.
“It tastes like home,” said Tara, whose parents emigrated from Haiti. It was fitting, she added, because “la caye” in Haitian Creole means “home.”
Behind the bar was the manager, Joshua Jagmohan, his forearm tattooed with a quotation he attributed to the Brazilian writer Paulo Coelho. He prepared cocktails that required some creativity, because the restaurant serves only beer and wine. Instead of rum, its mojito is made with sake and if someone is in the mood, a dash of passion fruit, pomegranate or lychee along with the usual mint and lime.
“You come in for a glass of wine or whatever,” Mr. Jagmohan said. Then you find yourself ordering an appetizer at the bar, then moving to a table for a full meal. “Next thing you know, you’re here four or five hours,” he said. “It’s that type of place.”
At the bar sat Leah Jordano-Kudalis, a teacher who lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant, and her friend Ciara Rivera, an education specialist for Unicef who was visiting from Bamako, Mali.
“I made her come here,” Ms. Jordano-Kudalis, drinking a chardonnay, said. “She always stays in the city.” But the promise of live music enticed Ms. Rivera.
Every Thursday night, the restaurant holds concerts of mostly Caribbean and African musicians playing jazz, folk and twoubadou, a style of guitar-based cabaret music in Haiti.
Earlier in the evening, Adi Presumé, one of the performers on her way to practice, spoke about the American news coverage of Haiti, where she was born. It pained her that articles rarely failed to mention the fact that Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.
“The first thing you see is that negative connotation toward all of our accomplishments,” she said. Why not mention instead that Haiti was the world’s first black republic?
Too many people, she said, assume that because Haiti is poor, it is poor in culture, too. “When all we have is culture,” she said with a laugh. “That’s what we’re rich in.”
Source : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/la-caye-means-home-in-haitian-creole-and-it-shows.html?_r=0
 |
| 1.- A group of family and friends dined at La Caye last month while their children were at the prom. The restaurant serves typical Haitian dishes like grilled conch, Creole-style broiled red snapper, stewed goat andpen patat, a sweet potato bread pudding with a rum-raisin sauce. Credit: Dave Sanders for The New York Times |
Two women, speaking Haitian Creole at the copper-tiled bar, settled their tab of two red wines — they had a voodoo-song practice to get to.
A couple enjoyed the dimly lighted patio.
Sitting opposite them was a group of six women, with a 3-year-old in tow, who had just seen their teenage children off to a prom. They wanted to celebrate.
La Caye, a Haitian restaurant that opened in Fort Greene across the street from the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 2012, draws all kinds of people for all sorts of reasons — starting with a platter of fried plantains, marinated pork and pikliz, a spicy slaw.
The pikliz was what brought Tara Pierre Louis, who doesn’t get much Haitian cooking where she’s living nowadays, in Manassas, Va. She and her sister-in-law, Natacha Pierre Louis of Canarsie, were part of the party of six on the patio, which was adorned with metalwork and strings of twinkling lights.
With the exception of a few dishes that could be found at any trendy Brooklyn restaurant, La Caye’s menu hews to traditional Haitian cuisine: grilled conch, Creole-style broiled red snapper, stewed goat and pen patat, a sweet potato bread pudding with a rum-raisin sauce.
“It tastes like home,” said Tara, whose parents emigrated from Haiti. It was fitting, she added, because “la caye” in Haitian Creole means “home.”
 |
| La Caye, which is across the street from the Brooklyn Academy of Music, opened in 2012. Credit: Dave Sanders for The New York Times |
“You come in for a glass of wine or whatever,” Mr. Jagmohan said. Then you find yourself ordering an appetizer at the bar, then moving to a table for a full meal. “Next thing you know, you’re here four or five hours,” he said. “It’s that type of place.”
At the bar sat Leah Jordano-Kudalis, a teacher who lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant, and her friend Ciara Rivera, an education specialist for Unicef who was visiting from Bamako, Mali.
“I made her come here,” Ms. Jordano-Kudalis, drinking a chardonnay, said. “She always stays in the city.” But the promise of live music enticed Ms. Rivera.
Every Thursday night, the restaurant holds concerts of mostly Caribbean and African musicians playing jazz, folk and twoubadou, a style of guitar-based cabaret music in Haiti.
 |
| 3.- Jomion and the Uklos performed at La Caye last month. In the restaurant’s Thursday-night concerts, Caribbean and African musicians often play jazz, folk and twoubadou, a style of guitar-based cabaret music in Haiti. Credit: Dave Sanders for The New York Times |
“The first thing you see is that negative connotation toward all of our accomplishments,” she said. Why not mention instead that Haiti was the world’s first black republic?
Too many people, she said, assume that because Haiti is poor, it is poor in culture, too. “When all we have is culture,” she said with a laugh. “That’s what we’re rich in.”
Source : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/la-caye-means-home-in-haitian-creole-and-it-shows.html?_r=0
mardi 7 juin 2016
MESSIEURS LES TETKALEISTES ET MEMBRES DE PHTK, PLEUREZ SUR VOUS NE PLEUREZ PAS SUR MOI
Si les lavalassiens reviennent au pouvoir, tout le mérite revient à Michel Martelly et à sa cohorte de conseillers et d'experts en développement politique.
Si le dernier président “choisi” avait souscrit un abonnement au parti du Leader incontesté devenu muet dans un compromis à travers lequel il a accepté une sorte de castration intellectuelle, il n’aurait surement pas mieux fait.
Que lui avait dit son entourage, quand il s’évertuait à rendre non fonctionnel le parlement en repoussant indéfiniment la réalisation des élections?
Que lui avaient conseillé ces experts qui touchaient des caisses des ambassades pour service rendu, quand il avait fait le choix d’un candidat obscur et inconnu dans la personne de Jovnel Moïse en lieu et place d’un Laurent Lamothe qui, malgré son arrivée inespérée et inattendue sur la scène politique, avait fini par la force des choses, à se forger une carrure d’homme d’état assez potable ?
Aujourd’hui on est en pleine alternance.
Une alternance définie et conceptualisée à l’haïtienne.
Une fois en 1963 (je crois) François Duvalier avait appelé aux comices pour des élections législatives.
Sur chaque bulletin de vote, en pied de page, apparaissait un « François Duvalier, Président ».
Au moment de diffuser les résultats, en plus des gagnants des élections législatives, le gouvernement annonça que le peuple avait élu François Duvalier pour un autre mandat. Quand des journalistes étrangers surpris, demandèrent des explications au Président, il ne se gêna point en leur disant qu’il a été élu démocratiquement et qu’il fallait surtout établir une différence entre la démocratie haïtienne et les démocraties traditionnelles.
Nous sommes donc en pleine alternance politique.
Elle est tellement bien enracinée dans notre vie politique, cette façon de faire les choses que le discours de ceux qui se rangent dans le camp de l’opposition aujourd’hui reste un calque fidèle, une copie conforme du discours des opposants d’avant-hier qui se trouvent aujourd’hui dans les arcanes du pouvoir.
Quand Michel Martelly refusait d’organiser les élections, l’appel aux forces démocratiques venait du camp lavalassien et alliés.
Les forces démocratiques étaient représentées dans l’opposition à Martelly. Aujourd’hui les tetkaleistes voudraient mobiliser les forces démocratiques. Car ils ont regagné par magie le camp de la démocratie.
Cela ne m’étonne guère puisque cela se passe de cette façon dans les grandes démocraties.
En France par exemple, le soir de la proclamation du vainqueur des présidentielles, les sarkozystes commençaient déjà à critiquer la politique à venir de celui qui venait de remporter les joutes.
Ils n’avaient même pas encore passé le pouvoir aux autres, qu’ils déblatéraient déjà sur les mesures à prendre pour résoudre les problèmes cruciaux du pays.
On se demandait pourquoi cela n’avait pas été fait avant, pendant leur gouvernement à eux !
Ce qui est déplorable en Haïti c’est que la politique est la seule activité qui sévit en quand il n’y a pas une coupe du monde de football, une finale de League des champions, une Copa America.
Ailleurs le pays est supporté par des institutions assez fortes pour assurer un fonctionnement correct sans qu’il n’y ait ni de coupure ni de césure.
En Haïti tout gravite autour de la politique et puisque depuis de longues années, notre politique se décline de crise en crise, le pays stagne et s’enlise…
Mais définitivement si les lavalassiens doivent une fière chandelle à quelqu’un, le bénéficiaire ne saurait être que Michel Martelly ! Dr Jonas Jolivert Marseille, France le 07/06/2016
Si le dernier président “choisi” avait souscrit un abonnement au parti du Leader incontesté devenu muet dans un compromis à travers lequel il a accepté une sorte de castration intellectuelle, il n’aurait surement pas mieux fait.
Que lui avait dit son entourage, quand il s’évertuait à rendre non fonctionnel le parlement en repoussant indéfiniment la réalisation des élections?
Que lui avaient conseillé ces experts qui touchaient des caisses des ambassades pour service rendu, quand il avait fait le choix d’un candidat obscur et inconnu dans la personne de Jovnel Moïse en lieu et place d’un Laurent Lamothe qui, malgré son arrivée inespérée et inattendue sur la scène politique, avait fini par la force des choses, à se forger une carrure d’homme d’état assez potable ?
Aujourd’hui on est en pleine alternance.
Une alternance définie et conceptualisée à l’haïtienne.
Une fois en 1963 (je crois) François Duvalier avait appelé aux comices pour des élections législatives.
Sur chaque bulletin de vote, en pied de page, apparaissait un « François Duvalier, Président ».
Au moment de diffuser les résultats, en plus des gagnants des élections législatives, le gouvernement annonça que le peuple avait élu François Duvalier pour un autre mandat. Quand des journalistes étrangers surpris, demandèrent des explications au Président, il ne se gêna point en leur disant qu’il a été élu démocratiquement et qu’il fallait surtout établir une différence entre la démocratie haïtienne et les démocraties traditionnelles.
Nous sommes donc en pleine alternance politique.
Elle est tellement bien enracinée dans notre vie politique, cette façon de faire les choses que le discours de ceux qui se rangent dans le camp de l’opposition aujourd’hui reste un calque fidèle, une copie conforme du discours des opposants d’avant-hier qui se trouvent aujourd’hui dans les arcanes du pouvoir.
Quand Michel Martelly refusait d’organiser les élections, l’appel aux forces démocratiques venait du camp lavalassien et alliés.
Les forces démocratiques étaient représentées dans l’opposition à Martelly. Aujourd’hui les tetkaleistes voudraient mobiliser les forces démocratiques. Car ils ont regagné par magie le camp de la démocratie.
Cela ne m’étonne guère puisque cela se passe de cette façon dans les grandes démocraties.
En France par exemple, le soir de la proclamation du vainqueur des présidentielles, les sarkozystes commençaient déjà à critiquer la politique à venir de celui qui venait de remporter les joutes.
Ils n’avaient même pas encore passé le pouvoir aux autres, qu’ils déblatéraient déjà sur les mesures à prendre pour résoudre les problèmes cruciaux du pays.
On se demandait pourquoi cela n’avait pas été fait avant, pendant leur gouvernement à eux !
Ce qui est déplorable en Haïti c’est que la politique est la seule activité qui sévit en quand il n’y a pas une coupe du monde de football, une finale de League des champions, une Copa America.
Ailleurs le pays est supporté par des institutions assez fortes pour assurer un fonctionnement correct sans qu’il n’y ait ni de coupure ni de césure.
En Haïti tout gravite autour de la politique et puisque depuis de longues années, notre politique se décline de crise en crise, le pays stagne et s’enlise…
Mais définitivement si les lavalassiens doivent une fière chandelle à quelqu’un, le bénéficiaire ne saurait être que Michel Martelly ! Dr Jonas Jolivert Marseille, France le 07/06/2016
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)