In putting the Obama "Birther" story behind him, Donald Trump said this: "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it."
Almost immediately members of the press and supporters of Mrs. Clinton came to her defense by saying that her campaign had nothing to do with the birther story. And, for sure, there is no direct evidence that it had.
However, there seems to be a strong connection to Hillary through someone called Sydney Blumenthal; a long time, close friend of both Hillary and Bill Clinton's, who was also known to play the roll of hatchet-man for them. This was especially true during the 2008 primary race between Clinton and Obama. So much so, that Obama banned Hillary from bringing Blumenthal on board when she was appointed Secretary of State.
Just recently, following Trump's comment, McClatchy papers decided to set the record straight on who started the birther movement. And, guess what? The pitch that Obama was not born in the U.S.A., was started by a volunteer to the Clinton campaign in Iowa and who was subsequently fired, and by none-other than close friend of the Clinton's, Sydney Blumenthal. What a coincidence on the latter.
I'm quite sure that neither Hillary nor Sydney would admit working together on this, but there sure seems to be a bit of "smoke" there. Something that always seems to follow Hillary Clinton around.
References:
No, Hillary Clinton did not start the 'birther' movement: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/16/no-hillary-clinton-did-not-start-birther-movement/90500762/
2 Clinton supporters in ’08 reportedly shared Obama ‘birther’ story: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html
Why Blumenthal Was Banned: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418670/why-blumenthal-was-banned-rich-lowry
NYT: Banned from State Dep’t, Clinton Foundation crony advised Hillary on Libya anyway — while pursuing business there: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/18/nyt-banned-from-state-dept-clinton-foundation-crony-advised-hillary-on-libya-while-trying-to-drum-up-business-there/
Who Is Sidney Blumenthal? - WSJ: https://www.google.com/search?q=Who+Is+Sidney+Blumenthal%3F+-+WSJ&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Monday, September 19, 2016
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Why Obama Won't Be Impeached and Why He Could Be
Normally, Democrats are totally dismissive of everything Sarah Palin says or stands for. After all, she's one of those wacko Tea Party people and a former losing V.P. candidate of John McCain's. So, it was interesting that, all of a sudden, the Democrats and the White House are taking her seriously when she said Obama should be impeached. The only reason that her words have resonated with Democrats is because they think that her they can be used as a campaign and fund raising tool. As a result, there is a concerted effort to convince America that Palin, is somehow, speaking for all Republicans. What better way to get Democrats out to vote in the fall, or to stimulate fund raising to defeat the Republicans in November, than to make them think Republicans are poised to impeach their beloved President?
Of course, all this talk is just that: Talk. There is no way that the Republicans are going to put themselves on record as attempting to impeach the country's first Black President. That is the very reason that Boehner is trying to sue the President instead. Further, America doesn't want Obama impeached. A recent poll by ORC/CNN revealed that only about a third of those questioned believe he should be impeached. Not anywhere close to a majority. This is despite the fact that 45% thought this he has exceeded his powers. But again, most said, not enough for that extreme action.
What could result in this President's impeachment is if Democrats start calling for it. Only then should Republicans even think about proceeding. This could happen "if" there is a substantial loss for the Democrats in the Fall and "if" they, in general, believe that Obama could seriously hurt them or their next Presidential candidate in 2016. But, these "if's" have about as much of a chance of happening as lighting striking thrice; not just twice.
References:
Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/08/Exclusive-Sarah-Palin-Time-to-Impeach-President-Obama
Poll: One-third Say Obama Should Be Impeached: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-impeach-obama-support-33-percent-109369.html
Dems pump up impeachment talk in appeal for support, campaign bucks: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/28/dems-pump-up-impeachment-talk-in-appeal-for-support-campaign-bucks/
Of course, all this talk is just that: Talk. There is no way that the Republicans are going to put themselves on record as attempting to impeach the country's first Black President. That is the very reason that Boehner is trying to sue the President instead. Further, America doesn't want Obama impeached. A recent poll by ORC/CNN revealed that only about a third of those questioned believe he should be impeached. Not anywhere close to a majority. This is despite the fact that 45% thought this he has exceeded his powers. But again, most said, not enough for that extreme action.
What could result in this President's impeachment is if Democrats start calling for it. Only then should Republicans even think about proceeding. This could happen "if" there is a substantial loss for the Democrats in the Fall and "if" they, in general, believe that Obama could seriously hurt them or their next Presidential candidate in 2016. But, these "if's" have about as much of a chance of happening as lighting striking thrice; not just twice.
References:
Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/08/Exclusive-Sarah-Palin-Time-to-Impeach-President-Obama
Poll: One-third Say Obama Should Be Impeached: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-impeach-obama-support-33-percent-109369.html
Dems pump up impeachment talk in appeal for support, campaign bucks: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/28/dems-pump-up-impeachment-talk-in-appeal-for-support-campaign-bucks/
Monday, July 28, 2014
Billions In Taxes Lost as U.S. Corporations Park Money or Leave The U.S.
There is a little reported fact that a number of large U.S. companies are leaving the U.S. to be headquartered in other, more tax-favorable countries. The trend is increasing with 5 major companies announcing their plans to relocate in just this year so far: Chiquita, Abbvie, Medtronic, Walgreens and Mylan.
The mechanism by which they are doing this is called corporate inversion; whereby, a foreign company, with as little as 20% ownership in a U.S. company, is allowed to relocate that U.S. company's headquarters to their country of origin.
In doing so, the U.S. company being relocated would no longer be subject to the U.S.'s 35% corporate tax on all it's corporate profits, both foreign and domestic; and, the highest among all industrialized countries. Further, redomiciled companies could then avoid the absolutely stupid U.S. tax policy of double taxing any foreign profits returned to the U.S. -- after foreign taxes had already been paid on those same profits. We are are the only major industrialized country that does this, and, this stupidity has resulted in nearly $2 trillion of accumulated profits just sitting overseas with that money not benefiting us one iota. Money, that could very well have been brought back to this country to expand manufacturing facilities and create jobs. Or, to lower prices. Then, too, to simply retire corporate debt; which, in turn, would take away a major tax deduction that corporations use every day to lower their overall taxable profits. Or, money that could be paid out as a dividend and thus injecting it into the economy without one taxpayer dollar being involved.
Now, the Obama Administration doesn't like corporate inversion. They refer to it as a lack of "economic patriotism"; as if corporations, and all of us, only exist patriotically to pay taxes to the U.S. government. In this country, only half of the population pays any taxes. Are those who don't pay taxes, also, economically unpatriotic?
The simple fact is that our current tax laws are driving companies offshore; and, talk by Obama to kill any remaining corporate tax benefits -- which he calls loopholes -- is only going to aggravate the situation. That is probably why the trend of inversion has accelerated under Obama. And, what is Obama's solution to the problem and a potential 10 year loss of $20 billion in taxes? Certainly not to fix the corporate tax laws. Instead, he wants Congress to act immediately to raise the inversion ownership requirement by overseas companies from 20% to 50%. This, too, is stupid. Remember that $2 trillion parked out there? Well, a smart U.S. corporation could just have a foreign buyer take on more debt to satisfy the 50% ownership requirement. Once, the deal is done, that excess debt could be retired with the money that is sitting offshore and the total combined company would still be better off than remaining domiciled in the U.S. and paying high taxes.
Right now, Obama is using corporate inversion as another campaign tool by demonizing those companies who are moving out of this country. Calling them deserters and unpatriotic. He knows that, if the Republicans don't act by the Fall elections to raise the inversion ownership requirement to 50%, he can use that fact to hammer the GOP for being too "in bed" with big business. That's exactly what he did in Los Angeles last week in another one of his campaign style rallies at a technical training school. Of course, he also knows that there isn't enough Congressional session time to bring the "50%" rule to passage; given their current preoccupation with all the other crises that keep occurring under Obama's stewardship. Crises that he seems to have no time for while he's out campaigning against corporate inversion.
References:
Corporate Inversion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_inversion
Jack Lew pushes Congress to crack down on tax ‘inversions’: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101840373
US could lose $20B from corporate tax inversions: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838177
U.S. Firms Move Abroad to Cut Taxes: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444230504577615232602107536
GE, Pfizer, Microsoft, Apple And Other Major US Corporations Are Parking More Cash Abroad To Avoid Paying Taxes: http://www.ibtimes.com/ge-pfizer-microsoft-apple-other-major-us-corporations-are-parking-more-cash-abroad-avoid-paying
Cash Abroad Rises by $206 Billion as Apple to IBM Avoid Tax: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/cash-abroad-rises-206-billion-as-apple-to-ibm-avoid-tax.html
Los Angeles Rally: Obama seizes on 'corporate deserters' of U.S.: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-corporate-deserters-taxes-109357.html
The mechanism by which they are doing this is called corporate inversion; whereby, a foreign company, with as little as 20% ownership in a U.S. company, is allowed to relocate that U.S. company's headquarters to their country of origin.
In doing so, the U.S. company being relocated would no longer be subject to the U.S.'s 35% corporate tax on all it's corporate profits, both foreign and domestic; and, the highest among all industrialized countries. Further, redomiciled companies could then avoid the absolutely stupid U.S. tax policy of double taxing any foreign profits returned to the U.S. -- after foreign taxes had already been paid on those same profits. We are are the only major industrialized country that does this, and, this stupidity has resulted in nearly $2 trillion of accumulated profits just sitting overseas with that money not benefiting us one iota. Money, that could very well have been brought back to this country to expand manufacturing facilities and create jobs. Or, to lower prices. Then, too, to simply retire corporate debt; which, in turn, would take away a major tax deduction that corporations use every day to lower their overall taxable profits. Or, money that could be paid out as a dividend and thus injecting it into the economy without one taxpayer dollar being involved.
Now, the Obama Administration doesn't like corporate inversion. They refer to it as a lack of "economic patriotism"; as if corporations, and all of us, only exist patriotically to pay taxes to the U.S. government. In this country, only half of the population pays any taxes. Are those who don't pay taxes, also, economically unpatriotic?
The simple fact is that our current tax laws are driving companies offshore; and, talk by Obama to kill any remaining corporate tax benefits -- which he calls loopholes -- is only going to aggravate the situation. That is probably why the trend of inversion has accelerated under Obama. And, what is Obama's solution to the problem and a potential 10 year loss of $20 billion in taxes? Certainly not to fix the corporate tax laws. Instead, he wants Congress to act immediately to raise the inversion ownership requirement by overseas companies from 20% to 50%. This, too, is stupid. Remember that $2 trillion parked out there? Well, a smart U.S. corporation could just have a foreign buyer take on more debt to satisfy the 50% ownership requirement. Once, the deal is done, that excess debt could be retired with the money that is sitting offshore and the total combined company would still be better off than remaining domiciled in the U.S. and paying high taxes.
Right now, Obama is using corporate inversion as another campaign tool by demonizing those companies who are moving out of this country. Calling them deserters and unpatriotic. He knows that, if the Republicans don't act by the Fall elections to raise the inversion ownership requirement to 50%, he can use that fact to hammer the GOP for being too "in bed" with big business. That's exactly what he did in Los Angeles last week in another one of his campaign style rallies at a technical training school. Of course, he also knows that there isn't enough Congressional session time to bring the "50%" rule to passage; given their current preoccupation with all the other crises that keep occurring under Obama's stewardship. Crises that he seems to have no time for while he's out campaigning against corporate inversion.
References:
Corporate Inversion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_inversion
Jack Lew pushes Congress to crack down on tax ‘inversions’: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101840373
US could lose $20B from corporate tax inversions: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838177
U.S. Firms Move Abroad to Cut Taxes: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444230504577615232602107536
GE, Pfizer, Microsoft, Apple And Other Major US Corporations Are Parking More Cash Abroad To Avoid Paying Taxes: http://www.ibtimes.com/ge-pfizer-microsoft-apple-other-major-us-corporations-are-parking-more-cash-abroad-avoid-paying
Cash Abroad Rises by $206 Billion as Apple to IBM Avoid Tax: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/cash-abroad-rises-206-billion-as-apple-to-ibm-avoid-tax.html
Los Angeles Rally: Obama seizes on 'corporate deserters' of U.S.: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-corporate-deserters-taxes-109357.html
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Did Government Buying Boost GM's Sales To Make Obama Look Good?
Last quarter, General Motors (GM) sales were reported being up by a whopping 16%; making Obama's "masterminding" of the GM bailout look like a miraculous turnaround for a company that had almost gone belly up. And, of course, Obama has taken every opportunity to promote GM's success story as his own; while on the campaign trail. In fact, last week's three-day bus tour through Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania was dedicated to doing just that.
But, if you drill down into that 16% increase in sales, you would find that the federal government's fleet purchases of GM autos actually rose by an extraordinary 79% in June; just days before the second quarter sales numbers would be tallied. How convenient that was for his bus tour and for this supposedly "most transparent" president in the history of the United States!
Fleet Sales data source: http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/07/05/gm%E2%80%99s-government-sales-and-truck-inventory-rise
Bus tour story: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120705/AUTO01/207050337/1121/auto01/Obama-bus-tour-to-tout-car-sales
But, if you drill down into that 16% increase in sales, you would find that the federal government's fleet purchases of GM autos actually rose by an extraordinary 79% in June; just days before the second quarter sales numbers would be tallied. How convenient that was for his bus tour and for this supposedly "most transparent" president in the history of the United States!
Fleet Sales data source: http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/07/05/gm%E2%80%99s-government-sales-and-truck-inventory-rise
Bus tour story: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120705/AUTO01/207050337/1121/auto01/Obama-bus-tour-to-tout-car-sales
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
