Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Pennsylvania college group wants pins to start conversation on 'white privilege'
College students wear pins to identify white privilege |
Elizabethtown College Democrats are asking students to wear a white puzzle piece pin every day to encourage people to give further thought about how racial identity affects their lives, Lancaster Online reported.
Aileen Ida, president of the College Democrats, told Local 21 News that she noticed a Wisconsin pastor wearing the pin and wanted to help spread the message.
She said the conversation on white privilege is necessary in central Pennsylvania because of the demographics. According to the latest census, Lancaster County is 83 percent white, 10 percent Hispanic, 4 percent black and 2 percent Asian.
Ida said she’s excited to see how the project could spark a discussion about racial identity.
“This project will encourage people to have conversations about race and how their inherent white privilege has a part in the systematic oppression of minorities — whether or not they purposefully participate in the system,” she told Lancaster Online.
Sawa Alabsi, a student at the school, told local media that she is concerned her classmates would join the campaign to simply fit in.
“I feel like a lot of people don’t necessarily know or do any research into certain issues,” she said. “And they’re kind of like, ‘Oh, my friends have this side, so I’m going to pick that side.’”
Ida hopes prospective participants can commit to wearing the pin for at least one month.
Her fellow students supported the idea in conversations with Local 21 News. One student told the station that he would wear a pin if it was given to him.
"Elizabethtown is a majority white campus, so I think white Privilege is a great place to start,” he said.
Ida said the idea wasn’t meant to call out white people, but remind students that racial identity is an important conversation to have. She hopes to have 100 people wearing the pin by Friday.
Paul reportedly leaves meeting with House Republicans on Obamacare
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Tuesday reportedly left a meeting with fellow Senate Republicans as House Speaker Paul Ryan worked to reassure skeptical colleagues about the next steps in taking on Obamacare.
Politico reported that Paul was unhappy with the meeting and the prospect of keeping health law’s Medicaid expansion. He called creating tax credits a “new entitlement program.”
“I hear things that are unacceptable to me,” Paul told the website. “If they don’t seem to care what conservatives think about complete repeal of Obamacare, they’re going to be shocked when they count the votes.”
Attendees reportedly said Ryan laid out a timeline that would start the repeal process by the end of February and pass it by the end of March.
President Trump, according to some in the party, has been fueling the confusion by not being specific about how he plans to take on the six-and-a-half-year-old Obamacare. He has said, during his candidacy that he would “repeal and replace” the law with “something far better.”
VIDEO: DEMOCRATS PLAN TO RALLY SUPPORT BEHIND OBAMACARE
Trump has been edging away from the promise to quickly eliminate the entire law. Still, annulling its taxes would be a partial victory and is irresistible for many GOP lawmakers and the conservative voters at the core of their support.
"We should do full repeal," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a leading House conservative. "And full repeal means not taking the taxes" from people.
Yet voiding those levies erases a mammoth war chest Republicans would love to have - and may well need - as they try replacing Obama's law. It's a major rift GOP leaders face as they try crafting a health care package that can pass Congress.
“Right now, I would say it’s not that easy to repeal it,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Politico. “I don’t know where the White House is. The president has said he’s not going to be kicking people off the program, off the rolls. He’s not going to do that.”
If the taxes are repealed and Republicans need money for their replacement plan, do they pay for it with higher federal deficits? Do they deeply cut Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income people, or carve savings from Medicare, which serves the elderly? Might they raise other taxes, something that's been anathema to the GOP for decades?
Paul came up with his own plan, which contains what he calls “conservative reforms.” His plan includes opening up the insurance market and allowing individuals to pool their insurance with others to secure the lowest premium.
“There’s not one item in the plan that we think a Republican would object to,” he told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
"There's going to be a temptation for policymakers to take the easy way out" and simply let deficits rise, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She said for Republicans promising for decades to improve the nation's fiscal health, that choice "is going to look hypocritical."
Media helped force out Flynn, but leakers' real target is Donald Trump
Kurtz: Why Flynn had to go |
It was close to midnight when I had to kill a column
I’d already filed for Fox News and write about the Michael Flynn
resignation.
The inescapable irony: The spiked column said that some positive stories for President Trump, such as his meetings with the leaders of Canada and Japan, were being drowned out by the controversies surrounding the White House—some self-inflicted, some overblown by the media.
The Flynn situation was another battle between the president and the press, and in this case the Washington Post story about the national security adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador made it impossible for Flynn to survive. Unlike some of the stories dismissed by Trump as fake news, this one could not be waved away—especially because Flynn had misled Mike Pence about what happened in those pre-inaugural conversations.
This was good reporting, and Pence’s televised defense of Flynn was based on an earlier piece by Post columnist David Ignatius, disclosing that Flynn had a post-Christmas call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
At the same time, the Post story would not have been possible without the cooperation of nine unnamed senior officials who furnished the leaked information. They wanted Flynn out and were trying to undermine the president.
Trump, who has also been hit by unflattering leaks about his calls with foreign leaders, seized on this issue. “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?” he tweeted. “Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?”
But it must be said that the leakers’ information was right on target. And that in the end Flynn’s problem was not so much discussing U.S. sanctions with Russia before Trump took office as misleading the VP, as Kellyanne Conway stressed on the morning shows yesterday.
The messaging has been decidedly mixed. Conway, based on the information she had, told MSNBC on Monday afternoon that the president had full confidence in Flynn. Hours later he resigned.
Conway insisted in her interviews on “Today,” “GMA” and “Fox & Friends” that it was the retired lieutenant general’s choice to resign. But when Sean Spicer briefed the press yesterday afternoon, he flatly said that Trump asked for Flynn’s resignation—meaning he fired him—after things reached critical mass.
The debacle doesn’t end the story, as often happens when a top official is forced out under a cloud.
The Post reported yesterday that Acting Attorney General Sally Yates warned the White House three weeks ago that Flynn was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail and that she believed he had misled administration officials about the calls. Yates is the Obama holdover later fired by Trump for refusing to defend his temporary travel ban.
That revelation raises the serious question of why the White House didn’t act sooner on that warning, well before any of this became public, and just what the president knew about these matters.
Now there’s media chatter about whether these events will lead to a broader White House shakeup.
And here’s a footnote: Michael G. Flynn, the former official’s son, drew attention last year for tweeting about various conspiracy theories, including the “Pizzagate” fiction tying Hillary Clinton to a supposed child sex ring at a Washington restaurant. It was Mike Pence who said that Flynn’s son had nothing to do with the Trump transition team. But that was wrong, and officials soon confirmed that Trump had fired the younger Flynn from the transition team over the tweets.
Flynn Jr. reactivated his account and tweeted yesterday: “The disinformation campaign against my father won.”
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
The inescapable irony: The spiked column said that some positive stories for President Trump, such as his meetings with the leaders of Canada and Japan, were being drowned out by the controversies surrounding the White House—some self-inflicted, some overblown by the media.
The Flynn situation was another battle between the president and the press, and in this case the Washington Post story about the national security adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador made it impossible for Flynn to survive. Unlike some of the stories dismissed by Trump as fake news, this one could not be waved away—especially because Flynn had misled Mike Pence about what happened in those pre-inaugural conversations.
This was good reporting, and Pence’s televised defense of Flynn was based on an earlier piece by Post columnist David Ignatius, disclosing that Flynn had a post-Christmas call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
At the same time, the Post story would not have been possible without the cooperation of nine unnamed senior officials who furnished the leaked information. They wanted Flynn out and were trying to undermine the president.
Trump, who has also been hit by unflattering leaks about his calls with foreign leaders, seized on this issue. “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?” he tweeted. “Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?”
But it must be said that the leakers’ information was right on target. And that in the end Flynn’s problem was not so much discussing U.S. sanctions with Russia before Trump took office as misleading the VP, as Kellyanne Conway stressed on the morning shows yesterday.
The messaging has been decidedly mixed. Conway, based on the information she had, told MSNBC on Monday afternoon that the president had full confidence in Flynn. Hours later he resigned.
Conway insisted in her interviews on “Today,” “GMA” and “Fox & Friends” that it was the retired lieutenant general’s choice to resign. But when Sean Spicer briefed the press yesterday afternoon, he flatly said that Trump asked for Flynn’s resignation—meaning he fired him—after things reached critical mass.
The debacle doesn’t end the story, as often happens when a top official is forced out under a cloud.
The Post reported yesterday that Acting Attorney General Sally Yates warned the White House three weeks ago that Flynn was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail and that she believed he had misled administration officials about the calls. Yates is the Obama holdover later fired by Trump for refusing to defend his temporary travel ban.
That revelation raises the serious question of why the White House didn’t act sooner on that warning, well before any of this became public, and just what the president knew about these matters.
Now there’s media chatter about whether these events will lead to a broader White House shakeup.
And here’s a footnote: Michael G. Flynn, the former official’s son, drew attention last year for tweeting about various conspiracy theories, including the “Pizzagate” fiction tying Hillary Clinton to a supposed child sex ring at a Washington restaurant. It was Mike Pence who said that Flynn’s son had nothing to do with the Trump transition team. But that was wrong, and officials soon confirmed that Trump had fired the younger Flynn from the transition team over the tweets.
Flynn Jr. reactivated his account and tweeted yesterday: “The disinformation campaign against my father won.”
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
Flynn was probed by FBI over calls with Russian ambassador, official says
Intel committee chairman asks FBI to review Flynn leak |
The interview with FBI agents reportedly came after a Jan. 23 press conference where White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that Flynn did not discuss the matter with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, said intelligence officials had already intercepted conversations in which they discussed the sanctions.
Flynn sought to persuade the Russian ambassador not to “overreact” to then-President Obama’s punitive measures against Moscow for the alleged meddling in the U.S. election, the sources said. Flynn reportedly suggested that the Trump administration would be friendlier to Moscow.
The Wall Street Journal reported that it is unclear what was discussed in the meeting with the FBI agents, but said that it is a crime to lie to the FBI.
“The [Senate] Intelligence Committee is already looking at Russian involvement in our election,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday. “It’s highly likely they’d want to take a look at this episode as well. They have the broad jurisdiction.”
Shortly before his resignation, Flynn told The Daily Caller his conversation with the ambassador “wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out… It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.’’
Law enforcement sources close to the matter told Fox News that the broad investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russian officials is active and ongoing. Senior law enforcement sources told Fox News last month that Flynn's contacts with the Russians escalated after the election.
Seperately, intercepted phone calls show that members of Trump’s presidential campaign had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials, The New York Times reported.
The report, citing unnamed sources, said intelligence officials intercepted these contacts around the same time they were looking into the Democratic National Committee. The officials said that they have yet to find any sort of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians into the hacking effort.
The Times report said that it was unclear what was discussed in the conversations. The intercepted calls are reportedly separate from Flynn’s phone calls.
Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign manager for a few months, was reportedly one of those who made a call that was intercepted. Manafort denied the allegation, saying “I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers."
The White House has denied the claims that any individuals from his campaign were in touch with Russian officials prior to the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
What's the role of government? To one award-winning academic, it's discrimination according to race. On February 9th, Mic...