Do as I say not as I do, It should be Obama’s catch phrase.
ABC News Reporter Repeatedly Presses White House Deputy Press Secretary With This ‘Very Simple Question’
White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz was grilled Wednesday by a reporter who asked if President Barack Obama was being “hypocritical” for accepting money from those attempting to use a tactic to avoid U.S. tax laws — a practice the president has condemned.
“The good folks at Bloomberg had a story out today about a number of the president’s top donors being those who have profited from corporate inversions — the same kind the president has condemned,” ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jon Karl said. “So I’m wondering, just a very simple question: Is the president going to be asking Democrats to return money contributed, or seeking to return money contributed by some of these corporate inversion magnates?”
“No,” Schultz bluntly answered.
“Why not?” Karl asked. “I mean, these guys are profiting off of the very practice the president has condemned and wants to see stopped.”
Schultz responded saying the White House is “not privy to the details and have no role in any individual company’s plans,” but noted “what the president is focused on is stopping the problem.”
That wasn’t enough to quell Karl.
“But isn’t this hypocritical?” he asked. “I mean, essentially the president has profited himself — his political apparatus has profited by taking contributions from people that have made money doing exactly this.”
“I guess I would understand the skepticism more if we weren’t doing something to tackle the problem,” Schultz said. “But instead, we are going after any company that renounces its U.S. citizenship in order to pay less in taxes.”
“So why not renounce those donations?” Karl pressed.
“What we’re renouncing is the practice of using shifty accounting in order to avoid paying their fair share, and which subsequently passes on to middle-class families,” Schultz reiterated.
The American People will reclaim our Nation. Each month we get closer and closer.
Increased Clout behind Movement for Convention to Amend Constitution
The movement to amend the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states has a new ally in retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a long time fiscal hawk.
“I’m going to work on constitutional convention, a convention of the states because I don’t think Washington is going to fix itself,” Coburn told KWTV in Oklahoma City.
The movement has been pushed by constitutional lawyer and conservative talk radio host Mark Levin and has been embraced by numerous state legislators across the country, mostly Republicans.
Coburn said his primary goal would to advocate for a convention with three main goals: a balanced budget amendment, an amendment to limit the executive branch’s regulatory authority, and an amendment to put term limits on members of Congress, according to KRMG of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Coburn’s press office did not respond to TheBlaze’s request for comment Thursday.
Only state legislatures can make a convention of the states happen. But Coburn speaking up on behalf of the effort could help build public support.
Legislatures in 22 states have passed resolutions calling for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, while Vermont became the first to call for an amendment to limit spending and contributions in political campaigns.
Lawmakers from 30 states met in Indianapolis in June to discuss a convention about an Article V convention.
So far, all 27 amendments to the Constitution were passed by Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. But the Constitution also allows for a convention of states to be convened if two-thirds of the states –34 – call for one. If a convention approves an amendment, three-fourths of the states – 38 – must vote to ratify it.
Coburn, whose office routinely issued reports about government waste, also told KRMG that he wanted to help educate young Americans about government waste and fraud.
“They’re clueless as to what’s going on, and they’re the ones that are going to suffer the consequences,” he said.
Obama Reportedly Blocks Israel Missile ShipmentUS administration officials stop missile transfer, order all future transfers to be scrutinized in sign of further cooling ties.
President Barack ObamaReuters
A new report reveals that US President Barack Obama’s administration stopped a shipment of missiles to Israel late last month and tightened weapons shipment procedures to Israel, as tensions between the two nations grow amid Operation Protective Edge.
The report in the Wall Street Journal, released Wednesday night, cites US officials in Obama’s administration, who say they discovered Israel had requested a large number of Hellfire missiles directly through military-to-military channels. An initial batch of the missiles was about to be shipped, according to sources in Israel and the US Congress.
At that point, the Pentagon stepped in and put the transfer on hold. Further, top White House officials instructed various US military agencies to consult with the US State Department before approving any additional requests from Israel.
A senior Obama administration official was quoted in the report as saying the transfer shouldn’t have been a routine “check-the-box approval,” given Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza against Hamas, which is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US.
The decision to clamp down on future transfers was the equivalent of “the United States saying ‘the buck stops here. Wait a second…It’s not OK anymore,’” said the official.
A Israeli defense official confirmed the reports to Walla! on Thursday, saying “the US delayed a shipment of Hellfire missiles to the Israeli airforce.” He added “apparently it was (done) on the background of national tension” with Israel.
Quite simple stuff really – I wonder should we tell Nick Clegg?
UK had A goods trade deficit of £5.6bn in June with EU, £2.3bn with Germany alone.
They need us more than we need them. Of course we should all trade together but let’s just get the basic financial facts right. They CANNOT afford to leave us!
When I write of my own personal dislike of transplant techniques, and organ donations etc. I am often accused of being heartless, of lacking in human decency, along with all the other turgid attempts to insult me. But I don’t care at all, and I am not at all bothered by the verbal diarrhoea flung in my general direction, mainly because I know I am in the right. I know. for example, of the huge pressures placed on relatives of the dying, the intolerable pressure of hearing, again and again ‘without this organ, or that body part, this young man/young woman may die, or live for only a short time’, all the time placing agonising choices on the families of those whose lives have been cut short for whatever reason; to allow the transplant vultures to ‘Harvest’ the selected organs or tissue, because that is the term which is used, because the only type of organ which is suitable for transplant is from another’s living body!
When I was a young man, my 16 year-old sister died of a terrible disease named Leukaemia, or blood cancer. From being a vibrant teenager, she collapsed into a pale shadow of herself, and died within months of her diagnosis. Some twenty years later, a technique was developed, after long research, to implant bone marrow from a matching donor, which would virtually remove leukaemia from the list of killer diseases. With this process, I have no problems, apart from the fact that the process can be extremely painful for the donor; but, and it is a large but, the donor eventually gets up and walks away.
Which is why I write that this procedure should have been prevented, the donor was too young to give his approval, because he was only ten months old!