Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AN IRISH-BORN reporter interrupted US President Barack Obama as he gave a speech on his administration’s changes to immigration policy at the White House today.
Neil Munro from the Daily Caller, a former UCD student, interrupted Obama during a speech in which he outlined his administration’s change of policy which would allow children of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation.
According to Politico, Munro shouted at Obama during his speech in the White House Rose Garden: ”Why’d you favour foreigners over Americans?”
Obama responded that it was “not time for questions” before Munro asked: “Are you going to take questions?”
“Not while I’m speaking.” Obama responded before later addressing Munro’s earlier question when he had finished his prepared remarks:
In answer to your question, sir — and the next time I’d prefer you’d let me finish my statement before you ask that question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people.
After he walked away from the podium, according to NPR, Munro, with a distinct Irish accent, can be heard shouting: “What about American workers who are unemployed, while you employ foreigners?”
Watch:
YouTube: TalkRadioNews
In a statement issued later, Munro said he thought Obama had finished his remarks “because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States.”
“I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions,” he added.
On his Twitter profile, Munro describes himself as “Born Irish, then became a Cold War bridegroom”. His LinkedIn profile describes him as the White House correspondent for The Daily Caller.
It also states that he has a Bachelor of Arts in Politics, History and Economics from University College Dublin as well as an MA in Military History from King’s College in London.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Richard Boyd Barrett supports central planning, a Soviet style system of economic organization that impoverished countless millions, that is incompatible with democracy and economic prosperity. Why does Mr Barrett think that out of the millions of economists in the world, not even a handful agree with the ‘learned analysis’, of this secondary school left wing English teacher? It irrelevant to Mr Barrett that capitalism and private enterprise has improved the standard of living of the ordinary man more than anything else; its relevant to Mr Barrett that the most capitalistic country in Latin America is the most rich, has the lowest corruption level, has the highest GDP, highest real income per capita, lowest amount living below the poverty line, lowest infant mortality rate, etc its irrelevant to Mr Barrett that Hong kong and Singapore are among the richest countries in the world with higher incomes that Sweden, Germany, France, the Uk etc etc; its irrelevant to Mr Barrett that millions have been taken out of ineffably atrocious poverty in China with the implementation of free-market capitalistic reform, its irrelevant to Mr Barrett that the poor is capitalistic countries are wealthier than the average people in state socialist countries or that obesity is more of a problem among the poor in capitalistic countries than among the rich. Barrett doesn’t care that prices don’t allocate resources in a socialist economy, that they don’t reflect supply and demand, that they don’t reflect scarcity; Barrett doesn’t care that socialism kills incentives to innovate, and for economic growth, kills the right to set up a business, and creates endless waste and dead weight loss, monumental shortfalls in total surplus; in fact he doesn’t care about facts, or the truth, he knows what he likes and doesn’t want to hear anything else; don’t little little things like the evidence or truth get in the way of his endless inarticulate regurgitation of yesterdays fallacies of central planning, soviet nostrums, erroneous assumptions and emotion-laden invective. A backbench ranter with laughable views.
have your say