Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

THURSDAY,  APRIL 22,  2010

FOOD PRICES UP – AT 7:43 P.M. ET:  Food and gasoline prices are among the costs that can have the greatest impact on politics.  Food prices are up sharply, and gasoline prices continue their upward march:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wholesale prices rose more than expected last month as food prices surged by the most in 26 years. But excluding food and energy, prices were nearly flat.

The Labor Department said the Producer Price Index rose by 0.7 percent in March, compared to analysts' forecasts of a 0.4 percent rise. A rise in gas prices also helped push up the index.

Still, there was little sign of budding inflation in the report. Excluding volatile food and energy costs, wholesale prices rose by 0.1 percent, matching analysts' expectations.

Food prices jumped by 2.4 percent in March, the most since January 1984. Vegetable prices soared by more than 49 percent, the most in 15 years. A cold snap wiped out much of Florida's tomato and other vegetable crops at the beginning of this year.

Gasoline prices rose 2.1 percent, the department said, the fifth rise in six months.

COMMENT:  People feel food and gasoline prices.  These are things bought every day.  They mean more to most people than the overall inflation index.  If food prices continue to rise at anything near March's rate, the president can add one more serious problem to his political list.

April 22, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA RESULTS MIXED IN NEW FOX POLL – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  President Obama's approval rating has gone up slightly in a new Fox poll, but Americans are expressing some annoyance at his style:

Most American voters think it is time for the Obama administration to start taking responsibility for the way things are going in the country.

A Fox News poll released Thursday finds 66 percent of voters think President Obama should start taking responsibility. That’s more than three times as many as the 21 percent who think it’s right to continue to blame the Bush administration for the way things are going today.

Democrats are divided: 42 percent think Obama should step up, while 40 percent say he should continue to blame Bush.

President Obama’s job approval rating improved this week and now stands at 46 percent, up from a record low of 43 percent approval in early April. An equal number of voters disapprove of the job President Obama is doing (46 percent).

A year ago, 62 percent of Americans approved and 29 percent disapproved of the president’s job performance (22-23 April 2009).

By 46-37 percent, more voters think President Obama is keeping most of the promises he made during the campaign.

While most Democrats (73 percent) think the president is keeping most of his promises, about one in 10 think he is breaking his promises (12 percent). Slightly more independents think the president is breaking most of his promises (39 percent) than keeping most (36 percent).

COMMENT:  While some of the president's numbers have improved, he still ranks very low.  These are not reelection numbers.

At the same time, the GOP is not exactly glowing, and there isn't a presidential candidate in the GOP stable who looks like he or she could easy defeat Obama in 2012.

Obama has been a major disappointment in his first year, but can come fighting back, especially as the media will fight on his side.  Don't put any victories in the bank.

April 22, 2010     Permalink

GET THIS SOLVED – AT 7:01 P.M. ET:  Recently, at the Angel's Corner, I gave a list of the things that can frustrate a Republican victory this November.  One of the items was corruption.  And, as they say, "Houston, we have a problem."  From the Washington Times:

Barely 6 1/2 months before the midterm elections, an internal investigation by the Republican National Committee has revealed that the organization is beset with questionable financial management and oversight and is spending more money courting top-dollar donors than it raises.

The investigation found that the Republican Party's national governing body is losing money on its major-donors' fundraising program -- spending $1.09 for each $1.00 raised, according to RNC members privy to the investigation's findings. It typically costs about 40 cents for every dollar raised from donors who give more than $1,000.

The investigation also found that the RNC has allowed employees to forge Finance Director Rob Bickhart's initials on expense-reimbursement request approvals, according to an RNC member who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The RNC's top elected and appointed management have united in defense of the committee's practices. RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele can withhold or increase RNC contributions to a state party.

The Washington Times obtained a copy of a report on the investigation -- prepared by RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen -- that he sent to the 28-member RNC Executive Committee before a conference call hastily scheduled for Wednesday afternoon by Mr. Steele's office. It includes some of the findings.

COMMENT:  This has got to be nipped in the bud.  Corrections must be put in place immediately.  And maybe it's time for Michael Steele to resign.  He's performed erratically, and, while the party shows its true lack of bigotry by having an African-American leader, he must be subject to the same standards as any other chairman.  Too many problems under his leadership, too few solutions.

April 22, 2010     Permalink

ANOTHER PUBLIC PREFERENCE THAT OBAMA WILL IGNORE – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  A CNN poll tells us what kind of person the public thinks President Obama should name to the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing Justice Stevens.  From The Hill:

Most Americans would prefer to see President Barack Obama name a "moderate" or conservative justice to the Supreme Court, a new poll shows.

37 percent of adult Americans say they would like to see Obama nominate what they consider to be a "moderate" jurist to the high court, while 36 percent would like to see a somewhat or very conservative appointee.

That's 73% for a moderate or conservative. 

25 percent of adults would like to see a somewhat or very liberal justice replaced to fill the vacancy to be left by the retiring liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday.

But, of course, in the eyes of the Obamans, that 25% is the part of the population that thinks, and brushes properly.

The poll comes as the president has begun reaching out to candidates informally to succeed Stevens, who announced that he will retire at the end of the court's current term in June.

While the president is expected to nominate a left-leaning appointee to fill Stevens's spot, Republicans have still warned that they may filibuster any nominee if he or she falls outside what the GOP defines as "mainstream."

Yeah, but unless it's a real nut case, the filibuster will fade away. 

Americans' preference for a new justice roughly mirror their preferences a year ago, when Obama named now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor to fill the retiring Justice David Souter's seat.

Right.  He took the public's advice then, too.

COMMENT:  This president, like all presidents, wants to shape the Court in his image.  (Of course, he wants to shape the Universe in his image as well.)  He'll ignore the poll and go with his liberal-to-kooky base. 

Our objective is to keep the conservatives on the current Court healthy.  Send them home remedies.

April 22, 2010     Permalink

MORE ON RUBIO vs. OBAMA JUSTICE – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  We reported yesterday that red-hot Marco Rubio, the sure winner of the Florida GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat, is suddenly under investigation.  The Politico has more details:

A widening federal criminal investigation into the state Republican Party’s credit card usage is unsettling the Florida GOP Senate primary, raising concerns about its potential effect on GOP front-runner Marco Rubio’s campaign and providing hope to Democrats who believe it could be the story line that stalls the surging conservative’s momentum.

The Internal Revenue Service is now exploring the tax records of Rubio, former state party Chairman Jim Greer and former GOP Executive Director Delmar Johnson to determine whether they improperly used party credit cards for personal expenses, according to a joint report Wednesday by the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times.

The inquiry, which stemmed from the indictment of former state House Speaker Ray Sansom, will in part focus on the more than $100,000 Rubio charged to a state party American Express card during the two years he was House speaker. In addition, the FBI is looking into whether Sansom and others made false statements on their tax returns.

The probe has cast a shadow over the GOP primary, in which Florida Gov. Charlie Crist must soon decide whether to remain a candidate or run as an independent. The governor has targeted Rubio’s credit card spending for months, arguing that it undercuts his fiscal conservative credentials. To date, however, the scrutiny hasn’t registered much of an impact, as Rubio has built a double-digit lead in polls and recently raked in a jaw-dropping quarterly fundraising haul.

COMMENT:  Do you have some suspicions about the timing here?  Just days ago we learned that the banking firm of Goldman Sachs had been indicted for fraud...right in the middle of Obama's campaign to pass financial-industry reform legislation.

Now we have a probe of Rubio, right in the middle of a U.S. Senate campaign.

Are these things coincidental?

And of course the Justice Department went to work immediately to be sure that the guy who tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit in December got the PC treatment, big time.

When the justice system becomes a handmaiden of the political system, we're in trouble.  And I get the sense that we're in big trouble, with things getting constantly worse.

April 22, 2010     Permalink

LET US NOT BE JUDGMENTAL – THERE ARE WORSE THINGS THAN DEATH – AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  The proprietors of the "South Park" franchise have offended the keepers of the religion of peace, with predictable results.  Why can't these Hollywood types understand the new order?  From Fox:

A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week.

They've done the same thing with Jesus and Moses, but their fans have a bit more sense of humor.

RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park," which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Reaching by phone early Tuesday, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.

"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," al Amrikee said, referring to the possibility that Parker and Stone could be murdered for mocking Muhammad. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."

Large number?  Gee, hasn't Obama told us that the radicals constitute a tiny number?  Someone has a math problem.  Little Sharp calculators are available.

Al Amrikee said the website is considering a protest against the "disgusting" show, which also depicted the Prophet Muhammad in an episode on July 4, 2001.

"This is not a small thing," he said. "We should do whatever we can to make sure it does not happen again."

COMMENT:  We await reaction from the ACLU, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, PEN, and other thoroughly unreliable defenders of free speech.

April 22, 2010     Permalink

JUSTICE DONE - AT 7:30 A.M ET:  This case has drawn major attention, and is now over:

BAGHDAD (AP) — A U.S. military jury cleared a Navy SEAL Thursday of failing to prevent the beating of an Iraqi prisoner suspected of masterminding a 2004 attack that killed four American security contractors.

The contractors' burned bodies were dragged through the streets and two were hanged from a bridge over the Euphrates river in the former insurgent hotbed of Fallujah, in what became a turning point in the Iraq war.

The trial of three SEALs, the Navy's elite special forces unit, in the abuse case has outraged many Americans who see it as coddling terrorists.

A six-man jury found Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas, 29, of Blue Island, Illinois, not guilty of charges of dereliction of duty and attempting to influence the testimony of another service member. The jury spent two hours deliberating the verdict.

"It's a big weight off my shoulders," a smiling and composed Huertas said as he left the courthouse at the U.S. military's Camp Victory on Baghdad's western outskirts.

COMMENT:  The treatment of these SEALs has been shabby, but this is what happens when the military tries multicultural sensitivity and carries it too far.  We're glad he's free.

April 22, 2010    Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  APRIL 21,  2010

OH WAIT, ANOTHER LATEST POLICY – AT 10:30 P.M. ET:  Are we not blessed?  We get two "latest policy" pronouncements in one day.  (See the post just below.)  I'm just bowled over by the intellectual alertness in Washington.  Maybe they are demigods.

Oh, yes, the latest.  Well (organ music, please) in the last week or so we've gotten a lot of hints that the administration may ask for a VAT (value added tax) to raise money to cover the cost of the country it's buying.  Ours. 

No, said the White House news secretary, Robert Gibbs.  Perish the thought.

No, said the president.  Perish the thought again to be sure it's perished.

No said the administration in unison.  Perish, perish, and perish.

Uh, until today.  Apparently, perish doesn't mean the same thing in Noah Obama's International Dictionary as it does in my little Webster's.  We must accept refinement of ideas:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, "I want to get a better picture of what our options are."

After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" resolution that calls the such a tax "a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery."

For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.

"I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn't something that the president had under consideration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.

After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is "not considering" a VAT. 

COMMENT:  More integrity and transparency.  They're makin' it up as they go along.  As I understand it, one presidential statement will appear on The New York Times fiction bestseller list Sunday.  I'm checking my local bookstore.

April 21, 2010     Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE LATEST POLICY – AT 10:28 P.M. ET:  What remarkable people we have running things in Washington.  They can change policies every, oh, 10 minutes, 20 minutes.  Please try to keep up.

Earlier in the day, Michele – no, not the Michelle, who lives in the White House, but Michele Flournoy, our heroic undersecretary of defense for policy – declared that a military option against Iran was off the table for now.

Yuch.  The phones started ringing.  Ulcers started bothering.  Once again, an American official had dropped the appeasement bomb.

Apparently realizing the damage, the Pentagon itself issued a "clarification."  In Washington a "clarification" means that someone had acted like a jerk and told the truth.  Herewith, the new explanation.  May we have a fanfare?

U.S. military action against Iran remains an option even as the United States pursues diplomacy and sanctions to halt the country's nuclear program, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

"We are not taking any options off the table as we pursue the pressure and engagement tracks," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The president always has at his disposal a full array of options, including use of the military ... It is clearly not our preferred course of action but it has never been, nor is it now, off the table."

Morrell was responding to reported comments by a top U.S. defense official who was quoted in Singapore as saying a strike on Iran was off the table in the near term.

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said earlier Wednesday that the U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons.

COMMENT:  Apparently this other Michele got too much into Obama's head and revealed what's really going on, requiring a clarification.  Are you believing that our defense is in the hands of this adolescent crowd?

April 21, 2010     Permalink

ANYONE BELIEVE THIS? – AT 2:56 P.M. ET:  The president has pronounced on the manner in which he will nominate the next Supreme Court justice.  From The Hill:

Abortion will not be a “litmus test” for a Supreme Court nominee, whom President Barack Obama said would be named by the end of May.

And the tooth fairy will help Mr. Obama make the choice.

The president emphasized Tuesday during a meeting with Senate leaders that he would pick someone who keeps women's-rights issues in mind when considering cases.

Obama said his nominee would be someone who interprets “our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights.”

Earth to the Oval Office:  In the women's movement, critical to your candidacy, women's rights absolutely and unequivocally include abortion rights, so your statement makes no sense whatsoever.  Not the first time.

“And that's going to be something that’s very important to me,” Obama said.
Obama made the comments at a meeting with Senate leaders from both parties in the Oval Office on Wednesday to discuss his second nomination to the high court.

COMMENT:  The administration also said today that it  can protect the U.S. against an Iranian ICBM strike.

These are not serious people.  Well, maybe they are, but in the wrong way.  They regard the truth as just another "narrative," no better than any other.

April 21, 2010     Permalink

MY, HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE... – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Britain holds a major election on May 6th.  The election is in turmoil thanks in part to the spectacular performance of Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg in a recent TV debate. 

Clegg, representing a party of eccentrics, skyrocketed in the polls, making this a genuine three-way race with the Tories and Labour.  But now, having gotten what he wished for, the Lib Dem leader is learning the American way of press scrutiny.  His fall may be as quick as his rise.  From the Daily Mail:

Nick Clegg was forced on to the defensive last night over his expenses and lobbying activities.

The Lib Dem leader regularly claimed more than Gordon Brown and David Cameron and charged the taxpayer for three kitchen upgrades in six months.

He also billed for foreign phone calls, napkins, cake tins and for hundreds of pounds to prune his fruit trees.

Questioned over his expenses relating to his constituency property, he hit back, bizarrely saying: 'It's not my home, it's yours.'

That ranks right up there with, "I was for it before I was against it."  The Brits are learning.

 - As the Lib Dems faced unprecedented media and public scrutiny following their extraordinary poll bounce:

  - It emerged that Mr Clegg worked as a partner of a major European lobbying firm, G-Plus, only five years ago

  - The Lib Dem leader repeatedly refused to say which main party he would back in a hung Parliament

  - The spotlight turned on to the expenses claims of other Lib Dem MPs

Figures showed half the Lib Dems' recent donations came from a figure linked to disgraced benefactor Michael Brown

Mr Clegg's claim to be a straight-talker was undermined by his repeated refusal to indicate which party he would back if a coalition was necessary to form a government.

'I'm Nick Clegg, I'm not Nostradamus,' he said yesterday.

And he's not prime minister either, and won't be.   Mr. Clegg, it appears, isn't quite as Ivory pure as he seemed during his TV debate.  We'll watch his poll numbers. 

Most of British politics is pretty creepy, and even the conservatives are barely acceptable.  No Churchill waits in the wings to protect the Brits from the nanny state, with its jihad-friendly immigration policies.  Britain, I'm afraid, is a mess.

We'd looked to the May 6th elections to bring the conservatives to power as the least of three evils.  Now there is a possibility, with three parties contending, of a hung parliament, which means bargaining and hopeless compromise.  This comes at a time when Obama has quite visibily downgraded the U.S.-Britain relationship. 

Well, at least they gave us the Beatles.

April 21, 2010     Permalink

SMART MOVE – AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  Congressional Republicans, showing signs of strategic intelligence, are moving toward an agreement with the Dems on a financial-reform measure.  From the Washington Post:

Key Senate Republicans on Tuesday began to back away from their sharp criticism of proposed new financial regulations and expressed optimism that a bipartisan deal on a bill that would drastically change the way Wall Street operates could emerge in the coming days.

After a week of attacking the proposals as paving the way for new taxpayer "bailouts," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor that he was "heartened to hear that bipartisan talks have resumed in earnest." Later, after a meeting with fellow Republicans, he told reporters that while he believes that there are still serious flaws in the legislation, "I'm convinced now there is a new element of seriousness attached to this, rather than just trying to score political points. . . . I think that's a good sign."

COMMENT:  Smart.  Opposing financial reform is a major loser for Republicans.  Once again the party would be seen as fronting for big business.  As Charles Krauthammer advised, get a compromise measure passed and put the issue behind us.  The further back from the November elections that this issue can be put to bed, the better it is for the GOP.  And, if Republicans help pass a measure, it diminishes Democratic credit.

Wall Street is about as popular now as it was in 1933.  One difference is that the Democrats are just as connected to the Street now as Republicans are, and in fact got the bulk of Wall Street financial contributions in 2008.  The GOP must hammer that home, denting the "we're for the little guy" claims of the Dems.

April 21, 2010    Permalink

MORE BLUNDERING – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  After a week in which a leaked memo revealed that the secretary of defense had warned the president about the weakness of our Iran policy, and another leaked memo warned that Iran could have a missile capable of reaching the U.S. by 2015, how does the U.S. Government respond?  Why, show a little kindness:

SINGAPORE (AP) -- The U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons, a top U.S. defense department official said Wednesday.

''Military force is an option of last resort,'' Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during a press briefing in Singapore. ''It's off the table in the near term.''

Did she have to say "off the table"?  Did she have to signal, once again, that the Obamans are putting no serious pressure on the Iranians?  You know, a little strategic ambiguity wouldn't hurt here.  Instead, every discussion on Iran seems to end with the ghost of Neville Chamberlain showing up and doing his number, complete with choreography.

The U.S. and its allies fear Tehran is using its nuclear program to build arms. Iran denies the charges, and says its program only aims to generate electricity.

''Right now the focus is a combination of engagement and pressure in the form of sanctions,'' Flournoy said. ''We have not seen Iran engage productively in response.''

Iran has rejected a 2009 U.N.-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods to Tehran in exchange for Iran's stock of lower-level enriched uranium. The swap would curb Tehran's capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

COMMENT:  Terms like "off the table" should never be used.  I know, I know – she was only talking about "any time soon," but the message conveyed to Tehran is one of weakness and drift, reinforcing the image of our policy that already exists.

Many reporters have said that the Obama administration is privately reconciled to an Iranian bomb, hoping deterrence will save us.  That would be consistent with the kind of thinking this crowd does, if "thinking" is not too strong a word.   

I'm not sure I want to put our future in the hands of the Iranian mullahs, but some on the left seem to think it's a fine idea.

April 21, 2010    Permalink

TIMING IS EVERYTHING – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  The administration is pushing a financial-reform bill, and, poof, we're suddenly told that Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs is being charged with fraud. 

There'll be a major Senate race in Florida this year, and, poof, we're suddenly told that...  The Politico explains:

The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times report this evening that federal authorities -- the IRS, FBI, and U.S. Attorney -- are probing the use of party credit cards by Republican Party officials including former Chairman Jim Greer, and by Marco Rubio, who's now the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for Senate:

[T]he IRS is also looking at the tax records of at least three former party credit card holders — former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, ex-state party chairman Jim Greer and ex-party executive director Delmar Johnson — to determine whether they misused their party credit cards for personal expenses, according to a source familiar with the preliminary inquiry.

Political parties, which are tax exempt, are allowed to spend money only on political activities, such as fundraising, running campaigns and registering voters. While it's commonplace for party officials and politicians to wine and dine donors, the Florida party allowed credit cardholders to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges with little oversight.

The IRS opened the so-called "primary'' investigation into Rubio, the leading Republican candidate for Florida's open U.S. Senate seat, and the two state GOP ex-officials to see if there's enough evidence to support a full-fledged criminal probe, according to a source familiar with the IRS examination.

Rubio campaign advisor Todd Harris said Tuesday that the former lawmaker from Miami has not been contacted by any federal investigators.

"There is absolutely nothing to this,'' he said. "Anyone who is looking into it or investigating will quickly come to the same conclusion.''

COMMENT:  It's entirely fitting and proper that they should do this – except that the timing has an aroma about it.  The Democratic political operation in Washington would like nothing better than to knock off Marco Rubio, a rising Republican star, and a Hispanic.  Think national ticket, v.p. slot, 2012 or 2016. 

Polls show that Rubio has the GOP Senate nomination locked up, and will be an easy winner in November if Governor Charlie Crist doesn't run as an independent.  But if Crist runs, and Rubio is damaged by a federal probe, it's possible for weak Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek to slip through.

Just speculating, just speculating. 

April 21, 2010     Permalink

ADVENTURES IN DOING GOOD – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Just thought that those of you who contributed to the UN fund for Haiti might like to know where the money goes.  From Fox:

The United Nations has quietly upped this year's peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.

The world organization plans to spend the money on an expanded force of some 12,675 soldiers and police, plus some 479 international staffers, 669 international contract personnel, and 1,300 local workers, just for the 12 months ending June 30, 2010.

Some $495.8 million goes for salaries, benefits, hazard pay, mandatory R&R allowances and upkeep for the peacekeepers and their international staff support. Only about $33.9 million, or 4.6 percent, of that salary total is going to what the U.N. calls "national staff" attached to the peacekeeping effort.

Presumably, the budget also includes at least part of some $10 million that the U.N. has spent on renting two passenger vessels, the Sea Voyager (known to some U.N. staffers as the "Love Boat") and the Ola Esmeralda, for a minimum of 90 days each, as highly subsidized housing for some of its peacekeepers and humanitarian staff. The tab for the two vessels, which offer catered food, linen service and comfortable staterooms and lounges, is about $112,500 per day.

COMMENT:  And the people of Haiti?  Well, just keep them poor and dependent.  It's the socialist thing to do, dearies. 

Eric Hoffer once said that all causes eventually become businesses, and then rackets.  Hoffer was a smart guy.

April 21, 2010    Permalink