The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in original, grassroots, conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama, the most corrupt, treacherous and treasonous occupant of the White House in our near 240 existence. Coach's Team contributors pray Mr. Trump will indeed drain the swamp that is Washington DC.
Did former President Obama try to
co-opt media coverage of President Donald Trump's international trip by making
Italy his first stop in an all-expenses paid trip around the world? Isn't
this the first time that a former president traveled a route nearly
parallel with that of the new President?
Obama departed for Italy on Friday,
one day before the People's President embarked for Saudi Arabia. The
Obama private jet was encircled by six Eurofighter Fourth Wing fighter jets en
route to Italy for his five day stay at the $15,000 a night Borgo Finocchieto,
thirteenth century restored village, owned by Obama friend, former US
Ambassador to Italy, John Phillips.
The Obama entourage consisted of a 13
car motorcade which included an armored Chevrolet to protect the former Commander
in Chief. President Trump flew into Saudi Arabia on Air Force One, accompanied
by The Beast--the president's very own, specially made, armored transport
vehicle which was safely stored in the back of his plane!
Trumps land in Saudi Arabia
Obama stayed in the once owned
Borghese family villa just 45 minutes south of Florence. He’s about a one hour
flight from President Trump who will be staying at the US Air Force Signorella
military base in Taormina, Sicily. "Taormina's roads are too narrow
and bendy for the US President's car; his motorcade is longer than the distances
it would have to cover during the G7summit," reports Italy's La
Repubblica. Because of the security nightmare, President Trump's overnight
accommodations while in Italy have been changed from the Hotel Timeo, where
Germany's Angel Merkel and Japan's Shinzo Abe were booked during their visits,
to the Signorello base.
Flying over the tiny towns and roads
in the Mount Etna region to the summit, President Trump will look down from his
vantage point aboard his military helicopter. This decision to change overnight reservations was made by the Secret Service which said the base stay was
"the lesser of two evils…potential eruptions from Mount Etna and the risk
of damage to the copter was deemed preferable to driving through tight streets
with no escape routes." (From personal observation, yes, the
roads are tiny, making navigation of the tourista buses nearly impossible.)
Signorella Air Base
Comparing the Obama Italian villa stay
with the Palm Beach opulence of Trump's Mar-a-Lago illustrates each man's
fascination with the beauty of gold décor. Both estates have gold dining
rooms, gold formal rooms, gold colored wallpaper and furnishings.
Concierge, executive chefs and wait staff cater to the guests' every
whim. However, the Trump formal dining room table has gorgeous
candelabra, lit by actual candles, whereas the restored Borghese estate's
dining room table is lit by battery operated candles-- nice, but still not
authentic. (The gold amenities in Mar-a-Lago are beyond beautiful!)
While the title of the Tuscan town
means Village of Fennel Fields, the Trump Palm Beach estate means "Sea and
Lake" in Latin. While Obama played golf at the World Heritage Site
private golf course Castiglion del Bosco, Trump owns one of the world's ten top
private clubs. Again, the optics carry the day here and Obama's pre-Trump
overseas trip just looks bad.
Though President Trump did not bow to him,
the Saudi king presented the Order of Abdulaziz al-Saud medal, his nation’s
highest medal of honor, to the president at the Saudi Royal Court in
Riyadh. The red carpet upon which the President walked was groomed so
meticulously that some attendants swept the beautiful rug in their bare feet! While Obama angered many Americans when pictures of his deep bow to the
Muslim king began to circulate stateside, the pictures of President Trump
showed him holding a sword.
Trump and Sheik
Michelle Obama flew in to accompany
her husband on their trip, but not before Barack went sightseeing in Italy, just
prior to the President landing. Note here the obvious PR factor of Obama being
seen first. Obama spoke to a full house at the climate change "Seeds
and Chips" Global Food Innovation Summit in Milan, prior to the Trump
speech before the G-7 Summit.
First Lady Melania Trump flew with her
husband, along with his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law. Both of the Trump
women were impeccably dressed and looked drop-dead gorgeous. Of course,
the Obama loving US media tried to start a no head-scarf flap with Melania's
beautiful cascade of hair. But attempts to find a similar media flap about a
non-scarf wearing, former first lady in the Middle East came up empty. Not
exactly a surprise.
Something about Obama's Italian
interlude just does not feel quite right. Wouldn’t Obama have been more
gracious to have stayed at home, out of sight, in deference to the new
President's first overseas trip? Didn’t former President George W. Bush
stay out of the public eye in order to show deference to the newly elected Obama?
Taormina ancient theatre
Obama had eight years of America's
pomp and circumstance and he and his family spent ridiculous amounts of
taxpayer dollars on vacations. He might have come across as a classier,
better mannered former president had he shown deference to the new president. But Barack Obama’s behavior will never be
mistaken for class.
Obama and his globalist handlers
sought to cast far too large a shadow across the path of President Trump. If
anything, it’s an incident which adds more credence to the meme that the Left
has set up a soft coup against the new President and Obama, living a mere few
miles from the White House, certainly seems to be in the vanguard of this
But having to defend yourself when
a cop shows up in response to a “bias incident”? That’s a whole other
The Foundation for Individual Rights
in Education released its first annual report on bias incident response teams today,
and it’s even worse than we thought:
42% report speech to members of law
enforcement or campus security officers, even though the teams deliberately
solicit reports of a wide variety of non-criminal speech and activity.
12% of teams include at least one
administrator dedicated to media relations, suggesting that part of the purpose
of such teams is to deter and respond to controversies that might embarrass the
Fewer than a third of teams included
faculty members, whose absence diminishes the likelihood that the team will
have a meaningful understanding of academic freedom.
That works out to 70 schools that use
the cops to warn or threat students, staff and faculty when they offend
And these are just the teams whose
composition is made public.
FIRE identified 232 public and private
schools with such teams – encompassing 2.28 million students – but only 167
identified their members to any degree. Another several dozen schools
could have law enforcement going after protected speech – they won’t say.
Consider what counts as “bias”:
Almost all use categories widely found
in discrimination statutes (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.), while others
investigate bias against obscure categories, such as “smoker status,” “shape,”
and “intellectual perspective.” A significant minority include political affiliation or speech as a
potential bias, inviting reports of and investigations into political speech by
law enforcement and student conduct administrators. …
There is an unavoidable tension
between promoting free speech and academic freedom and working to combat the
presence of “bias” (however defined) on campus. Yet only 85 (50.9%) of the teams surveyed acknowledged a tension with freedom
of speech, freedom of inquiry, or academic freedom on their websites or
in their policies.
Also consider a subset of categories
that virtually no school considers for bias:
FIRE said that while many institutions
complied with their requests for information on bias response teams:
Others stonewalled, hid records,
deleted websites, or demanded thousands of dollars to view records, claiming
that knowing how Bias Response Teams operate is not in the public interest.
It has only identified one school that
includes “substantive training on First Amendment issues” for its bias response
team members: Louisiana State.
And a shocking minority of schools –
28 percent – don’t even say who reviews bias reports:
If universities are unwilling to
publicly identify who is responsible for reviewing and responding to reports, then
students, faculty, and the public will be hindered in holding public servants
accountable. Similarly, a refusal to identify Bias Response Team members does
not instill confidence that schools take complaints seriously by devoting
capable people to overseeing them.
In a footnote, FIRE gives an
“honorable mention” to one school, Washington’s Evergreen State College (which
counts Simpsons creator Matt Groening as an alum), for handing over more
than 7,000 pages of “thorough records on a timely basis”:
Contrast this with the University of
California, which produced scant records after months of delay and obfuscation.
Obama’s National Security Agency (NSA)
routinely collected communications of American citizens since 2001 yet failed
to disclose the extent of White House spying; spying which continued unabated
until a few days before Donald Trump was elected President. Circa.com's Sara
Carter reviewed once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most
serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.
In declassified documents made public by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), Obama’s NSA admitted that its analysts
were violating surveillance rules on a regular basis. This pattern of Executive
branch overreach, coupled with the timing of the government’s disclosure,
resulted in an unusually harsh rebuke of the Obama administration’s practices
surveillance was first disclosed by NSA leaker Edward Snowden and “involves the
NSA’s bulk interception and searching of Americans’ international internet
communications — including emails, chats, and web-browsing traffic.”
dependably friendly FISA Court censured administration officials,
saying “… the failure to disclose the
extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor.”
“The improper searches constituted a very serious Fourth Amendment issue,”
continued the Court in an unsealed document dated April 26, 2017.
From a report by the NSA’s Inspector
General:“Since 2011, NSA’s minimization
procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results
of upstream Internet collections under Section 702.” “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice
informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in
violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been
previously disclosed to the Court.”
In an attempt to
justify its actions the NSA cited the so-called Section 702
database which, “allows the intelligence community to
conduct surveillance on only specific foreign targets located outside the
United States to collect foreign intelligence, including intelligence needed in
the fight against international terrorism and cyber threats."
Circa reported that since Obama
loosened the Intelligence collection privacy rules in 2011, the Intelligence
Agency increased data searches of Americans and revealed the identities of
those American targets in intelligence reports. Former National Security
Adviser Susan Rice stated that the activities were legal under Obama’s minimization
rule changes and claimed that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored
to avoid abuses.
So who was monitoring the
administration and the Intelligence agencies during this time? Certainly not
the squeamish members of House or Senate oversite committees.
You may be surprised to learn that
medical students at many of the best schools in the country aren’t given grades
during the first two years of their medical education. They either pass their
coursework or they fail. And then, they take one high-stakes test that affects
their medical future.
While the effort to allow medical
students to take two years of course work on a pass-fail basis was driven by an
effort to make the notoriously difficult life of medical students easier, the
high-stakes testing consequence creates problems of its own.
In this post, Brenda Sirovich, a physician and professor at
Dartmouth College’s medical school, writes about how this approach threatens to
compromise both the community of medicine and the quality of patients’ care.
She is a 2017 Public Voices Fellow with the OpEd Project, a social venture with
both a nonprofit and for-profit arm that is aimed at increasing the range of
voices and quality of ideas contributing to national and international debate.
News that a federal educational experiment failed to supply
evidence in favor of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s school choice
agenda has undoubtedly elicited schadenfreude in some Democratic circles.
Somewhat lost in the story, however, is scrutiny of how students’ educational
success or failure is measured.
The trend toward near-exclusive
reliance on standardized testing to measure educational achievement now extends
all the way to medical school. Many may not realize that the readiness of
aspiring doctors to enter the world of clinical medicine is now based
overwhelmingly on a single, standardized, closed-book, multiple choice test.
Scores on the test — the U.S.
Medical Licensing Step 1 Exam (a.k.a. the Boards) — taken after two
intense years of classroom education, will overwhelmingly determine where students do their
residency training. And their professional futures.
Behold the mismatch: We aim to prepare
students for a career characterized by collaboration, complexity, nuance and
uncertainty; yet, we evaluate them on their ability to select —
autonomously and without research — among radio buttons representing a
discrete range of right-or-wrong responses.
After 20-odd years in practice, I have
yet to see a patient come in with a list of four or five possible diagnoses,
and ask that I select the most appropriate response.
Nor have I, while searching online for
current evidence or recommendations, heard a patient cry out, “Stop! This
is a closed book appointment!”
Here’s the thing: Students understand
how they’re assessed — they’re all quite brilliant in this way, whether they’re
in medical school or high school or third grade. They figure out with lightning
speed what they need to do to maximize their performance on the assessment that
As a result, here is my students’ To
1.Do not attend class, unless attendance is specifically required.
2.Complain about the (modest) number of class hours requiring attendance.
3.Resist discretionary learning opportunities, no matter how interesting.
Their logic is impeccable. Each
student’s sweet spot for MCQ mastery involves some combination of lecture
videos at double speed, late nights, ear buds, coffee and little human
It works beautifully in achieving the
desired outcome of a good Board score.
But what is the
My students — and others like them —
are the doctors of tomorrow. They’ll care for me — and you — as we age. For our
parents facing life threatening illness and difficult decisions at the end of
life. For the children we haven’t yet contemplated.
The desired outcome should not be
about test scores.
We should hope students will have
learned how to find, evaluate and apply knowledge; how to work collaboratively;
how to tolerate and manage uncertainty; how to reason; how to walk in someone
else’s shoes; how to relentlessly pursue what’s best for each patient; how to
debate, be wrong, fail — and embrace and learn from it, each time; how to become who they want to be.