I laughed quite a bit watching this.
[guest post by Dana]
During a heated interview with President Obama, Fusion network anchor Jorge Ramos zeroed in on the president’s immigration flip-flop by contrasting how at one point in time, the president claimed he was unable to move alone on immigration (I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.) – and yet, did just that:
“If you, as you’re saying, always had the legal authority to stop deportations, then why did you deport 2 million people?” Ramos asked in an interview that aired Tuesday night.
“For six years you did it. You destroyed many families. They called you ‘deporter-in-chief,’ ” the TV host added, pulling no punches.
Ramos went on to point out that with the president’s executive action, 5 million illegal immigrants have been protected, but had he acted sooner, another 2 million could have also received protections and not faced deportations. If he has the power and ability to move on immigration now, he’s always had the power. The man has a point.
“That is not true,” Obama shot back.
“And those, like you sometimes, Jorge, who suggest there are simple quick answers to these problems, I think . . .”
“I never said that,” Ramos interrupted.
“Yes, you do. That’s how you present it,” Obama came back.
“When you present it in that way, it does a disservice because it makes the assumption that the political process is one that can easily be moved around depending on the will of one person, and that’s not how things work.”
Luckily for Jorge and 5 million illegal immigrants, the president got tired of waiting for Congress to act and the political process was ignored. Further, because of the will of one person, we see that this is indeed how things work.
On a side note, as of today 24 states are suing President Obama over immigration.
I see where she’s coming from. After all, it’s insensitive to those who believe that only black lives matter:
The president of prestigious Smith College is red-faced and apologetic Tuesday for telling students on the Northampton, Mass., campus that “all lives matter.”
Kathleen McCartney wrote the phrase in the subject line of an e-mail to students at the school, whose alumni include feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, former First Lady Nancy Reagan and celebrity chef Julia Child. McCartney was attempting to show support for students protesting racially charged grand jury decisions in which police in Missouri and New York were not charged in the deaths of unarmed black men.
Protesters have adopted several slogans in connection with the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, including “Black Lives Matter.” McCartney’s more inclusive version of the refrain was seen as an affront that diminished the focus on black lives and racism, according to emails obtained by FoxNews.com.
“We are united in our insistence that all lives matter,” read the e-mail,in which she made clear she was strongly behind the protests, writing that the grand jury decisions had “led to a shared fury… We gather in vigil, we raise our voices in protest.”
. . . .
In response to student backlash, McCartney apologized in another campus-wide email Friday, saying she had made a mistake “despite my best intentions.”
She should give a delay in final exams to any student too distraught by her inclusive words to study.
[guest post by Dana]
I wonder how much longer we will need to say, The story continues to fall apart as opposed to The story fell completely apart? Because after this damning article, it would seem we are just about there.
Jackie’s friends challenge the Rolling Stone story:
The scene with her friends was pivotal in the article, as it alleged that the friends were callously apathetic about a beaten, bloodied, injured classmate reporting a brutal gang rape at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. The account alleged that the students worried about the effect it might have on their social status, how it might reflect on Jackie during the rest of her collegiate career, and how they suggested not reporting it. It set up the article’s theme: That U-Va. has a culture that is indifferent to rape.
“It didn’t happen that way at all,” Andy said. . . .
They said there are mounting inconsistencies with the original narrative in the magazine. The students also expressed suspicions about Jackie’s allegations from that night. They said the name she provided as that of her date did not match anyone at the university, and U-Va. officials confirmed to The Post that no one by that name has attended the school.
And photographs that were texted to one of the friends showing her date that night actually were pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a junior at a university in another state, confirmed that the photographs are of him and said he barely knew Jackie and hasn’t been to Charlottesville for at least six years. . . . He said it appears the photos that were circulated were pulled from social media Web sites.
Last week, Jackie for the first time revealed a name of her alleged attacker to other friends who had known her more recently, those recent friends said. That name was different from the name she gave Andy, Cindy and Randall that first night. All three said that they had never heard the second name before it was given to them by a reporter.
On Friday, The Post interviewed a man whose name is similar to the second one Jackie used for her attacker. He said that while he did work as a lifeguard at the same time as Jackie, he had never met her in person and had never taken her out on a date. He also said that he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi.
The fraternity at the center of the Rolling Stone allegations has said that it did not host any registered social event on the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012, and it said in a statement that no members of Phi Kappa Psi at the time worked at the campus Aquatic and Fitness Center. A lawyer who has represented the fraternity said that no member of the fraternity at the time matched a description of “Drew” given by Jackie to The Post and to Rolling Stone.
Meanwhile, Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Jackie are not responding to media inquiries. Both have their attorneys speaking for them.
In spite of all this, Jackie’s friend explains what she hopes comes out of all of this:
“The main message we want to come out of all this is that sexual assault is a problem nationwide that we need to act in preventing. It has never been about one story. This is about the thousands of women and men who have been victims of sexual assault and have felt silenced not only by their perpetrators, but by society’s misunderstanding and stigmatization of rape.”
Three former CIA directors — George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden — as well as three Deputy CIA Directors, took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to dispute the Democrat-penned torture report released yesterday:
What is wrong with the committee’s report?
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it.
The current CIA Director is reversing his previous declarations of agnosticism on the subject to agree that torture provided critical information.
Who is telling the truth?