On This Day, May 29: Charles II restored to English throne
On this date in history:
In 1660, Charles II was restored to the English throne. It was also the monarch's 30th birthday.
In 1790, Rhode Island became the last of the original 13 states to ratify the U.S. Constitution.
In 1914, the Canadian Pacific Transatlantic liner Empress of Ireland sank in the early-morning hours following a collision with the liner Storstadt, a much smaller vessel, in Canada's Gulf of St. Lawrence. More than 1,000 people died in what is the largest maritime accident in Canadian peacetime history.
In 1953, Edmund Hillary of New Zealand and Tenzing Norgay of Nepal became the first humans to reach the top of Mount Everest.
In 1977, Janet Guthrie became the first woman to compete in the Indianapolis 500. She completed 27 laps before her car became disabled. On the same day in 2005, Danica Patrick became the first woman to lead during the same race.
In 1985, British soccer fans attacked Italian fans preceding the European Cup final in Brussels. The resulting stadium stampede killed 38 people and injured 400.
In 1990, renegade Communist Boris Yeltsin was elected president of Russia.
File Photo by Martin Jeong/UPI
In 1996, in Israel's first selection of a prime minister by direct vote, Benjamin Netanyahu defeated Shimon Peres. The margin of victory was less than 1 percent.
In 1997, Zaire rebel leader Laurent Kabila was sworn in as president of what was again being called the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He was assassinated in 2001.
In 2004, the National World War II memorial was dedicated on the National Mall in Washington. Thousands of veterans of the war, which ended nearly 59 years earlier, attended the ceremony.
File Photo by Greg Whitesell/UPI
In 2009, U.S. music producer Phil Spector was sentenced to 19 years to life in prison for the 2003 slaying of actress Lana Carlson.
In 2010, two mosques of a religious minority in Pakistan were attacked by intruders firing weapons and throwing grenades. Officials put the death toll at 98.
In 2018, a Harvard study determined at least 4,645 people in Puerto Rico died as a result of Hurricane Maria, a sharp contrast to the official government death toll of 64.
In 2019, special counsel Robert Mueller released his first public statement, saying that while there's no evidence President Donald Trump colluded with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, there were several "episodes" in which he obstructed justice.
In 2024, South Africa's African National Congress failed to win a parliamentary majority in the general election for the first time since apartheid. President Cyril Ramaphosa was still able to form a coalition government.
File Photo by Stringer/EPA-EFE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
The American University Is in Crisis. Not for the First Time.
'Intellectuals, it may be held, are pretentious, conceited, effeminate and snobbish; and very likely immoral, dangerous and subversive,' the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in his 1963 book 'Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,' summing up the conventional wisdom of his era. And not just his era: As Hofstadter pointed out more than six decades ago, the United States has a long record of resenting its professors, experts, intellectuals and scientists — and of questioning whether higher education is actually good for the national soul. Decades before the American Revolution, critics were already warning that Harvard and Yale — then the only two colleges in New England — had become sources of 'darkness, darkness that may be felt.' By the early 20th century, the critique had expanded to include attacks on academics 'as the prophets of false and needless reforms, as architects of the administrative state,' even as nefarious 'ur-Bolsheviks.' Fast-forward to 2025, and the critiques look much the same. According to the Trump administration and its allies, America's top universities are at once too exclusive and too inclusive, overly influential but utterly useless, unconscionably wealthy but too dependent on taxpayer dollars. Hofstadter had little patience for attacks on universities as hotbeds of un-Americanism. But he warned that intellectuals did themselves no favors by simply proclaiming their own virtues and denouncing their critics as rubes. 'It is rare for an American intellectual to confront candidly the unresolvable conflict between the elite character of his own class and his democratic aspirations,' he wrote. For that sentence alone, his book is worth rereading. In retrospect, Hofstadter didn't know how good he had it. The middle of the 20th century was a boom time for higher education in America, with entire universities springing up seemingly overnight and faculty jobs for the taking. Even so, universities found themselves on the defensive, accused of fomenting dissent, brainwashing students and wasting everyone's time on frivolous subjects. Leading the charge was the Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy, who disliked university professors almost as much as Communist Party members. 'It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this nation out,' McCarthy declared in 1950, 'but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer — the finest homes, the finest college education and the finest jobs in government we can give.' In his anti-communist absolutism, he prefigured Donald Trump's critique of today's universities as 'dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Abrego Garcia accuses Trump admin. of vindictive prosecution
Thousands of people across more than 700 locations in the United States demonstrated against President Donald Trump on Saturday, April 19, protesting his administration's policies during the second "day of action" organized by the 50501 movement. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo Aug. 20 (UPI) -- Defense attorneys for Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who the Trump administration wrongly deported to El Salvador this spring and then brought human trafficking charges against him once he returned to the United States, are accusing the Justice Department of vindictively prosecuting their client. In a motion filed Tuesday, Abrego Garcia's defense is asking the court to dismiss the charges brought against the 30-year-old Salvadoran national is punishment for him standing up to the Trump administration. "Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been singled out by the United States government. It is obvious why. And it is not because of the seriousness of his alleged conduct. Nor is it because he poses some unique threat to this country. Instead, Mr. Abrego was charged because he refused to acquiesce in the government's violation of his due process rights," Abrego Garcia's lawyers said in the motion. Abrego Garcia, a resident of Maryland who is married to a U.S. citizen, was arrested amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration as part of its mass deportation plans. Despite a court order prohibiting his removal, he was deported to El Salvador in March and incarcerated in the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, where he said he was subjected to torture. Abrego Garcia then challenged his removal in court, prompting the Trump administration to try and label him a gang member in public, while admitting in court it wrongly deported the immigrant. He was returned to the United States in June, but only after he was charged with human smuggling by the Justice Department. In the filing, his lawyers accused the Trump administration of conducting "a public campaign to punish Mr. Abrego for daring to fight back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in this case." His lawyers point to comments from senior Trump administration officials, as well as President Donald Trump, calling him a criminal following his win in court that secured his return to the United States but before he was charged as proof of the White House's vindictiveness. "The government's motive has been to paint Mr. Abrego as a criminal in order to punish him for challenging his removal, to avoid the embarrassment of accepting responsibility for its unlawful conduct and to shift public opinion around Mr. Abrego's removal, including 'mounting concerns' with the government's compliance with court orders," they said in the filing. The Justice Department's case against Abrego Garcia stems from a November 2022 traffic stop in Putnam County, Tenn. Nine passengers were in the vehicle with him when stopped, but he was allowed to continue on his way, not even receiving a traffic ticket. The government alleges he was the driver in a human smuggling conspiracy, and his defense argues that the Trump administration "has gone to extreme lengths" to make its criminal case. His lawyers in the filing state that they have tried to secure the cooperation of multiple alleged conspirators who have already been sentenced to testify against Abrego Garcia, with its so-called star witness being a convicted leader of a human smuggling business with three felony convictions and who has been deported from the United States five times. According to the filing, the Justice Department arranged for this alleged co-conspirator to be released early from a 30-month sentence to a halfway house to cooperate against Abrego Garcia, while relatives or those in relationship with this person also appear to be provided with "similar benefits" for providing corroborating testimony. In the filing Tuesday, Abrego Garcia's lawyers argue that nothing had changed in the three years since the traffic stop, except for the government wrongly deporting him to El Salvador and that he challenged his deportation. "As a matter of timing, it is clear that it was that lawsuit -- and its effects on the government -- that prompted the government to re-evaluate the 2022 traffic stop and bring this case," the filing states. "[N]o similarly situated defendant -- an alleged driver in an alien smuggling conspiracy -- has ever had to wait two and a half years to be charged with a crime where the facts had not changed since the stop itself." His defense alleges that the only explanation for the timing of the charges is that the government has chosen to punish him for fighting his deportation. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty.
an hour ago
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to 'anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused" anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions," Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. "The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome," said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant's positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration's activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who's trying to enter the United States," said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They're allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.'
