Georgetown University

COMMENTARY

X

Story Stream

recent articles

The students of Georgetown University voted overwhelmingly Thursday to approve a mandatory student fee to pay reparations for the school’s participation in the slave trade almost two centuries ago.  As is typical for my alma mater, Georgetown reveals its real concern is not justice but rather virtue signaling, assuaging guilt, and promoting a showy agenda of “wokeness.”

Regarding the larger issue of reparations, Democratic presidential candidates trip over themselves to pretend this divisive and extremist idea can actually happen.  If our country had somehow never dealt with the injustice and inhumanity of slavery, then perhaps a reparations discussion would make sense, although the very concept of multi-generational debts is troubling on its face.

But in point of fact, our country already paid reparations mightily, waging a devastating war to end the evil of slavery.  The reparations were paid with the lives of well over 300,000 Union soldiers, men who died to reunite our nation and abolish human bondage on these shores.   In fact, the Civil War was so brutal that the total loss of life equates to over 7 million dead in today’s population terms.  Those radicals rude enough to demand additional reparations should visit Gettysburg National Cemetery, where over 3,500 Union soldiers lay for eternity, their young lives sacrificed for a great cause that led to the elimination of slavery in our land. Reparations were indeed paid, not just by those brave men but by the widows and orphans they left behind.

Aside from the national issue of reparations, what should be the particular response of Georgetown, whose founding priests owned slaves and sold off hundreds of them in 1838 to keep the then-fledgling academy afloat?  For starters, the university issued a sincere apology.  The school also instituted legacy status for descendants of Georgetown slaves applying for admissions, treating them, effectively, as the children of alumni. Both moves represent minor but still appropriate accommodations.     

But if the university believes it owes a financial debt, 181 years later, then it should be substantially more than the $400,000 per year the student fee will raise and it should be paid directly from the school’s endowment. Moreover, Georgetown occupies some of the most valuable real estate in America.  If you mean it, Georgetown, then hand over a healthy chunk of the campus.  Even better, how about also taxing the pay of the bloated and biased faculty?  Let’s really make it hurt, rather a token add-on paid by parents of students.  But Georgetown would rather take the easy road: virtue-signal and appear enlightened in a manner that requires no real sacrifice. 

In fact, the madness of this new proposal would require that a black exchange student from Africa now pay an effective fine to Americans as recompense for his own ancestors being trafficked here.  Further adding to the insanity, some of those American descendants of slaves may well be majority Caucasian today.  “Black guy from Ghana, pay the white kid from Louisiana because his great-great-great-great-grandfather was a slave owned by Georgetown priests.”     

If reparations for private institutions like Georgetown make sense, then the school should go well beyond symbolic gestures.  On a national scale, reparations represent madness and insult the commitment of this country that spilled rivers of blood to correct our national sin.

Politicians endorsing reparations also insult the intelligence of black voters, thinking they can pander to them with fanciful promises of a literal bribe.  Minority voters do not seek government generosity, but rather the conditions to succeed independently, which is why Americans of color increasingly rally to the Trump growth agenda.  That agenda will only accelerate over the next 5 ½ years because the president’s reelection prospects vault higher with his likely opponents all playing to the extremes on issues like reparations.

Steve Cortes is a contributor to RealClearPolitics and a CNN  political commentator. His Twitter handle is @CortesSteve.

Health workers carry a newly admitted confirmed Ebola patient into a treatment centre in Butembo in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo
FILE PHOTO: Health workers carry a newly admitted confirmed Ebola patient into a treatment centre in Butembo in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, March 28, 2019. REUTERS/Baz Ratner

April 12, 2019

By Stephanie Nebehay and Kate Kelland

GENEVA/LONDON (Reuters) – An outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that has killed more than 700 people and is continuing to spread does not constitute an international emergency, the World Health Organization said on Friday.

Declaring the epidemic a “public health emergency of international concern” would have signaled that greater resources and international coordination are needed.

The WHO’s independent Emergency Committee, which analyzed the latest data, said the disease was entrenched in several epicenters in the northeast and was being transmitted in health care settings.

It had not spread across borders to Uganda, Rwanda or South Sudan, but neighboring countries should shore up their preparedness, the experts said.

“It was an almost unanimous vote that this would not constitute a PHEIC (public health emergency of international concern) because we are moderately optimistic that this outbreak can be brought into control – not immediately, but still within a foreseeable time,” panel chairman Professor Robert Steffen told a news conference.

Dozens of new cases reported this week have been mainly in the epicenters of Butembe, Katwe and Vuhovi, said Mike Ryan, head of the WHO’s health emergencies program.

“It’s quite a focused amplification of disease in a very specific geographic area,” Ryan said.

“But the disease there has risen because of lack of access to that community, we’ve fallen behind in starting vaccination rings,” he said, referring to attacks on health centers by armed groups in February that cut-off hotspot areas.

“Vaccine is proving to be a highly effective way of stopping this virus but if we can’t vaccinate people we cannot protect them,” he added, noting that nearly 100,000 people have been vaccinated.

Experts have declared four emergencies in the past decade: the H1N1 virus that caused an influenza pandemic (2009), a major Ebola outbreak in West Africa (2014), polio (2014) and Zika virus (2016).

Some experts expressed concern that the Emergency Committee was too narrowly interpreting WHO guidelines.

“This is a deeply concerning event, due to the pathogen itself, the total number of cases, the increase in cases just this week, and the difficulty of coordinating the response due to conflict – that needs to receive the appropriate level of attention,” health experts Rebecca Katz and Alexandra Phelan of Georgetown University in Washington D.C. said in a statement.

The Ebola outbreak – by far the biggest Congo has seen, and the world’s second largest in history – was declared by national authorities in August. It is concentrated in Congo’s North Kivu and Ituri provinces.

It has already infected at least 1,206 people, of whom 764 have died – giving a death rate of 63 percent.

They include 20 new cases reported by the health ministry on Thursday, another one-day record after 18 on Wednesday. Two workers at the Butembo airport tested positive, it said.

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay and Kate Kelland Additional reporting by Aaron Ross in Dakar; Editing by Hugh Lawson and Frances Kerry)

Source: OANN

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is quieting critics who questioned whether he could recapture the energy of his upstart 2016 campaign, surpassing his rivals in early fundraising and establishing himself as an indisputable front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination.

Less than two months into his second White House bid , no other declared candidate in the crowded Democratic field currently has amassed so many advantages: a $28 million war chest, a loyal and enthusiastic voter base and a set of clearly defined policy objectives.

That puts Sanders on markedly different footing than during his first White House run, creating new challenges for a candidate whose supporters relish his role as an underdog and an outsider. He now carries the weight of high expectations and will face heightened scrutiny over everything from the cost and feasibility of his government-funded policy proposals to his tax returns, which he has not yet released. He initially blamed “mechanical issues” for the delay, and his campaign now says he wants to wait until after the April 15 tax filing deadline to fulfill his promise to release a decade worth of returns .

Sanders has largely embraced his new front-runner status. More than any other candidate, he draws explicit comparisons with President Donald Trump in his campaign remarks, previewing his approach to a general election faceoff with the incumbent Republican. Behind the scenes, Sanders is also building out a larger, more diverse campaign operation, responding to criticism that his 2016 organization skewed too heavily white and male. Campaign officials say the 2020 campaign staff — roughly 100 people and growing — is majority female and 40 percent people of color.

Still, Sanders’ message and style hasn’t changed from 2016, when he stunned many Democrats by mounting a formidable challenge to Hillary Clinton and besting her in more than 20 primary contests.

After briefly acquiescing to his advisers’ suggestions that he reveal more about his upbringing and personal history, Sanders has returned to his comfort zone: delivering lengthy campaign speeches chockablock with the same policy prescriptions he campaigned on during the 2016 campaign. In Davenport, Iowa, on Friday night, Sanders spent 63 minutes outlining his views on health care, criminal justice reform and economic inequality.

“With your help, we are going to complete what we started here,” Sanders told the 1,200-person crowd, referring to his virtual tie with Clinton in the 2016 Iowa caucuses.

Sanders’ approach underscores his belief that his success in 2016 was not a fluke or simply a function of being the next best alternative to Clinton. His advisers argue the populist economic message Sanders has espoused for years, often in obscurity, has now been embraced not only by a slew of his Democratic rivals, but also Trump.

“Donald Trump campaigned on economic terms as faux Bernie Sanders. It was taking his language and selling it to the American people,” said Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager. “And now how do you defeat faux Bernie Sanders? You defeat him with real Bernie Sanders.”

Sanders owes some of his fast start to the fact that he never really stopped running for president after the 2016 campaign. Our Revolution, the political group Sanders launched after the campaign, has collected information on voters and held events in early voting states since the last election. Sanders was also active in the 2018 midterms, throwing his support behind progressive Democratic candidates across the country, though many were defeated.

“He spent 2018 lifting up progressives all over the country,” said Rebecca Katz, a progressive Democratic consultant. “Even though many of them did not win, it was appreciated, it was movement building and it was a different calculation than most politicians make.”

Despite his strong launch, Sanders’ current standing atop the Democratic field is not entirely enviable. Presidential primaries are long and turbulent, and past elections underscore how many early front-runners have been tossed aside before the first votes are cast. Former Vice President Joe Biden has signaled his expected presidential campaign would serve as a centrist check on Sanders’ brand of progressive politics.

And though Sanders’ $18 million first-quarter fundraising haul far outpaced the rest of the Democratic field, some rival campaigns breathed a sigh of relief, having anticipated the Vermont senator would clear $20 million or more.

“He did very well. He could have done better,” said Mo Elleithee, who advised Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and now runs the Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service.

Sanders also still has to prove that he can overcome some of the same vulnerabilities that contributed to his defeat in 2016.

Chief among them will be bolstering his standing with black voters, one of the most important constituencies in Democratic politics. Black voters overwhelmingly sided with Clinton in 2016, halting Sanders’ momentum when the contest moved into more diverse states. He lost the South Carolina primary by a staggering 48 points.

Some of Sanders’ top advisers dismiss the notion that he’ll face similar problems in 2020, noting that he has spent time building relationships with black leaders in South Carolina and other Southern states. He’s also sharpened his campaign message on criminal justice issues and racial inequality.

“I understand that a lot of people took a lot of things out of the South Carolina results,” Shakir said. “We are going to continue to court and address these issues directly, but we are operating with a great deal of confidence that this is going to be a particular demographic that supports Bernie Sanders at the end of the day.”

Perhaps Sanders’ biggest challenge is overcoming skepticism among voters who may be partial to his focus on economic inequality but fear that nominating a 77-year-old self-described democratic socialist would put Democrats in a weak position against Trump in the general election.

“That’s a thing that scares me about him,” said Gwen Hobson, a 70-year-old Democratic voter, who attended Sanders’ rally on Friday in Davenport.

Yet some of Sanders’ longtime supporters say their enthusiasm for him is unshakable. In Davenport on Friday, several voters donned faded t-shirts from Sanders’ 2016 campaign. Melita Tunnicliff, 57, wore a button she bought during that campaign with Sanders’ photo and the phrase “Not For Sale.”

Asked if she was open to other Democratic candidates this time around, Tunnicliff shook her head no.

Source: NewsMax Politics

Opponents of the long-stalled Keystone XL oil pipeline asked a federal court Friday in a lawsuit to declare President Donald Trump acted illegally when he issued a new permit for the project in a bid to get around an earlier court ruling.

In November, U.S. District Judge Brian Morris ruled that the Trump administration did not fully consider potential oil spills and other impacts when it approved the pipeline in 2017.

Trump’s new permit, issued last week, is intended to circumvent that ruling and kick-start the proposal to ship crude oil from the tar sands of western Canada to U.S. refineries.

White House officials have said the presidential permit is immune from court review. But legal experts say that’s an open question, and the case could further test the limits of Trump’s use of presidential power to get his way.

Unlike previous orders from Trump involving immigration and other matters, his action on Keystone XL came after a court already had weighed in and blocked the administration’s plans.

“This is somewhat dumbfounding, the idea that a president would claim he can just say, ‘Never mind, I unilaterally call a do-over,'” said William Buzbee, a constitutional scholar and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

The pipeline proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada has become a flashpoint in the debate over fossil fuel use and climate change.

Opponents say burning crude from the tar sands of Western Canada would make climate change worse. The $8 billion project’s supporters say it would create thousands of jobs and could be operated safely.

The line would carry up to 830,000 barrels (35 million gallons) of crude daily along a 1,184-mile (1,900-kilometer) path from Canada to Nebraska.

Stephan Volker, an attorney for the environmental groups that filed Friday’s lawsuit, said Trump was trying to “evade the rule of law” with the new permit.

“We have confidence that the federal courts_long the protectors of our civil liberties_will once again rise to the challenge and enforce the Constitution and the laws of this land,” Volker said.

The White House said in a statement that under the new order, federal officials still would conduct environmental reviews of the project.

However, officials said those would be carried out by agencies other than the State Department, which under Morris’ November order would have been forced to conduct another extensive study that could have taken months to complete.

TransCanada spokesman Matthew John said the administration’s action “clearly demonstrates to the courts that the permit is (the) product of presidential decision-making and should not be subject to additional environmental review.”

Friday’s lawsuit was filed in Morris’ court, meaning he’s likely to get the first opportunity at addressing the legality of Trump’s new order. Judges typically do not respond favorably to perceived end runs around their decisions, said Carl Tobias with the University of Richmond law school.

Another legal expert, Kathryn Watts at the University of Washington, said it’s unclear where the case will lead. Trump’s permit wades into “uncharted, unsettled” legal territory, she said.

The pipeline’s route passes through the ancestral homelands of the Rosebud Sioux in central South Dakota and the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes in Montana.

Earlier this week, a court granted the tribes’ request to intervene in an appeal of Morris’ November ruling that was filed by TransCanada. That case is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tribal officials contend a spill from the line could damage a South Dakota water supply system that serves more than 51,000 people including on the Rosebud, Pine Ridge and Lower Brule Indian Reservations.

An existing TransCanada pipeline, also called Keystone, suffered a 2017 spill that released almost 10,000 barrels (407,000 gallons) of oil near Amherst, South Dakota.

Source: NewsMax Politics

Which seems more likely, that there was nothing at Harvard for the “Varsity Blues” investigators to find OR that the Harvard alums who are known to dominate the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston chose not to look there?

After all, the same list of schools has been repeated ad nauseam on the airwaves ever since news of the scandal broke: USC, UCLA, Yale, Wake Forest, Stanford, Georgetown University of San Diego, and the University of Texas at Austin. However, Harvard, which is arguably the most competitive and hardest university in the nation to get into, has been conspicuously absent without so much as an obviously-forged note bearing a lame excuse as to why.

When pondering this odd phenomenon, it might be worth remembering that in 2017-2018 a pair of stories surfaced about potential favoritism sparing Harvard from the DOJ’s wrath.

First, over at WND this reporter picked up on an ongoing drama where an anesthesiologist named Dr. Lisa Wollman at Harvard’s largest teaching hospital, Massachusetts General, blew the whistle on alleged “double booking” by orthopedic surgeons, who are said to have scheduled multiple surgeries at overlapping times and to have left trainees to close surgical incisions, unbeknownst to patients, while billing the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs full price for both operations. The scandal reportedly affected former Red Sox pitcher Bobby Jenks, who had surgery at Mass. General prior to ending his major-league career. The Boston U.S. attorney’s office had about 2 years to join Wollman’s suit on behalf of federal taxpayers, but multiple heads of that office, each with strong ties to Harvard, declined to do so.

Later, a newly-hired member of the Trump DOJ apparently uncovered that federal prosecutors had been leery of pressing a civil rights suit against Harvard regarding alleged discrimination against Asian applicants. That case was brought by private plaintiffs, Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., and a ruling by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, rather than a jury, is expected within the next few months. There is no clear consensus on who is expected to prevail, but both sides are expected to appeal.

And then there’s Justina Pelletier. She and her family have sued Harvard’s primary pediatric research and teaching facility, Boston Children’s Hospital, for medical malpractice and civil rights violations (which many people consider to have been torture). On top of the Pelletier family’s claims under the U.S. Constitution, an unspecified but large amount of federal Medicaid money was reportedly involved, yet once again, the DOJ has declined to take a Harvard entity to federal court.

Thus, though it’s entirely possible that Harvard was uninvolved in this latest scandal, this apparent pattern of behavior in the DOJ nonetheless raises critical questions regarding the “Varsity Blues” investigation and why Harvard – whose school color is crimson red by the way – hasn’t been named.

Like, did “Varsity Blues” investigators look into America’s “most elite” university? And, as the other schools which have thus far been named reel from the fallout, was reputation-obsessed Harvard given special treatment and spared from the headlines? Further, are cheaters safe from law enforcement so long as they cheat their family’s way into Harvard?

These are good questions for Andrew Lelling, who is the current top federal prosecutor in Boston. Now, Lelling went to Binghamton University and the University of Pennsylvania. However, the rest of his office is still dominated by Harvard grads and Lelling has only held the top post for about 15 months. So, it’s likely that the “Varsity Blues” investigation actually began and took shape under his predecessors.

For instance, in the year or so before Lelling took over, then-acting-U.S.-Attorney William Weinreb was in charge of federal prosecutors in the Bay State, which on top of Harvard has more colleges and university students per capita (7.32%) than any other large metropolitan city (one million+ people) in the country except Los Angeles, which leads with an additional 0.02%. And it would be hard to find more of a “Harvard man” than Weinreb, who graduated from Harvard Law School.

In fact, Weinreb was the editor and treasurer of the Harvard Law Review, as well as college chums with soon-to-be-former-Deputy-AG Rod Rosenstein during their glory days in Cambridge, MA. Then Weinreb cut a $1,000 check and maxed out his personal donation limit to the political campaigns of his fellow Harvard folks, Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama, respectively, before his predecessor, Carmen Ortiz, officially handed him the reigns in January 2017.

During her time in power, former U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz was a lightning rod of controversy and criticism, but not for going after Harvard. She had been recommended for the top law enforcement job in Boston by Ted Kennedy – of the Harvard Kennedy School Kennedys.

Ortiz also mentored under longtime Harvard Law professor Philip Heymann, whose son, former Harvard lecturer Stephen Heymann, occupied the sought-after likely-stepping-stone post of cybercrime division chief under her.

Perhaps it’s no surprise then, that after Ortiz left office, Harvard was one of the first places where she reportedly explored career opportunities. However, in what may have been a well-deserved cosmic irony, the Ivy League university didn’t hire her. It appears that despite her significant efforts, Ortiz had still ruffled too many sensitive feathers on campus and like so many before her, she apparently had to settle for her safety school, Boston College, before taking a job at a small local law firm.

The FreeMartyG team inquired with a top Justice Department official in Washington DC, asking whether the DOJ’s leadership had any concerns that Harvard might have experienced preferential treatment during the “Varsity Blues” investigation, not all that unlike some of the students who now find their admission to other top universities in question. U.S. Department of Justice Spokesperson Kelly Laco declined to comment.

Anyone with further information is encouraged to contact the FreeMartyG team on Facebook or Twitter.

The author, Marty Gottesfeld, is an Obama-era political prisoner. To learn more about his case or donate to support him, please go to FreeMartyG.com.

Source: InfoWars

Several of the so-called national security experts at CNN that you see on television every night have direct links to the nation of Qatar, a terror-funding, Islamist enclave in the Middle East that has placed itself on the warpath against America’s most important regional allies.

But you would never know about these connections, because none of the CNN regulars disclose their financial and/or institutional ties to Qatar when they appear on the airwaves. And off air, they are also not forthcoming about their Qatar-backed connections. Even when it comes to discussing issues where they have a clear conflict of interest, such as commenting on Israeli, Saudi, or UAE affairs, these CNN contributors have no issue going to bat against Qatar’s rivals, while never mentioning that their editorial freedom is restricted or that they are personally compromised.

These four CNN regulars, two of whom are full-time employees, double as Qatar-tied propagandists, but you would never know it if you only watched CNN.

Ali Soufan

A CNN regular who was prominently featured in the network’s anti-Saudi Arabia documentary, Ali Soufan is the executive director of the Qatar International Academy for Security Studies (QIASS), which is based in Doha and funded by the Qatari regime. Oddly, the leadership roster at the state-controlled Qatari institution is almost identical to his U.S.-based Soufan Group.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Soufan has a “personal relationship” with the top leadership of Qatar.

CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour recently asked James Comey if the FBI should have “stopped” citizens from chanting “Lock her up!” at Trump campaign events. Paul Jospeh Watson discusses the tyranny being pushed by MSM fake news outlets.

Soufan, like his Qatar-backed colleagues, frequently rails against the Saudis, Qatar’s top rival, for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. He has also pushed debunked conspiracy theories about Saudi Arabia hacking into the personal information of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

Mehdi Hasan

CNN regular Mehdi Hasan is a longtime presenter for Al Jazeera, the powerful Doha-controlled state media entity that was the favorite network of deceased al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. Hasan’s employer pushes out a steady stream of pro-Islamist, anti-Semitic propaganda. As a state-controlled institution, its founding and continuing purpose is the advancement of Qatar’s national interests.

“Mr. Hasan works for al Jazeera, the Qatari-owned media enterprise that advances the interests of the state and its royal family. When he speaks, he’s no less a government spokesman than Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Sanders,” explained David Reaboi of the Security Studies Group in a Washington Times column last week.

“But the government he represents — to millions of unsuspecting American viewers — has long promoted the Muslim Brotherhood, funds the bloodthirsty designated terror group Hamas, has helped al Qaeda and the Taliban fundraise, and is relentlessly hostile to American interests,” he adds.

Juliette Kayyem

Kayyem, a CNN national security analyst, is a board member of the the International Centre for Sport Security (ICSS), a front group controlled by Qatar that is an influence operation to secure and defend Qatar’s 2022 World Cup bid. Kayyem has regularly spoken on behalf of the organization and has been a media point of contact for the shadowy group. She has not been forthcoming about the reality that the ICSS is a Doha-controlled institution. A 2015 flyer from the group presents Kayyem as part of a group of “ICSS spokespeople” who can answer questions about a forthcoming two-day summit.

The leader of ICSS — which again, claims to be a sports-promoting outfit — is Mohammed Hanzab, who has a background as an intelligence and defense specialist in the Qatari military. Hanzab previously served as the president of Ali Soufan’s QIASS.

Kayyem regularly takes to the airwaves to bash Qatar’s rivals and has transformed her social media accounts into a one-stop shop for anti-Saudi Arabia talking points. When discussing issues involving Middle East politics, Kayyem does not disclose that she is on the board of a state-run Qatari institution.

Peter Bergen

Unlike the other individuals on this list, lead CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen does not appear to have a direct link to a Qatari state institution. However, Bergen, a regular visitor to the tiny, energy-rich nation, pushes blatant pro-Qatar agitprop when it comes to Middle East affairs.

Writing from Doha in November, in a piece that reads like propaganda from a state-run Qatari news site, Bergen commented that “Qatar looks like a far more natural ally for the United States than the Saudis.”

The CNN employee frequently lectures at Qatari-funded institutions such as Georgetown University Qatar. And last year, he moderated a panel at the Doha Forum, which is held under the auspices of the Qatari regime. Bergen’s bio states that he is a professor of practice at Arizona State University, which has the largest number of Qatari students at any U.S. university, many of whom are sponsored by Qatari state institutions, including its defense ministry. Additionally, Arizona State is among the top recipients of Qatari funding to U.S. universities.

CNN has not responded to a request for comment.

Source: InfoWars

Former coaches from the University of Southern California and Georgetown University are among a dozen people due in court on Monday to face charges that they participated in the largest college admissions fraud scheme uncovered in U.S. history.

The 12 people are expected to plead not guilty to charges that they took part in a $25 million racketeering conspiracy in which wealthy parents paid for help cheating on admissions exams and to bribe coaches who secured spots for their children in elite universities as fake athletic prospects.

Federal prosecutors in Boston this month charged some 50 people, including actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman and top corporate executives, with paying into a scheme that ran for eight years and bought admission to difficult to get into universities such as Yale, USC and Georgetown.

The defendants due in Boston federal court on Monday include Gordon Ernst, Georgetown's former head tennis coach; Jorge Salcedo, the former men's soccer head coach at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and Donna Heinel, who was fired from her post as associate athletic director at the University of Southern California once the fraud was disclosed.

Their lawyers either did not respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.

The investigation, dubbed Operation Varsity Blues, led to the scheme's accused mastermind, William "Rick" Singer, pleading guilty to running the fraud through his California-based college admissions counseling service The Key.

He called the scam a "side door" way of gaining admission and used it on behalf of clients including Douglas Hodge, the former chief executive of asset manager Pimco, and "Full House" actress Loughlin, who prosecutors say paid bribes to have their children admitted to USC.

Prosecutors said Singer paid Ernst $2.7 million in bribes, which Ernst used to buy a house on Cape Cod in Massachusetts, in exchange for helping students get preferential admission to Georgetown as "bought-and-paid-for" tennis recruits.

The charges have illustrated the power that coaches of even lower-profile college sports have to influence admissions decisions.

Prosecutors said Singer also bribed administrators of the SAT and ACT college admissions exams to allow an associate to help students with their answers or correct their answers.

Those administrators were Igor Dvorskiy, the director of a private elementary and high school in Los Angeles, and Niki Williams, an assistant teacher at a Houston high school. Both are scheduled to be arraigned on Monday.

Source: NewsMax America

Scott Morefield | Reporter

Calls to abolish the electoral college are all the rage these days, but they aren’t new. One such attempt in 1956 was thwarted with the help of a Democratic senator from Massachusetts — a young John F. Kennedy.

The Senate was debating Senate Joint Resolution 31 on March 20, 1956, a “follow-up to what was originally labeled the Lodge-Gossett proposal,” author and law professor Robert Hardaway told The Daily Caller.

The bill was a proposal for a Constitutional amendment that would have allocated electoral votes, as Tennessee Democratic Senator Estes Kefauver described it, “whereby the federal vote of a state would be divided in proportion to the popular vote,” or what would have essentially been a national popular vote.

Responding to a question from Texas Senator Price Daniel during floor debate, Kennedy issued a strong response against the proposal:

But in answer to the Senator’s question, I maintain that on practical grounds the people in the smaller States, would be deprived of their electoral vote on the basis put by the Senator.

Mr. President, Senate Joint Resolution 31, concerning which there has been little, if any, public interest or knowledge, constitutes one of the most far-reaching, and I believe mistaken-schemes ever proposed to alter the American constitutional system. No one knows with any certainty what will happen if our electoral system is totally revamped as proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 31 and the various amendments which will be offered to it. Today, we have a clearly Federal system of electing our President, under which the States act as units. Today, we have the two-party system, under which third parties and splinter parties are effectively discouraged from playing more than a negligible role. Today, we have a system which in all but one instance throughout our history has given us presidents elected by a plurality of the popular vote …

… And today we have an electoral vote system which gives both large States and small States certain advantages and disadvantages that offset each other.

Now it is proposed that we change all this. What the effects of these various changes will be on the Federal system, the two-party system, the popular plurality system, and the large-State-small-State checks and balances system, no one knows. Nevertheless, it is proposed to exchange this system-under which we have, on the whole, obtained able Presidents capable of meeting the increased demands upon our Executive-for an unknown, untried, but obviously precarious system which was abandoned in this country long ago, which previous Congresses have rejected, and which has been thoroughly discredited in Europe.

Picture taken 10 December 1960 showing John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline holding their son John during the christening ceremony at the chapel of Georgetown university. Researchers found John F. Kennedy Jr body 21 July 1999 and wreckage from the plane he was piloting when it crashed in the Atlantic Ocean. / AFP PHOTO / SAM SCHULMAN (Photo credit should read SAM SCHULMAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Picture taken 10 December 1960 showing John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline holding their son John during the christening ceremony at the chapel of Georgetown university. Researchers found John F. Kennedy Jr body 21 July 1999 and wreckage from the plane he was piloting when it crashed in the Atlantic Ocean. (SAM SCHULMAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Hardaway, a law professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and the author of the soon-to-be-released book “Saving the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Would Undermine Democracy,” compared the French elections in 2017, when the French “were given the choice between two candidates opposed by the vast majority of French voters,” to what Democrats are proposing for the United States. Hardaway argued that Ross Perot could have conceivably won the 1992 election were it based on popular vote alone. (RELATED: Presidential Historian Doug Wead Explains Why The Founders Set Up The Electoral College)

“Consider what would have occurred had the U.S. presidential election been held in May of 1992,” Hardaway wrote in a paper submitted to The Daily Caller. “Polls showed that Perot would win 33 percent of a hypothetical ‘popular vote,’ Bush 28 percent, and Clinton 24 percent, with the rest undecided or for fringe  candidates. Under NPVIC, Perot would have been elected outright since it doesn’t even provide for a ‘run-off.’”

“In the end, the attempts to abolish the Electoral College failed once the wisdom of John Kennedy’s words were heeded,” Hardaway continued. “Had it not been for the ‘Grand Compromise’ which induced the smaller states to join the union with the Article V guarantee that they could not be deprived their equal suffrage in the Senate upon which their presidential voting power was based, the United States would never have been formed. Indeed, until that guarantee was included in the Constitution, the thirteen colonies were already breaking up into several different nation ‘states,’ leading the advisors to King George to gloat that America was falling apart and would soon ‘openly concert measures for entering into something like their former connections to Great Britain.’”

Follow Scott on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

X

Story Stream

recent articles

This week, the Trump administration brought America’s attention to a longstanding problem plaguing college campuses: the left’s sustained assault on free speech. Across the country, far too many conservative students are undermined, silenced, and even physically attacked as a result of the toxic culture on our campuses today.

Abigail, a former RNC intern, experienced this firsthand. Late last year, she reached out to Professor Christine Fair at Georgetown University for comment on Fair’s tweet that white men “deserve miserable deaths” and “we should castrate their corpses and feed them to swine.”

Fair responded by doubling down on her reprehensible language and harassing Abigail in a long rant online, calling her complicit in an effort to “protect male privilege” and wage a war against women. Unfortunately, it is no longer surprising that an academic in charge of teaching our next generation of leaders could find this appropriate.

This week, President Trump signed an executive order to withhold federal research funding from universities that fail to support free speech on campus. When he announced the move during his CPAC address, the president highlighted Hayden Williams, a student who was physically attacked because he recruited for a conservative organization while on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.

Universities across America take in tens of billions of federal dollars in research funding every year. The president’s executive order is an important step toward enforcing what these universities should have been doing all along: promoting free speech and encouraging diversity of thought as they conduct their research.

Professors seem to have little concern for students who may disagree with their views. They rail against President Trump, Republicans and the conservative movement as they teach, sending a clear message that other political views are not welcome in their classroom. They espouse “safe spaces” but create a hostile environment for conservative students.

This toxic culture comes at a cost. It stifles free expression and critical thinking. It encourages students to tailor their work to the views of their instructors. It eliminates the debates and discourse that have always been a critical part of the college experience.

Students go to college to broaden their perspectives and deepen their knowledge of the world. Instead, they face an environment in which they are expected to fall in line with the liberal narrative – or else. Look at the violent mobs that continue to drive away conservative speakers to prevent diversity of thought from infiltrating their bubble. In 2017, hundreds of people protested conservative commentator Ben Shapiro’s appearance at UC Berkeley, and several were arrested as the crowd turned violent.

Prominent conservatives continue to be protested, barred or disinvited from speaking on campus – even Republican members of Congress. And when the mobs fail to derail the events, protesters try to de-platform them instead. Speakers have been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for security, all because they dare to publicly express ideas that differ from those of some students, professors and school administrators.

This is devastating to our higher education system. It cheats our nation’s young people out of a meaningful college experience and renders them unprepared for the working world. That’s why President Trump is committed to holding American universities accountable. As he said during Thursday’s signing ceremony, “People who are confident in their beliefs do not censor others. They welcome free, fair and open debate.”

With this new executive order, the administration is making it clear that federal dollars will only go to institutions that are equally committed to upholding an inalienable, constitutional right: the right to freedom of speech for every single American. Our students are our future, and we owe it to them to set them up for success.

Ronna McDaniel is chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.

With the 2020 presidential election just 18 months away, the Democrat party is undergoing an internal struggle for power between the old guard, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the newer, more radical element led by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. While Pelosi clearly wields more congressional power, Ocasio-Cortez has shown an almost unrivaled ability to single-handedly drive the national conversation.

Often focusing on policies like the Green New Deal and universal basic income, Ocasio-Cortez has quickly become the most talked about member of the Democrat party.

But do people view her as the new face of the party?

Wanting to know what college students had to say, Campus Reform‘s Cabot Phillips headed to Georgetown University to ask a simple question: “Between Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who do you view as the face of the Democrat party?”

The results were overwhelmingly in Ocasio-Cortez’s favor.

“She’s got the people. We’re in a time of extremes, she’s pulling pretty far to the left, and I think people are going to like it,” one student said, while another added, “she represents a new progressive thing that’s pretty prevalent on college campuses.”

Multiple students raised the generational aspect, saying, “as the millennial base participates more in politics… there’s gonna be a lot more people that steer in a Democratic Socialist direction,” and “I see the Democrat party moving towards a more liberal, progressive, younger generation.”

What did other students have to say? Did anyone choose Speaker Pelosi? Watch the full video to find out:

About 1 month ago, Gerald Celente predicted that Beto O’Rourke would be the Democratic frontrunner for president. Gerald hosts to reveal which other politician Beto most resembles!

Source: InfoWars


Current track

Title

Artist