What’s happened in New York against former President Donald Trump is a blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Mark Levin is going to prove it.
The Eighth Amendment reads: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
In a case from 2019 between Tyson Timbs and the state of Indiana, the standard was set for the United States, as well as the state court, on what it can and cannot do regarding the Eighth Amendment.
Timbs had pleaded guilty in Indiana State Court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft.
The response was completely disproportionate to his crimes.
At the time of his arrest, the police seized a Land Rover SUV Timbs had purchased for $42,000 with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died. The Indiana trial court denied the state’s request to turn over his $42,000 car, determining that it would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timb’s offense, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause.
“It was a nine to zero decision, not a single justice agreed with the state prosecutors and the state government, not one. The majority opinion had seven bipartisan justices. There were two concurring opinions, but they all agreed that it violated the Eighth Amendment,” Levin explains.
The Supreme Court ruled that these fines undermine other liberties and can be “used to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
“In other words, that case that was brought against Donald Trump should never have been brought. There shouldn’t even have been a sentencing hearing, there shouldn’t have been fines, there shouldn’t have been anything,” Levin remarks.
“This case against Donald Trump is a greater, more grave violation than anything we’ve ever seen under the excessive fines part of the Eighth Amendment, and much worse than the Timbs' case,” he adds.
NEW YORK — The call of Donald Trump has been clear and constant for years: Buy, buy. But the tycoon's talk could turn to bye-bye if he's forced by an imminent cash crunch to peddle his yacht, his hotels or his casinos.
Trump - whose name adorns nearly everything, from airplanes to board games -also may have to wave arrivederci to the glitzy, fast-lane lifestyle he enjoyed during his rise in the 1980s.
Creditors reportedly are pressing the billionaire-turned-multimillionaire for cash, and negotiations are under way that could compel Trump to sell huge chunks of his empire and reorganize his holdings. The real estate and casino magnate has a reported $2 billion in bank debt.
The Taj Mahal, his centerpiece Atlantic City casino, is said to be for sale. The Trump Princess, his yacht, is on the block. The Trump Shuttle, his airline, is up for grabs.
And his estranged wife, Ivana, still awaits her share, with her $25 million prenuptial agreement looking better all the time. Trump's empire, once estimated at $1.5 billion, now is worth about $500 million, Forbes magazine said last month.
"He'll have to trim the fat: Get rid of the boat, the mansions, the helicopter," one unidentified banker involved in the Trump talks told The Wall Street Journal about Donald's woes.
Among his biggest problems, analysts say, is the extravagant Taj Mahal, which opened April 1 to much fanfare but is failing to generate enough cash to allay lenders' fears about Trump's ability to meet his long-term obligations.
Trump, through spokesman Dan Klores, declined to comment on the situation yesterday.
One person who predicted troubles for the Taj Mahal was Marvin Roffman, the Philadelphia analyst who says he was fired in March by Janney Montgomery Scott Inc. because of those forecasts.
Roffman, apparently vindicated by the reports of layoffs and losses at the Taj, bit his tongue yesterday. "My attorneys have cautioned me, and I really can't talk," he said. Roffman is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from Trump and Janney Montgomery, where he had worked for 16 years.
Privately, many securities analysts say the Taj, which took in $36.5 million last month, is siphoning off business from his two other casinos, Trump Castle and Trump Plaza, in an already shrinking market.
In May, the Castle's revenues were off 17 percent from May 1989; the Plaza's receipts, however, were up 23 percent, boosted by the $10 million loss of Japanese gambler Akio Kashawagi.
Real estate experts also link Trump's problems to a weaker real estate market, particularly in the Northeast. "Trump's publicized problems are due to a weak real estate market and excessive lending on real estate in the late 1980s," said David Shulman, director of real estate research at Salomon Bros.
Also of import are Trump's marital status and his prenuptial agreement with his estranged wife, Ivana, who is president of Trump's Plaza Hotel in New York.
Until the marital issues are resolved, it is unclear who controls the Trump assets, making it harder for Trump to get credit, said one analyst, who declined to be identified. These issues are "more than trivial," the analyst said.
News of Trump's financial woes have sent the three Trump casino junk-bond issues into a tailspin.
Trump has outstanding loans of about $2 billion, and bond investors are concerned that Trump's bankers would press the developer to skip bond payments this month unless they can be assured of interest and principal payments due them.
Trump has been uncharacteristically quiet. In a terse statement issued Monday, Trump called his assets "among the best in America."
"They are unique (and) well-positioned and they have great long-term value," said the statement from the Trump Organization. "We are confident we will arrive at a mutually beneficial solution."
TRUMP'S EMPIRE
* The Trump Shuttle - Purchased from Eastern Airlines for $365 million in cash. Assets include 17 aircraft and valuable landing slots and gate space. Trump has said the shuttle may be sold, if he gets the "right price," $500 million to $600 million. Business Week magazine recently surveyed experts who estimated it could fetch $350 million.
* Trump Tower - A posh, 68-story tower on fashionable Fifth Avenue that contains some of Manhattan's most-expensive condos and a shopping arcade for tourists. Forbes magazine puts the tower's market value at $100 million; Trump thinks it should command $200 million.
* Plaza Hotel - The 18-story, 1,000-room hotel overlooks Fifth Avenue and Central Park. Purchased from Allegis Corp. for $408 million, Trump's experts value it at $600 million to $700 million. But a Business Week survey estimates the value at $450 million.
* Trump Plaza - A 175-unit Manhattan residential cooperative; most of the units have been sold.
* Trump Parc - A 350-unit condominium on Manhattan's Central Park South. Most units have been sold. Forbes estimates it is worth less than half of Trump's valuation of $111 million.
* Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino - Trump paid $73 million for the 600-room hotel and casino in Atlantic City. Trump values the Plaza at $637 million, but Forbes thinks the price is closer to $616 million.
* Trump Castle Casino Resort - This Atlantic City casino was purchased for $320 million. Trump believes its going price should be about $650 million, but Business Week's experts say the value is closer to $324 million.
* Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort - $1.1 billion was pumped into this mega- project. Forbes' estimated valuation for the Taj is the same as Trump's - $834.7 million.
* Alexander's - Trump paid nearly $70 million for a 27 percent stake in the New York retailer and was planning to develop its real estate holdings into large commercial and retailing centers. The current market price for the stake is about $65 million; Trump values it at $159 million if sold at a premium.
* West Side Rail Yards - Trump paid $95 million for 76 acres of undeveloped land on New York's Upper West Side, land that he has planned to turn into a massive office, hotel and apartment complex. But strong community groups are opposed to his grand plans. Trump values the property at more than $600 million but Business Week says the undeveloped land may fetch only $160 million.
* Foundling Hospital - This East Side Manhattan building is still a hospital, awaiting construction of a new building. Trump plans eventually to build new apartments on the site.
* Grand Hyatt Hotel - A 1,400-room hotel in Midtown Manhattan owned in equal partnership with Hyatt Corp. Forbes' and Trump's market valuations for his 50 percent stake are $70 million.
* Trump Plaza of the Palm Beaches - Residential towers with 220 units each in Palm Beach, Fla.. About half remain unsold. Forbes says Trump values this property at $43 million, but it thinks the towers are worth $30 million.
* Trump Princess Yacht - One of the world's largest private yachts, bought by Trump for $30 million. Trump recently put it on the auction block, saying he wanted a better one.
After extensive analysis using raw survey data coupled with mail-in vote totals, we concluded that mail-in voter fraud almost certainly changed the 2020 election outcome in all six crucial swing states.
According to the legacy news networks, social media platforms, various deep state actors, and other corrupt institutions, the 2020 election was the safest and most secure in history and anyone who questioned Joe Biden’s victory was a wacky “election denier.”
That has been the dominant narrative for the past three years, which has produced a chilling effect and caused many to forgo conducting a deep dive concerning whether the 2020 election really was as safe and secure as we have been told it was.
It is incumbent upon the 50 states to ensure that their voting systems are as safe and secure as possible. We still have time to make necessary changes.
In reality, the 2020 election was most likely marred by widespread mail-in voting fraud. And even worse, the extensive mail-in voter fraud almost certainly tipped the election in favor of Joe Biden.
In other words, had rampant mail-in voter fraud been prevented in the 2020 election, Donald Trump would have won the Electoral College and been re-elected to a second term.
At this point, you may be wondering how I can be so sure that the 2020 election was tainted by mail-in voter fraud. The answer is simple: The voters have told us so.
In late 2023, the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports conducted a simple survey to gauge the degree of voter fraud in the 2020 election. We asked 1,085 voters who participated in the 2020 election about their voting behaviors three years prior. To our surprise, the results showed that at least one in five mail-in voters admitted to committing ballot fraud in the 2020 election.
Our findings caused quite a stir in the media, especially among those who suspected the 2020 election was not completely secure due to the dubious changes to voting rules state officials unconstitutionally imposed under the cover of COVID-19.
Shortly after the poll was released, former President Trump called it “the most important poll released in the last 20 years” and “the biggest story of the year.”
Eventually, we began to wonder if we could apply the poll results to publicly available election data to determine whether mail-in voter fraud impacted the outcome of the election. This was no easy task.
After extensive analysis using the raw survey data provided by Rasmussen coupled with state-based and other reputable sources documenting mail-in vote totals, we concluded that mail-in voter fraud almost certainly changed the 2020 election outcome in all six of the crucial swing states.
This is all laid out in great detail in the Heartland Institute’s latest policy study, aptly titled “Who Really Won the 2020 Election?” (Spoiler alert: not Joe Biden.)
Here are just a few of the main takeaways:
Upon further analysis of the Rasmussen survey data, we found that more than one in four mail-in voters (28.2%, to be precise) admitted to committing at least one kind of election fraud in the 2020 election.
Under multiple scenarios, with differing rates of mail-in voter fraud taken into account, our results indicate that Trump would have won the Electoral College in the 2020 election had fraudulent mail-in ballots not been counted.
Even if the level of fraud detected in the Heartland/Rasmussen survey substantially overstated mail-in voter fraud by multiple orders of magnitude, Trump would likely still have won the 2020 election.
According to the official 2020 election results, Biden defeated Trump in the Electoral College 306 to 232. The national vote tally was similarly lopsided, with Biden receiving approximately 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million votes.
In almost all the hypothetical scenarios we lay out, Trump would have won enough Electoral College votes to defeat Biden soundly.
But the 2020 election, like most recent national elections, was ultimately decided in the swing states.
In 2020, Biden won each of the six swing states by fewer than 20,000 votes, a tiny margin in the context of the overall vote.
But here’s the rub: When we extrapolated for mail-in voter fraud in the six crucial swing states, using state-specific mail-in voter data and accounting for a variety of fraud rates (from the 28% level all the way down to the 1% level), the Electoral College vote changed considerably.
In almost all the hypothetical scenarios we lay out, Trump would have won enough Electoral College votes to defeat Biden soundly. In other words, Biden’s Electoral College victory, although seemingly large, was predicated on razor-thin margins in all six of the swing states.
We know for a fact that each of the six swing states changed its election rules in the months leading up to the 2020 election to allow for mass mail-in voting based on inaccurate state voter registration rolls. We also know that several of these states made it easy for mail-in voting fraud to be committed by eliminating common-sense guardrails like signature verification and permitting shady election practices to take place like ballot harvesting.
So it stands to reason that these unprecedented last-minute changes to voting procedures likely resulted in a flood of fraudulent ballots being counted. It also stands to reason that widespread mail-in voter fraud in the 2020 election disproportionately benefitted Joe Biden, seeing that he received more than twice as many mail-in votes as Trump.
When considering all these factors, it seems obvious that Biden’s 2020 victory was aided and abetted by rampant mail-in voter fraud. But as they say, what’s done is done. It does no good to cry over spilled milk or shady elections.
With less than nine months before the 2024 presidential election, however, we must ensure that this does not happen again. It is incumbent upon the 50 states to ensure that their voting systems are as safe and secure as possible. We still have time to make necessary changes.
Going forward, will enough states do the right thing? Or, like so many other things in today’s upside-down world, is the quaint American tradition of free and fair elections a vestige of the past?
Former Trump White House Lawyer Confirms He Quietly Sabotaged 2020 Election Challenge By Shane Devine
In a court hearing regarding the de-barment of Jeffrey Clark, who played a key role in former President Donald Trump’s attempt to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election, former Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin confessed to leading the resistance against the effort by organizing a mass resignation threat to undermine the president.
Just days before January 6th—when Congress was scheduled to certify the results of the 2020 election in Biden’s favor—Trump began to put into motion a plan to replace the Department of Justice head with Jeffrey Clark, a lower-level DOJ official who was expected to halt the process in Trump’s favor.
It was at this point that Philbin called up Clark to try to convince him otherwise. In his testimony—the first public testimony he has offered since the Capitol riot—Philbin explained that he had worked alongside Clark in private practice during the 1990s.
“I tried to explain to him that it was a bad idea for multiple reasons,” Clark said at the hearing. “He would be starting down a path of assured failure … If by some miracle somehow, it worked, there’d be riots in every major city in the country and it was not an outcome the country would accept.”
Former WH lawyer confirms he, behind Trump's back, organized threats of mass resignations to successfully thwart Trump from appointing an acting attorney general (@JeffClarkUS) who would seriously investigate 2020 election. https://t.co/MEqDUEm6aI
Both Philbin and former acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue, who gave testimony just before Philbin, argued Clark had succumbed to conspiracy theories.
Philbin went into his conversations with Clark viewing him as woefully misinformed about the 2020 election, and dangerously naïve regarding the aftereffects that would be caused by contesting the outcome.
“I believe that he felt that he essentially had a duty,” Philbin said. “I think Jeff’s view was that there was a real crisis in the country and that he was being given an opportunity to do something about it.”
Philbin then claimed at least partial credit for orchestrating the threat of mass resignation to resist Trump’s appointment of Clark. Taking his cue from a similar effort under the Bush administration, Philbin fanned the flames of rebellion to DOJ through acting attorney general Jeff Rosen. Almost every major DOJ official put up threats to resign, which influenced Trump to ultimately give up on the contest.
Philbin then called Clark again to inform him about the mounting discontent. “We talked about some of the theories of fraud that were around. They’d been debunked and there wasn’t really any there-there,” Philbin said. “If the president made him acting attorney general … people at DOJ would probably resign, there’s going to be just a massive wave of resignations. People weren’t going to be following him to pursue these theories of fraud.”
Philbin said he would have resigned had it come to that point. “It was not a course of action that I could countenance,” he explained. “I thought there was not a justification for it. It was a sufficiently bad idea and unjustified interference with the completion of the Electoral College count. I wouldn’t want to be there in the White House any longer participating in that.”
1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries. Universally recognized international law, including the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, must be strictly observed. The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected.
2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality. The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should, following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world, help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture. All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.
3. Ceasing hostilities. Conflict and war benefit no one. All parties must stay rational and exercise restraint, avoid fanning the flames and aggravating tensions, and prevent the crisis from deteriorating further or even spiraling out of control. All parties should support Russia and Ukraine in working in the same direction and resuming direct dialogue as quickly as possible, so as to gradually deescalate the situation and ultimately reach a comprehensive ceasefire.
4. Resuming peace talks. Dialogue and negotiation are the only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis. All efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis must be encouraged and supported. The international community should stay committed to the right approach of promoting talks for peace, help parties to the conflict open the door to a political settlement as soon as possible, and create conditions and platforms for the resumption of negotiation. China will continue to play a constructive role in this regard.
5. Resolving the humanitarian crisis. All measures conducive to easing the humanitarian crisis must be encouraged and supported. Humanitarian operations should follow the principles of neutrality and impartiality, and humanitarian issues should not be politicized. The safety of civilians must be effectively protected, and humanitarian corridors should be set up for the evacuation of civilians from conflict zones. Efforts are needed to increase humanitarian assistance to relevant areas, improve humanitarian conditions, and provide rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access, with a view to preventing a humanitarian crisis on a larger scale. The UN should be supported in playing a coordinating role in channeling humanitarian aid to conflict zones.
6. Protecting civilians and prisoners of war (POWs). Parties to the conflict should strictly abide by international humanitarian law, avoid attacking civilians or civilian facilities, protect women, children and other victims of the conflict, and respect the basic rights of POWs. China supports the exchange of POWs between Russia and Ukraine, and calls on all parties to create more favorable conditions for this purpose.
7. Keeping nuclear power plants safe. China opposes armed attacks against nuclear power plants or other peaceful nuclear facilities, and calls on all parties to comply with international law including the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) and resolutely avoid man-made nuclear accidents. China supports the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in playing a constructive role in promoting the safety and security of peaceful nuclear facilities.
8. Reducing strategic risks. Nuclear weapons must not be used and nuclear wars must not be fought. The threat or use of nuclear weapons should be opposed. Nuclear proliferation must be prevented and nuclear crisis avoided. China opposes the research, development and use of chemical and biological weapons by any country under any circumstances.
9. Facilitating grain exports. All parties need to implement the Black Sea Grain Initiative signed by Russia, Türkiye, Ukraine and the UN fully and effectively in a balanced manner, and support the UN in playing an important role in this regard. The cooperation initiative on global food security proposed by China provides a feasible solution to the global food crisis.
10. Stopping unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions and maximum pressure cannot solve the issue; they only create new problems. China opposes unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Relevant countries should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” against other countries, so as to do their share in deescalating the Ukraine crisis and create conditions for developing countries to grow their economies and better the lives of their people.
11. Keeping industrial and supply chains stable. All parties should earnestly maintain the existing world economic system and oppose using the world economy as a tool or weapon for political purposes. Joint efforts are needed to mitigate the spillovers of the crisis and prevent it from disrupting international cooperation in energy, finance, food trade and transportation and undermining the global economic recovery.
12. Promoting post-conflict reconstruction. The international community needs to take measures to support post-conflict reconstruction in conflict zones. China stands ready to provide assistance and play a constructive role in this endeavor.
EXPLAINED: Zelensky’s 10-Point Peace Plan By Maryna Shashkova
Ukraine's 10-point plan, which addresses everything from child abductions to environmental damage, is a step-by-step path for peace that's actually gaining some traction among world leaders.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attends a meeting with the US President at the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Vilnius on July 12, 2023. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP
1. Nuclear safety
2. Food security
3. Energy security
4. Release of prisoners
5. Territorial integrity and restoration as per UN Charter
6. Cessation of hostilities and withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine
7. Justice and special tribunal
8. Environmental safety
9. Prevention of future aggression
10. Confirmation of war’s end
If you’ve been following the news, you might know that Ukraine has been working to get the world on board with its “10-point peace plan” to end the war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky first presented the blueprint, sometimes called the “Zelensky Peace Plan” or the “Ukrainian Peace Formula,” at a November summit of the Group of 20 major economies.
On Aug. 5 and 6, Ukraine started working to gain support for the 10-point plan among the 42 countries that participated in the first organizational peace summit in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Although not every country that participated in the summit was fully on board with every point, most were broadly supportive.
Eventually, Kyiv hopes that a global peace summit involving world leaders will be held and that they’ll agree to Ukraine’s vision.
But just what are these 10 points?
Well, they start with nuclear security and end with the confirmation of the end of the war in Ukraine with an emphasis on international security and justice.
Kyiv Post presents a summary of Ukraine’s blueprint for peace here:
1. Nuclear safety
In March of 2022, Russia became the first country in the world to militarily take over a working nuclear station when it took control of a nuclear plant located in Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine.
Since the occupation of the power plant, Russia has been reckless with the plant, even using it as a military base, knowing that Ukraine won’t shoot at it.
Furthermore, since being run by the Russians, the power plant has repeatedly been brought to dangerous levels. “Ukrainian nuclear power plants and installations must operate safely under full sovereign control of Ukraine. Russian troops shall be withdrawn from the territory of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and its territory shall be completely demilitarized,” according to Ukraine’s peace plans.
With its bombing and shelling, Russia’s war on Ukraine has also put other nuclear power plants at risk.
Under Ukraine’s plan, the International Atomic Energy Agency plays a lead role in implementing nuclear safeguards until power plants are returned to Ukraine.
2. Food security
It’s become very difficult for Ukraine to deliver its grain abroad, particularly to poorer Asian and African countries, where, without the grain, many risk starvation.
As part of the peace plan, Russia should stop shelling Ukraine’s ports and grain elevators and ensure the safety of Ukraine's grain exports.
“The matter of food security shall be de-weaponized,” the document says.
In July 2023, Russia withdrew from the Black Sea Grain Deal, and there have been multiple attacks on Ukrainian port infrastructure and warehouses since then. On Nov. 9, a Liberian-flagged civilian ship traveling to Odesa was hit by a Russian missile.
3. Energy security
The upcoming winter will likely be another test for Ukraine. This past winter, despite many attempts, Russia failed to destroy Ukraine's energy resources and facilities, which would have left Ukrainians without light and heat.
Nevertheless, Russia did do significant damage.
This winter, Ukraine believes Russia will likely attempt to freeze Ukrainians once again.
As part of Zelensky’s peace plan, Russia should end its energy terrorism, and that Ukraine’s energy facilities should be internationally monitored, protected, and restored.
4. Release of prisoners
A staggering number of Russia’s prisoners – including both Ukrainian soldiers and civilians – have undergone torture.
Also, as many as 19,500 Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia against their will – an abduction, Ukraine says.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, for the forced abduction of Ukrainian children – many of whom have been adopted by Russian families.
Under the peace plan, Russia should release all of its prisoners and deported people.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky addresses participants via videoconference during the Paris Peace Forum at the Palais Brongniart in Paris, on Nov. 10. PHOTO: AFP
5. Territorial integrity and restoration as per UN Charter
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” reads Article 2 of the UN Charter.
Russia must fully restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including Crimea, which it invaded and annexed in 2014. The United Nations General Assembly rejected Crimea’s so-called “referendum” to join Russia.
In mid-2023, Russia also held multiple referendums in the occupied territories of Ukraine in a bid to annex them. In his peace plan, Zelensky urged for a full restoration of Ukraine's state border as established in 1991 during its independence.
6. Cessation of hostilities and withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine
Russia must withdraw its army from Ukraine and cease hostilities.
7. Justice and special tribunal
A special tribunal should be created to prosecute Russian war crimes, and Russia should be held accountable for its violations of international law.
National and international evidence-gathering efforts, including by the International Criminal Court, are continued and strengthened.
8. Environmental safety
Russia’s war on Ukraine has caused environmental damage on an immense scale.
It’s led to unprecedented levels of pollution, destruction of ecosystems, and the deaths of massive numbers of animals.
Ukraine says that one of the most devastating acts of environmental destruction happened on June 6, when Russia detonated explosives from within the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant. With consequences that will be felt for years, dozens of farms, villages, and towns were wiped away by flooding and thousands of people were evacuated.
“It's really ecocide that the Russian Army committed in Ukraine,” Oleksandr Todorchuk, the founder of Ukrainian animal welfare charity UAnimals told Newsweek.
Tens of thousands of animals likely died in the flooding, Todorchuk said.
Beyond the destruction of its dam, a great deal of Ukraine has been mined with explosives. First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko has said that as much as 174,000 square kilometers of Ukraine could be contaminated with explosives.
Ukraine is calling for three steps:
Short, medium, and long-term damage assessment, including the impact on human health and biodiversity
Prosecution for those responsible for the environmental damage
Recovery and reconstruction
9. Prevention of future aggression
With an unpredictable and belligerent neighbor at its border, Ukraine wants a refined post-war security architecture so Russia won’t simply invade it again.
For that reason, the security guarantees for Ukraine should come from its international partners.
10. Confirmation of war’s end
This is the final step. The framework is set for ending the war, guaranteeing Ukraine’s future security and its reconstruction – peace for Ukraine in its entirety.
The end of the war should be confirmed at a peace conference, held with the widest possible number of countries participating and contributing. A legally binding international agreement should be signed.
Kyiv hopes its peace plan will then be used for “preventing the repetition of aggression against Ukraine and any other state in the future, small or big.”
According to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, hundreds of peace talks have taken place between Ukraine and Russia since 2014, but none of those negotiations “prevented Putin from launching a brutal all-out invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.” Thus the need for Zelensky's peace plan arose – a plan that not only ends the war but ensures peace in the long run.
Maryna Shashkova
Ukrainian journalist. Senior Corespondent at Kyiv Post. I have been working as a journalist for almost 10 years. I write about Ukrainian politics and social issues.
Trump describes how he could solve Russia-Ukraine conflict in 24 hours: Trump says President Biden isn't capable of dealing with world leaders By Anders Hagstrom
Former President Donald Trump explained his plan to secure peace in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking back the White House on Sunday, saying he would tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to make a deal.
Trump made the comments during an interview on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" with host Maria Bartiromo. The former president said he has a good relationship with both Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and added that President Biden is not capable of dealing with world leaders.
"These are smart people, including Macron of France. I could go through the whole list of people, including Putin.… These people are sharp, tough and generally vicious. They're vicious, and they're at the top of their game. We have a man that has no clue what's happening. It's the most dangerous time in the history of our country," Trump said.
"So what should be the response?" Bartiromo asked. "You said you could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. How would you do that?"
Former President Donald Trump explained his plan to secure peace in Ukriane within 24 hours of securing the White House on Sunday, saying he would tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to make a deal. (Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
"I know Zelensky very well. I felt he was very honorable because when they asked him about the perfect phone call that I made, he said it was indeed, he said it was. He didn't even know what they were talking about. He could have grandstanded–" Trump said before Bartiromo cut him off.
"That's not going to be enough for Putin to stop bombing," she pointed out. Trump then explained how he would get Russia and Ukraine to end their conflict.
"I know Zelenskyy very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day," Trump responded.
Trump says he would convince Zelenskyy to cut a deal with Putin. (Mykola Tys/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images)
Trump is among several Republican 2024 presidential candidates who are skeptical of the war in Ukraine.
Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.
The US repeatedly blocked peace in Ukraine — is it rethinking its strategy yet?
In 2022 the West insisted on bleeding Russia — and Ukraine — as much as possible. Now that ‘victory’ has disappeared from its rhetoric, pressure for a truce deal seems likely, write JOHN WOJCIK and CJ ATKINS
NEEDLESS MISERY: The family of Yuriy Anisimov, a Ukrainian flight engineer, cry during a funeral ceremony near Poltava, September 2023
ARE the US and its Nato allies beginning to rethink their strategy for the war in Ukraine? Officially, the US continues to stand in lockstep behind President Volodymyr Zelensky, with President Joe Biden pushing for over $60 billion in new weaponry and other aid for Ukraine as part of his recent $105bn war budget request that included Israel and Taiwan.
Other signs, however, suggest US policy regarding the war may actually be in deep trouble.
The head of Zelensky’s faction in the Ukrainian parliament, Davyd Arakhamia (aka David Braun), is openly expressing worries that Kiev’s Washington benefactor is losing interest. Stepping up his anti-semitic rhetoric, Arakhamia says Ukraine’s dependency on the US and a lack of strategy are impediments to resolving his country’s conflict with Russia.
A few days ago, Arakhamia gave an interview on Ukrainian television that grabbed international attention. He leads Zelensky’s Servant of the People Party parliamentary faction, which has eliminated most other parties in the legislature, with the exception of the extreme right-wing ones. He occupies a top spot in the president’s inner circle.
In the interview, Arakhamia accused the Biden administration of turning away from Ukraine because of “the Jews” and “the Jewish lobby” in the US. He said US Jews are “widely represented on all levels and in all decision-making centres” and that they are exerting pressure to downgrade Ukraine’s fight against Vladimir Putin so as to prioritise US backing for Netanyahu’s war in Gaza.
Arakhamia is apparently unclear about whether the alleged international Jewish conspiracy is headquartered in Tel Aviv or Washington.
Setting aside the issue of the anti-semitism reflected in the remarks by Zelensky’s top parliamentary operative, comments from Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg in recent days suggest that US confidence in Kiev is indeed waning, though not because of any Israeli or Jewish distractions.
Signalling in both directions
“It is for Ukraine to decide what are acceptable ways to end this war,” Stoltenberg said Monday, a short time after Arakhamia’s interview aired. “Our responsibility is to support Ukraine and… put them in the best possible place when or if negotiations may start.”
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to detect a change of rhetoric. No more discussions about successful counteroffensives or fighting valiantly until every inch of land is retaken from Russian forces.
“War is by nature unpredictable,” the Nato chief continued, “the more military support we provide to Ukraine, the stronger their position will be on the battlefield and the stronger their position will be on a potential negotiating table.”
To assure Zelensky that Nato isn’t totally hanging him out to dry, however, Stoltenberg promised that all the allies still want Ukraine to become a member. Some day. After some unspecified “reforms.” Gaining membership during the war, though, remains “impossible.”
Essentially, Stoltenberg was flashing both turn signals, clearly hinting at a downgrade of expectations for an outright Ukrainian military victory but still saying just the right thing to provoke Russia and ensure that the fighting will continue.
In Stoltenberg’s words, there is a glimpse into the current thinking among the Nato leadership. It’s a revelation that exposes a major flaw in Arakhamia’s analysis of the war and his conclusion that “Jews” are stealing Biden’s attention away from Ukraine: unlike Stoltenberg, he fails to give any importance whatsoever to how the war has actually been going on the ground in eastern Ukraine.
Nato and the US have been aware for some time that the war in Ukraine wasn’t really about “beating” Russia on the battlefield any more — if it ever really was. This was evident even before the current Israeli war against Palestine began. Instead of looking for a way out, though, they repeatedly propped up their now apparently ill-fated campaign with just enough weapons infusions to keep Ukraine afloat.
Peace was possible
The bankruptcy of US and allied policy in the war is reflected first of all in the failure of Ukraine’s much-hyped “summer counteroffensive,” which cost thousands of lives and only gained a few miles of muddy fields. Those pitiful “gains” cost US taxpayers many billions of dollars.
The resultant destruction and loss of many more thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives continue, however, to provide the benefit of an unending profit stream flowing into the coffers of US armaments makers, who enthusiastically fund lawmakers who back the war.
What is becoming all too apparent is that this conflict didn’t have to still be going on right now; it didn’t have to stretch into the bloody war of attrition that it has turned into. The killing could have ended long ago.
Though Arakhamia’s anti-semitism has him looking in the wrong direction for explanations as to why Ukraine is losing, he does offer insights that are useful for understanding why the battles in the east are still raging.
It is clear that the US and its allies were out to sabotage possibilities for peace immediately after the Russian invasion. Were it not for their interference, the current war could have ended in early March 2022 — about a week after it started. Thanks to Arakhamia, we now have confirmation of this fact.
He was at the talks in Belarus and said the Russians would halt the invasion and leave Ukraine if there was agreement on Ukrainian military neutrality and its leaders gave up on Nato membership.
Rather than report this to the public, however, the media in Europe and the US focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations. They insisted that the Russians made official demands in the talks to “de-nazify” a country that the Allies said had no Nazis. Further, Russia supposedly demanded direct control of not only the eastern Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine but also other vast stretches of the country.
Madeleine Albright, the now-deceased and famous US diplomat, once said that during negotiations, one must distinguish between what participants really want and what is just political theatre. In Belarus in March 2022, the US chose to focus on political theatre, diverting attention from the two key Russian demands.
Arakhamia said that internationally mediated negotiations in Istanbul, shortly after the March 2022 talks in Belarus, actually produced an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to bring the fighting to an end — based on those same points.
“[The Russians] were ready to end the war if we accepted neutrality like Finland once did. And we were ready to make a commitment that we would not join Nato. When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.
Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who was also in Istanbul, confirmed that a Russia-Ukraine peace deal was nearly reached in the spring of 2022. His remarks were reported in an interview with Berliner Zeitung on October 21.
According to Schroeder, the deal would have included four main points: the first was that Ukraine would abandon plans to join Nato. The second was that bans on the Russian language in Ukraine would be removed. The third was that Donbass would remain in Ukraine but function as an autonomous region. The fourth was that the UN and Germany would offer to supervise the security agreements. The Crimea situation was left to be addressed in the future.
Lost opportunities
Arakhamia’s revelations about the talks in Belarus and Turkey show there have been several possible and realistic chances to end the war in Ukraine. But publicly, the US and Nato still refuse to accept the fact that they bear any responsibility for time and again stonewalling and trashing negotiations that could have yielded peace.
Had the US and Nato not sabotaged peace, the war might have ended, and Ukraine would also have kept all the territories like Lugansk and Donetsk that Russian forces have taken since then. Thousands of lives could have been saved.
The US also would have avoided the very damaging proxy war defeat that some observers believe is becoming more imminent. But rather than seeking to negotiate a peace now, Nato leader Stoltenberg’s remarks betray a willingness to let the whole affair drag on for months or even years to come. Indeed, by continuing to hold out the possibility of Ukrainian membership in Nato, he is angling to sink any possibility of successful Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.
We have to wonder as well, what role does Biden’s re-election effort play in the matter? Is the sacrifice of thousands more Ukrainian and Russian lives seen by the White House as part of the price to pay in order to defeat the MAGA extremists? Surely Democratic strategists can come up with a way to win against Trump that doesn’t require further expenditure of human life in eastern Europe.
Had the peace deals that were already on the table not been sabotaged, everyone would have been better off economically as well, except, of course, for the armaments makers. Ukraine would not be a devastated leftover of its former, already very poor self, and its economy wouldn’t be on life support from US taxpayers. Germans and others in Europe would not be freezing for yet another winter due to the high energy prices caused by this war.
The Biden administration should be pushing for a ceasefire and talks, not calling for tens of billions of dollars more for additional weapons to be sent to Ukraine to prolong the war — a war that is really about weakening Russia so that US imperialism can ultimately focus its attention on China.
It’s not too late to end the madness with that first important step, a ceasefire now. The war profiteers must be told they have already done enough damage. As in Gaza, the time for the peace forces to demand a ceasefire in Ukraine is now. The time for negotiations to end this war is now.
Gail Ann (Mazzoni) Kahan passed away on March 30, 2024, in Voorhees, NJ, at the age of 77. She was born in Vineland, NJ, to the late Yola (Viveralli) and Ben Mazzoni. Gail is survived by her husband, Robert Kahan; her loving daughter Danielle Heckman-Hughes (Kevin Hughes); stepchildren Scott Kahan (Hillary Kahan) and Amy Kahan and grandchildren Nicolle, Tara, Sean, Miles, Vance, Junah, Eliyah, and Maizy.
Gail was a vibrant soul who lived life to the fullest. She was fun-loving, always cherishing happy hours and Manhattan cocktails. Her passion for life was evident in her love for various activities, especially her creative pursuits as a talented artist. Gail also had a deep interest in politics and cared for animals, with a special fondness for her pets Roxie, Max, Kai, and Brooklyn.
In her career, Gail worked as a bookkeeper from 1967 to 1975 and later as a fragrance model from 1983 to 1995. She was known for her impeccable sense of style and love for designer bags, shoes, and clothing. Gail's dedication to maintaining a healthy lifestyle was reflected in her regular gym visits and diligent self-care routine.
Gail will be remembered for her independent spirit and unwavering determination to live life on her own terms. She adored her friends and family, bringing smiles and laughter wherever she went. Gail found joy in the sunshine of Florida, where she loved to shop and enjoy the beautiful weather.
Rest in peace, Gail, as your spirit lives on in the hearts of those who knew and loved you.
A church visitation will be held on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 from 10:30am to 11:30am followed by a funeral mass at 11:30am from Christ The Good Shepherd Parish - Church Of Sacred Heart, 1010 East Landis Avenue, Vineland. Interment will follow in Sacred Heart Cemetery, Vineland.
ARRANGEMENTS are under the supervision of Rone Funeral Service, 1110 East Chestnut Avenue, Vineland, NJ 08360
Donations in memory of Gail may be made to: South Jersey Regional Animal Shelter, 1244 N. Delsea Drive, Vineland, NJ 08360 or Samaritan Hospice, 265 S. Route 73, Voorhees, NJ 08043
To send online condolences please visit our website at www.RONEFUNERALSERVICE.com
Mary Bernadette Haffert Anninos, 85, of Sea Isle City, died peacefully on March 22, 2024 surrounded by her family. The oldest of six children of Helen and Horace Haffert, she was born in Philadelphia, PA on March 7, 1939 and grew up in Sea Isle City, NJ. As a child, she attended St. Ann’s grade school and Wildwood Catholic High School, graduating as the Valedictorian of her class. A graduate of Duquesne University, she received a BA degree in Education.
In 1958, Peter Anninos, the summer manager of the Howard Johnson, Exit 17 on the Garden State Parkway, hired Mary as a waitress. Two years later, they were married in St. Joseph’s Church in Sea Isle, a union that lasted 62 years. Mary and Peter raised their family in Delran, NJ, where she taught second grade in the School District for thirty years. She influenced many young lives with numerous former students reaching out over the years to thank her for her kind and nurturing ways.
After they retired, Mary and Pete moved back to Sea Isle in 2003, making new friends and valuable contributions to their community. Mary continued her lifelong commitment to compassionate care for animals with Sea Isle City’s Save Our Strays (SOS). Their successful trap, neuter, and release program ultimately led to zero new births from feral cats in 2020. Active in St. Joseph’s Catholic Church as a member of the Bereavement Committee, she also volunteered for the Sea Isle City Historical Society.
Like her mother, a fervent believer in the power of prayer, she spent several hours each day actively praying for those she knew and the world at large. Known for her sense of humor and positive outlook, she formed and maintained many lasting friendships throughout her life. Mary treated her friends like family. Loving and kind, she embraced all of God’s creatures of both the two- and four-legged variety.
Predeceased by her husband Peter Anninos Sr., and her brothers, H. Joseph Haffert and Gregory Haffert. She is survived by her children, Peter J. Anninos, Jr. (Suzanne), Christopher Anninos (Colleen), Nicole McIntyre, eight grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. She is also survived by her sister, Anne Louise Bogda, and her brothers George W. Haffert and Mark Haffert, many nieces, nephews, and cousins, and her furry feline friend, Silverado. There will be a viewing from 9:00 AM until 11:00 AM on Wednesday, April 3, 2024, at St. Joseph's Church, 43rd Street and Landis Avenue, Sea Isle City, NJ 08243. A Catholic Mass will be celebrated at 11:30 AM. The Service will be livestreamed at www.facebook.com/radzietafuneralhome/. In lieu of flowers, donations to the Carmelite Monastery, 61 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Boston MA 02119 or Save Our Strays, 4208 Landis Ave, Sea Isle City, NJ 08243, or St. Joseph’s Church would be appreciated. Condolences at www.radzieta.com.
Harriet L. Rothstein (nee Spector) passed away on March 21, 2024 surrounded by her family. Beloved wife of Joel Rothstein; loving mother of Adam Rothstein and Toby (Steven) Gruber; step-mother of Jill (Jason) Greshes. Grandmother of Shae, Jack, Sydney, Arianna and Xander. A longtime educator in the Philadelphia School District. Relatives and friends are invited to graveside services on Monday, March 25th, 2024 at Mt. Lebanon Cemetery at 1:00PM precisely. Contributions in her memory can be made to Love-Feeds, or to the Fox Chase Cancer Center.
How far inland can a tsunami travel? That’s a question you may be wondering, especially if you live near the coast. Read through all the caveats that I discuss below, before checking out the maps. There’s not one answer. Rather, there are lots of “it depends”.
EAST COAST TERRAIN ELEVATION MAPS SHOWN BELOW
Awhile ago I wrote an article titled “300 Foot Tsunami And East Coast Destruction” (linked below) regarding the possibility of ‘La Palma’ or ‘El Hierro’ of the Canary Islands partially collapsing into the Eastern Atlantic following a major volcanic eruption there.
This event would likely lead to a mega tsunami that travels across the Atlantic and devastates the East Coast of the United States.
Opinions vary regarding the height of the tsunami and range from 60 feet, to 300 feet, and even higher than that as it rolls up the shoreline of the East Coast of the United States and elsewhere.
Canary Islands – La Palma – Cumbre Vieja Mega-Tsunami?
UPDATE: I first published this article during 2013. Eight years later, 2021, a swarm of earthquakes are rattling the Canary Islands – sparking fears of a volcanic eruption. I recalled posting the following East Coast Terrain Elevation Maps with intent of providing some context for a “what if” scenario of a mega-tsunami. Like a tsunami initiated from a major submarine landslide at the Canary Islands, for example.
There have been fears an eruption could cause a mega-tsunami. Steven Ward first explained this theory in research from the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, two decades ago.
image via ZeroHedge via StanDeyo
USA: Waves 130-160 ft high, traveling up to 12 miles inland
image source: Cumbre Vieja Volcano — Potential collapse and tsunami at La Palma, Canary Islands, Steven N. Ward. (height in meters)
Evolution of the La Palma landslide tsunami from 2 minutes (upper left) to 9 hours (lower right).
Red and blue contours cover elevated and depressed regions of the ocean respectively and the yellow dots and numbers sample the wave height, positive or negative, in meters. Note the strong influence of dispersion in spreading out an original impulse into a long series of waves of decreasing wavelength. See also that the peak amplitudes generally do not coincide with the first wave.
Even after crossing the Atlantic, a lateral collapse of Cumbre Vieja volcano could impose a great sequence of waves of 10-25 meters height on the shores of the Americas. (research by Steven N. Ward).
(Cumbre Vieja is a volcanic ridge on the volcanic ocean island of La Palma in the Canary Islands.)
Okay, back to the original post. I must have had too much time on my hands back then… plotting several east coast elevation maps:
How Far Inland Can A Tsunami Go?
“IF” a 300 foot tsunami reached the East Coast, how far inland would it go?
Logically one might reason that the tsunami will travel inland until the elevation of the land is higher than the tsunami. While that sounds logical, there are variables…
Actually, the distance a tsunami will travel inland has more to do with the energy remaining as it hits the shore.
A tsunami will speed across the ocean at hundreds of miles an hour but at a relatively small height (because the ocean is DEEP).
It’s speed decreases as it approaches the shoreline (because the ground beneath it is getting shallower) but it’s energy begins to transfer to its monstrous HEIGHT.
When the speed of the wave approaches zero, the wave breaks, much of its energy is released, and it will not go too much further. A tsunami that reaches a height of 300 feet when it rears up at the shore (or any height), will lose energy as it travels inland.
It’s all about energy. Frequency (depending on the source of the tsunami) and Amplitude (shape of ocean floor, shoreline and up-slope factors).
It is conceivable that a given tsunami may rear up quickly (and very high) once it reaches the shore (depending on the shape of the ocean floor leading to the shore), and then ‘break’ and lose much of it’s energy in a relatively short distance. While another tsunami may be more compressed (in frequency) and be thrust forward very quickly while traveling a long distance inland (remember Japan?).
There are scientifically sound reasons for concern that at some point in time a mega tsunami could engulf the entire East Coast with a wave approximating 300 feet in height and sweep everything and everybody inland. The consequences of such an event are nearly unimaginable.
Tsunami Maps (East Coast Terrain)
Out of curiosity and an interest in maps, I have custom built the following elevation maps based on high resolution data from USGS digital elevation maps of the United States, particularly the East Coast. I have modeled several layers of elevation of the East Coast to illustrate various height scenarios of tsunami versus geography as it travels inland.
Having said that, there are many variables and factors affecting how far a tsunami would travel inland. So if you live 20 miles inland along the Florida coast (for example) at an elevation of 50 feet doesn’t necessarily mean that a 300 foot tsunami (at the shore) will have enough remaining energy to travel all the way to your location.
There are some instances whereby such a tsunami would probably only travel several miles inland while there are other scenarios where it may roar up a river way or bay and devastate far inland.
Regardless of the factors, I felt that you may be curious to see following elevation graphics that I layered together which increment 75 feet all the way to 300 feet in height along the U.S. East Coast. I would guesstimate that if you live within 20 miles of the coast, you may be vulnerable to a Canary Island ‘event’. However this is simply my own estimation.
Which American Cities Might Be Devastated by an East Coast Mega-Tsunami?
Several observations regarding a 300 foot tsunami would be the probable devastation of the following major East Coast cities… Even a 75 foot tsunami !
CITY, (Current elevation above sea level, feet)
Portland, ME (~ 50′) Boston, MA (~ 30′) New Haven, CT (~ 50′) Bridgeport, CT (~ 40′) New York City, NY (~ 20′) Jersey City, NJ (~ 30′) Newark, NJ (~ 50′) Atlantic City, NJ (~ 10′) Wilmington, DE (~ 80′) Philadelphia, PA (~ 40′) Virginia Beach, VA (~ 10′) Wilmington, NC (~ 20′) Myrtle Beach, SC (~ 20′) Charleston, SC (~ 10′) Savannah, GA (~ 10′) Daytona Beach, FL (less than 10′) West Palm Beach, FL (less than 10′) Fort Lauderdale, FL (less than 10′) Miami, FL (less than 10′)
There are countless cities and towns in between these coastal cities. The Eastern Seaboard of the United States includes some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. Over one third of the country (more than 100 million people) live along the East Coast. Evacuation would be virtually impossible for most (except for the astute who act quickly) due to only hours notice, probable doubt, and the subsequent immediate gridlock that would follow.
NOT the expected distance a 300 foot tsunami (or any height) would actually travel. With that said, the maps simply provide visualization and reference in this regard.
The modern Democrat Party has an unhealthy fetish for the 14th Amendment, one of the three post-Civil War constitutional amendments. Democrats are constantly and relentlessly trying to rewrite it to accommodate their political ends.
A few months ago, Joe Biden and his party insisted that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment granted the president power to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling, which would destroy Congress’s sole power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to tax, spend, and borrow. Of course, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment does no such thing, and there is nothing in the history of the amendment that supports such an interpretation. Here’s the relevant language:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
As I explain in my new book, “The Democrat Party Hates America,” nobody was challenging the validity of the debt. Second, the language is specific to Civil War-related debt. Third, the language says nothing about fundamentally altering the way the federal government raises revenue or pays debt. Fourth, to repeat, the language and legislative history in no way support the proposition that the core power of Congress was replaced or repealed. Fifth, the language does not and was never intended to abolish separation of powers, which is core to our constitutional system. The proponents of this absurdity would have turned Biden into a bigger dictator than he already is. But none of this mattered to the proponents. They seek power at any cost.
If the Democrat Party, their media, and their academicians cannot rewrite the Constitution by interpretation, then they argue for abolishing it altogether and replacing it with a more “relevant” document — that is, a document that ensures their monopoly power and destroys our founding principles. After all, how many times have they told us that the Constitution was written by slaveholders, perpetuates racism and inequity, and is illegitimate?
The same kind of fraudulent approach is now before us with respect to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Here is the text that these constitutional saboteurs, in the name of the Constitution, are desperately and cravenly insisting prevents former President Donald Trump from effectively running for a second presidential term.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
You need not be an aging retired judge, washed-up former law professor, or NeverTrumper academician to notice that the word “president” cannot be found in this text. So, why would the amendment’s drafters, adopters, and ratifiers all exclude the word “president” from the text but include virtually every other form of officeholder, federal and state, elected and appointed, in the text? Did they forget to add the word “president”? Or could the reason possibly be that they did not want to include the word “president” and, therefore, intentionally did not? Of course, there is nothing anywhere that even suggests the drafters, adopters, or ratifiers intended otherwise. It took two NeverTrumper law professors (members of the Federalist Society no less), joining the Democrat Party mob, over 125 pages to try to convince us that by omitting the word “president,” not only did the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers intend to include the president, but the proper interpretation of the amendment and its construction and application make it undeniable and clear.
In fact, so clear are these professors and their ilk that we are supposed to intuit the intention of the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers by, among other things, the words “as an officer of the United States.” Thus, this phrase, we are told, should be read to include the word “president.” Therefore, there was no need to single out by name the most powerful and important governmental official in the entire country. Consequently, the argument goes, of course the president was intended to be included in the amendment by general reference to “officer.” Any why not? After all, the local South Carolina county commissioner was not specifically mentioned either.
This is preposterous. For most people, the absurdity is self-evident. Indeed, if they intended to include the president, you’d think he would not only be mentioned but that he’d be at the top of the list of officials included in the text. In fact, they even mention “elector of President and Vice-President,” but not the president himself.
Moreover, what does the phrase “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [the United States]” mean? If you are going to bar the leading Republican candidate for the presidency from even appearing on a state ballot, thereby disenfranchising untold numbers of citizens who would like to vote for him, and potentially alter the course and outcome of a presidential election, there should be some definitive way to know what this phrase means and who gets to make that decision. Obviously, as the 14th Amendment is one of the so-called Civil War amendments, we know what was meant when the amendment was ratified — engaging in insurrection or rebellion on behalf of the Confederacy and against the Union, aka the Civil War. It wasn’t very difficult to figure out who did or did not engage in such activities or what was meant by insurrection or rebellion. They didn’t need law professors or members of the Democrat Party — the party of the Confederacy — to tell them. But did the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers intend Section 3 to apply beyond the death of the last Confederate?
Of course, there’s no evidence that it did, other than the wishful meanderings and self-serving declarations of the proponents. Strangely, however, if that was the true intention and purpose, the amendment doesn’t provide any guidance on how these decisions would be presented and resolved in the case of a presidential candidate or president. I say strangely because at the Constitutional Convention, the framers spent a great deal of time debating and working through the way we elect presidents. They came up with the Electoral College system. It didn’t take long until it was evident that even that process needed some adjustment. Hence, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. If, in 1868, the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended it not only to apply to a presidential candidate or president but knew it could upset the presidential election process, why did they say absolutely nothing about it?
For example, how is it determined whether a presidential candidate or president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States when he has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, such offenses? You won’t find the answer in the 14th Amendment. That would seem to be an essential question in need of a definitive answer. Did the men behind Section 3 intend that a presidential candidate be barred from a state ballot based merely on accusations? And accusations from whom? The media? Democrat Party officials, operatives, and litigators? Academicians? NeverTrumpers? In fact, the second impeachment trial against President Trump fell well short of the number of senators needed to convict him for the events of January 6. As a result, he was not barred under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution from “hold[ing] and enjoy[ing] any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” If anything, there was a constitutional adjudication in Trump’s favor.
Indeed, on January 4, 48 hours before the so-called January 6 insurrection, President Trump offered to call up 10,000 National Guardsmen to protect the Capitol Building and Congress during the official Electoral College count. The Democrat speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the D.C. Democrat mayor refused the offer. These facts are intentionally ignored by the Biden regime’s special counsel, as they were by the Democrat Party’s so-called January 6 Committee. And they ignore it because a president clearly is not engaged in an insurrection or rebellion when he offers thousands of armed troops to do precisely the opposite.
Moreover, does any serious scholar believe that the post-Civil War Congress was so committed to preserving federalism that it would have written an amendment giving a single state the power to upend a federal presidential election? Would that Congress have believed when it was drafting and adopting Section 3 that it was granting power to a state official, say, a secretary of state or attorney general, to unilaterally bar a leading presidential candidate from the state’s ballot, thereby possibly affecting the outcome of a national election? Or, for that matter, even a state legislature? No way. Indeed, the post-Civil War Congresses were mostly hostile to states’ rights. Several Southern states remained occupied military territories until they capitulated to the demands of the federal government.
Putting aside all the issues raised previously, one can only imagine the Pandora’s box this would open. It was not opened by the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment. It is being opened by the modern-day saboteurs of the Constitution.
This entire movement is a vile assault on the electoral process directed at a single individual: Donald Trump. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for it. However, if it somehow succeeds, the implications will live far beyond today. We are left not with the rule of law but the rule of men – and in this case, the rule of Democrat Party officials and operatives and their academic allies. The party of the Confederacy once again seeks to nullify the federal Constitution and the nation’s electoral system, disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide, and push the country toward its breaking point, from which we may never recover.
It's worth remembering that the Democrat Party and its surrogates are a power-hungry lot. They are also driving other dangerously illegitimate and self-serving attacks on our voting system.
How many times have we heard from Democrat politicians, academics, media, and activists that the Electoral College should be abolished, that it is a racist system set up by white slaveholders to perpetuate racism, etc.? Of course, this is another anti-American lie. The purpose of the Electoral College is, among others, to ensure that all parts of the country have a say in the election of a president and vice president, not just the most populous areas, and to prevent mob rule by way of unchecked majoritarianism. Thus, the Electoral College is an institutional block on the Democrat Party’s efforts to monopolize our voting system, since the most densely populated areas of the nation are run by Democrats.
The Democrat Party is behind another unconstitutional scheme that seeks to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans, specifically Republican voters – the so-called National Popular Vote movement. It involves an interstate compact in which states agree in advance of actual voting to assign their Electoral College votes to the candidate who nationally receives the largest number of popular votes – even if that candidate loses the popular vote in their own state. The NPV is only triggered once enough states reach the 270 majority under the Electoral College system. So far, the states that have joined the compact hold 196 electoral votes. They’re getting close.
The Democrat Party is also relentlessly attempting to nationalize state voting systems to empower itself and destroy any meaningful opposition from the Republican Party. The Democrat Party dressed up this tyranny as a civil rights effort. It was introduced in the House by Nancy Pelosi as H.R. 1, the first bill to be considered by the new Democrat majority. It would have effectively eliminated state voter ID laws, make it virtually impossible to clean up voter registration lists, instituted online registration throughout the country, virtually eliminated protections against absentee ballot fraud, provided for taxpayer funding for congressional candidates, attacked political speech by individuals and groups, etc. Vladimir Lenin called it “democratic centralization.”
This is the party, and these are the people (with cover from some odd-thinking professors, et al.) who are organizing around a twisted fiction for banning Trump from the ballot and disenfranchising his would-be voters in advance of an election.
Mike retired from Rowan in 2018 after 46 years of service. Among his valued contributions, he created the RTF program and was instrumental in establishing the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation in 2002. The $1 million gift established an endowed chair with Mike as its first recipient. Mike also served for many years as the advisor for Rowan Radio 89.7 WGLS-FM and was instrumental in its strong reputation and recognition as an award-winning college radio station.
A celebration of life will be held at a later date.
Born in Jersey City, Mike attended Jersey City State College (BA) and New York University (MA). He began his career at Glassboro State College which became Rowan University, and retired after 45 years in 2018 as Professor of the History and Business of Television.
During his tenure, he established the Radio/TV/Film program, assisted in growing the WGLS radio station to an award winning college station, and served as Director of Marketing for the National Association of Television Programming Executives.
Mike was appointed the Educational Director of The Charles and Lucille King Family Foundation, and went on to serve as The Endowed Chair of the King Foundation at Rowan.
He is survived by his loving wife Ann (Shoemaker) Donovan , sister Barbara (Donovan)Rose (Staten Island, NY), brother Patrick and sister-in-law Maureen (Ryan) Donovan (Jim Thorpe Pa.)and loving nieces ,nephews and step children.
Rowan University President Dr. Donald Farish announced today that the University had received a $1 million pledge from the Charles
& Lucille King Family Foundation to endow a professorial chair in Rowan’s Radio/TV/Film Department. Michael Donovan, a professor
of the Radio/TV/Film Department, has been named by the University to serve as the founding chair.
The Rowan University Foundation will manage the endowment as part of its investment portfolio. Under its current spending policy, the Foundation will allocate five percent of the fund value each year back to the department. Professor Donovan will oversee the
distribution of funds, using them for research activities, equipment and resources needed for students to excel in what Donovan describes as a “constantly changing industry.”
“Endowing a chair is one of the most effective ways a donor can impact the overall quality of a specific program,” said Farish.
“The gift will enable Professor Donovan and his successors to implement initiatives usually offered only in the nation’s top
communication programs. Our students are going to benefit greatly from this donation and what Mr. Donovan will be able to do with
it.”
Donovan has earned a national reputation for his work in Radio/TV/Film education. In addition to teaching for more than 30
years at Rowan, for the past 20 years Donovan has been a marketing consultant and education coordinator for the National Association
of Television Program Executives, the largest television programming trade association in the world. He also teaches seminars on the American commercial broadcast industry to media professionals from developing nations for the United States Telecommunications Training Institute in Washington, D.C.
“We became familiar with Rowan University through Professor Donovan’s initiatives outside of Rowan,” said Eugene Kokot, trustee
and secretary of the King Family Foundation. “We believe that the College of Communication has an excellent understanding of the
broadcast industry’s needs and will use the money in the students’ best interest.”
“The Foundation is delighted that Rowan has selected Professor Donovan as the first to hold the endowed chair,” Kokot added.
The King Family Foundation’s pledge came after nearly a year of talks with Rowan University Foundation’s Executive Director Dr.
Philip Tumminia. “The Foundation has a long history of supporting students studying television and film production at some of the
most prestigious universities in the country,” Tumminia said. “We had hoped that if the trustees learned about the transformation
taking place here at Rowan and the progress being made in the College of Communication, they would agree that we were a good
investment. We are honored that the trustees would hold our communication program in such high regard as to make such a generous gift.”
The Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation, a New Jersey-based non-profit organization, was established in 1989 by
Diana King in honor of her parents whose early efforts in film and television program distribution led to the creation of King World
Productions, Inc. Chief among the Foundation’s educational pursuits is its undergraduate scholarship program that provides scholarships to outstanding students pursuing degrees in television and film production.
Rowan's Donovan to be honoredby Broadcast Education Association
Rowan University faculty member Mike Donovan of Glassboro will be honored for his outstanding contributions to electronic media education when he receives the 2006 Distinguished Education Service Award from the Washington, D.C.-based Broadcast Education Association (BEA).
Donovan, a professor in the Radio/Television/Film (RTF) Department in the College of Communication at Rowan, will receive the award April 27 during the BEA's 51st annual convention in Las Vegas.
The BEA, which boasts more than 1,400 members, is the professional association for professors, industry professionals and graduate students interested in teaching and research in electronic media and multimedia enterprises.
The Distinguished Education Service Award is presented to an electronic media educator or industry person "who has made a significant and lasting contribution to the American system of electronic media education" through a singular achievement or continuing service, according to the BEA web site.
A Rowan faculty member since 1972, Donovan was one of the founding members of the University's RTF Department. He teaches courses in the business, regulation, economics and history of the electronic media industry.
In 2002, he was named to the King Chair, an endowed professorial chair at Rowan established through a $1 million gift from the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation.
Active on numerous committees at Rowan, Donovan served as the advisor to Rowan Radio, WGLS 89.7-FM, for many years and is the co-author of the Student Operations Manual, which has been recognized as a model for student radio stations. He also established the Radio/TV Association, a student organization for media majors.
For two decades, he was a marketing consultant and educational coordinator for the National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE), the largest television programming professional trade association in the world.
Additionally, he established and supervised a host of educational initiatives through the NATPE Educational Foundation.
# # #
Investiture at Rowan to celebrate endowed RTF chair
Rowan University will hold its first-ever formal Investiture ceremony to celebrate the University's endowed chair in the College
of Communication on Thursday, Sept. 25, at 4 p.m. in the Eynon Ballroom of the Chamberlain Student Center.
The ceremony will formally recognize Michael Donovan as the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation Chair in Radio/Television/Film (RTF). Diana King, trustee, president and chair of The Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation, will join with the Rowan community to mark the celebration of the chair, which was established through a $1 million endowment in 2002.
All members of the Rowan community--faculty, students and staff--are invited to attend the Investiture ceremony.
"Gifts like the endowed chair from the King Family Foundation help us hire top faculty, support research activities, promote
faculty development and, most importantly, provide unique learning opportunities for our students," said Rowan President Donald
Farish.
"The Investiture not only celebrates the King family's legacy as pioneers in the television industry. It also gives us the
opportunity to recognize the profound impact their gift has had on Rowan students."
King World Productions, founded by Charles King in the 1930s, grew, through the stewardship of the King family, into the world's
leading syndicator of first-run television programming. The company's success with programming such as "Wheel of Fortune,"
"Jeopardy!" and "The Oprah Winfrey Show" catapulted King World to leadership in the industry.
One of six children of Charles and Lucille King, Diana King established the New Jersey-based Charles & Lucille King Family
Foundation to support individuals, institutions and organizations committed to educational excellence and professional
development.
Donovan, a nationally recognized teacher and scholar who joined Rowan in 1972, was one of the founding members of the RTF
department, where he teaches courses in the business, regulation, economics and history of the electronic media industry. For 20
years, Donovan served as a marketing consultant and educational coordinator for the National Association of Television Program
Executives, the largest television programming professional trade association in the world.
In 2006, he received the Distinguished Education Service Award from
the Broadcast Education Association.
Donovan serves as educational director of the Charles & Lucille King Family Foundation, coordinating and screening applications for the foundation's undergraduate scholarship program.
In addition to supporting research activities, promoting faculty development and providing technologies that have enhanced
educational experiences for RTF students, funds from the King Family Foundation Endowed Chair also have gone toward the
establishment of a visiting professorship in RTF for David Bianculli, a nationally prominent television critic.
Bianculli, former TV critic for the New York Daily News, is a longtime contributor to National Public Radio's "Fresh Air"
program.
Diana King, who received an honorary degree from Rowan in 2002, established The Charles & Lucille King Foundation in 1988.
Hogan, Donovan To Be Inducted Into The WGLS-FM Hall Of Fame
Frank Hogan and Mike Donovan at the WGLS-FM 40th anniversary banquet in October 2004.
Rowan Radio General Manager Emeritus Frank J. Hogan and Rowan University professor Michael Donovan will be inducted into the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame at Rowan Radio’s annual banquet on Thursday, April 12 at Scotland Run Golf Club in Williamstown, New Jersey.
Hogan served as WGLS-FM General Manager from 1991 to 2013. Under his leadership, WGLS-FM reached unprecedented heights on and off-the-air including winning College Radio Station of the Year; and receiving over 200 regional and national awards for excellence in programming.
Along with his work at Rowan Radio, Hogan also lent his time to teaching. He developed and taught the radio component of Rowan University’s Radio, Television & Film program.
A Philadelphia radio veteran in the 70s and 80s as a disc jockey and engineer, Hogan’s ties to Rowan University date back to 1977 when he designed new radio studios for WGLS-FM at then-Glassboro State College. He would go on to help facilitate Rowan Radio’s move into its current home at Bozorth Hall in the mid-90s as well.
Hogan will join his wife Alisa in the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame. She was inducted in 2014 at the station’s 50th anniversary banquet.
Meanwhile, Donovan, who began working at Glassboro State College in 1972, was WGLS-FM’s advisor for 10 years beginning in the early 70s. He played a key role in saving the station’s license in the late 70s and helped bring Hogan to Glassboro State College originally in 1977. Donovan oversaw many technological advancements for the station including power increases and a switch from a mono to stereo signal.
Besides his work with WGLS-FM, Donovan had a significant impact in the classroom. He created the Radio, TV, & Film program within the College of Communication and Creative Arts, which is still a mainstay at Rowan University.
Donovan and Hogan will become the 43rd and 44th members of the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame.
Established in 2005, the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame recognizes Glassboro State/Rowan University alumni and individuals that contributed to the station’s success.
You can register for the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame Banquet here.
Hogan and Donovan to enter WGLS-FM Hall of Fame By Matt Kass
Rowan Radio WGLS-FM will soon be adding two new members to the station’s Hall of Fame. General Manager Emeritus Frank J. Hogan and Rowan University professor Michael Donovan will be inducted into the Hall of Fame at Rowan Radio’s annual banquet on Thursday, April 12 at Scotland Run Golf Club in Williamstown, New Jersey.
For Derek Jones, current station director at WGLS-FM, Hogan and Donovan are part of a long legacy of success at the station. In an email response, Jones reiterated just how much the two meant to WGLS-FM.
“One of the biggest challenges of being station manager is following the legacy of excellence Frank [Hogan] and Mike [Donovan] helped establish,” Jones said. “It’s an awesome feeling to walk into the station every day and see the amount of awards and the success we’ve enjoyed over the years. Yet there is a constant challenge to keep that tradition going because you don’t want to let either one of them down. They set the standard and those who work at WGLS-FM have to live up to it.”
Hogan served as WGLS-FM General Manager from 1991 to 2013. Under his leadership, WGLS-FM won College Radio Station of the Year; and received over 200 regional and national awards for excellence in programming. Along with his work at Rowan Radio, Hogan developed and taught the radio component of Rowan University’s Radio, Television & Film program.
Hogan’s ties to Rowan University date back to 1977 when he designed new radio studios for WGLS-FM at then-Glassboro State College. He would go on to help facilitate Rowan Radio’s move into its current home at Bozorth Hall in the mid-90s as well. Hogan will join his wife Alisa in the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame. She was inducted in 2014 at the station’s 50th-anniversary banquet.
Donovan began working at Glassboro State College in 1972 and was WGLS-FM’s advisor for 10 years beginning in the late 1970s. He played a key role in saving the station’s license in the late ’70s and helped bring Hogan to Glassboro State College in 1977. Donovan also oversaw many technological advancements for the station including power increases and a switch from a mono to stereo signal.
Besides his work with WGLS-FM, Donovan had a significant impact in the classroom. He created the radio, television and film program within the College of Communication and Creative Arts, which is still a mainstay at Rowan University.
For Jones, having the opportunity to induct Hogan and Donovan is something that he cherishes.
“Inducting them into the Hall of Fame will be a wonderful experience,” Jones said. “I’ve been able to work at the station and teach at Rowan University because of the wisdom and advice they gave me over the years. That evening will be an opportunity to say thank you for all of their hard work and dedication.”
Donovan and Hogan will become the 43rd and 44th members of the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame. Established in 2005, the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame recognizes Glassboro State/Rowan University alumni and individuals who contributed to the station’s success.
Frank J. Hogan served as WGLS-FM General Manager from 1991 to 2013. Under his leadership, WGLS-FM reached unprecedented heights on and off-the-air, was named College Radio Station of the Year by the National Association of College Broadcasters, and received more than 200 regional and national awards for excellence in programming. He would go on to help facilitate Rowan Radio’s move into its current home in Bozorth Hall in the mid-1990s. Along with his work at the station, Hogan developed and taught the radio component of Rowan’s Radio, Television & Film (RTF) program.
Mike Donovan began working at GSC in 1972 and was WGLS-FM’s advisor for over 10 years. During the early 1970s, the station's license was nearly surrendered to the FCC due to operational concerns. Donovan interceded to ensure the station stayed on the air. He oversaw many technological advancements for the station, including power increases and a switch from a mono to stereo broadcast signal. In 1977, he helped bring Hogan to GSC. Donovan also has had a significant impact in the classroom and was a founder of the RTF program within the College of Communication & Creative Arts.
Retirement lunch for Mike Donovan. 46 years teaching at Rowan and most responsible for starting the RTF Department. So long Mike and enjoy your retirement!
Sad news to report from WGLS-FM General Manager Emeritus Frank J Hogan.
Mike Donovan, WGLS-FM station advisor from 1973 to 1988 and long-time Rowan University professor, passed away on Thursday morning.
A 2018 inductee of the WGLS-FM Hall of Fame, Donovan began at then-Glassboro State College in 1972 as a professor. As WGLS-FM struggled to find its footing in early 70s and faced possibly losing its license, Donovan became station advisor in 1973 and helped save the station. He continued in that role until 1988.
Donovan was responsible for numerous technological improvements at WGLS-FM and helped facilitate its move into Savitz Library. Also, he co-authored the WGLS-FM Station Manual, which is still in existence today.
Donovan brought in Philadelphia radio veteran Frank Hogan to Glassboro in the 70s as a consultant to assist with the station’s move to a stereo signal. Hogan would go on to eventually become WGLS-FM General Manager in 1991.
Donovan’s impact greatly exceeded the walls of WGLS-FM. He created the Radio, TV, & Film program within the Ric Edelman College of Communication and Creative Arts, which is still a mainstay at Rowan University.
“Without Mike Donovan, there may not be a WGLS-FM, as we know it. He was an advocate, influential figure, and friend to not only Rowan Radio but to Rowan University as well,” said WGLS-FM Station Manager Derek Jones.
“He impacted the lives of students as a brilliant teacher and as an advisor. Truly, Mike Donovan was a pillar for Rowan University’s Radio/Television/Film program. He will be missed.”
Jeff Weber along with Jim and Carol Servino made initial donations to establish the R. Michael Donovan Scholarship at Rowan University.
The goal of the R. Michael Donovan Scholarship is to honor and reward a rising senior Radio-TV-Film major for superior achievement while a student at Rowan.
If you'd like to join in and help fund the scholarship so it becomes self-sustaining, just click on the following link that will take you right to his scholarship fund.
Feel free to share this link with others who might be interested in contributing.
"For those of us who had experiences with Mike Donovan at GSC/Rowan either as a professor or through his involvement with WGLS as our faculty advisor, we came to know him as someone who would talk with anyone and keep you entertained during the conversation. And this was from someone who wasn't much older than we were.
With Mike's passing this year, Jeff Weber and I were reminiscing about how many of us students really value our time at WGLS and how we were able to leverage those experiences in successful careers both in and out of the radio business. We felt one way to thank him and honor his memory is to establish a scholarship in his name to help students financially as they pursue their Bachelor of Arts in Radio, Television & Film degrees."
You can make a one-time or multi-year donation by using the link. Thank you in advance for considering this.
We invite you to join us in making a gift to support the creation of an endowed scholarship in Mike Donovan’s name. In the event that the $25,000 minimum to establish an endowed scholarship is not secured by December 26, 2026, all funds raised will instead be awarded as annual scholarships in Mike Donovan’s name."
