In various articles I have discussed the historic reasons for the inclusion of the Electoral College process in presidential elections, citing specific reasons the Founding Fathers, soon after gaining American independence from the British Empire and experiencing the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, finally framed a Constitutional Republic at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The founders chose this form of government for the United States rather than a simple majoritarian democracy. As opposed to a mass democracy where a simple popular majority decides the law, the rights of citizens, and the election of all officials — in a Constitutional Republic, the deliberate rule of law is supreme, and the government is limited in scope and is subject to the doctrines of Limited Government, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances. In a Republic, the property of all, the human rights of unpopular minorities, and the natural rights of individual citizens are all protected, despite unjust, capricious, and sometimes the covetous vote of the majority of less-well-to-do citizens.
The Electoral College is one of those institutions of a republican...
This is a review of the book Aristotle by John Herman Randall, Jr., Easton Press leather bound edition (1990).
The author John Herman Randall (1899-1980) was an educator, Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, and a humanist, signer of the Humanist manifesto (1933). A favorable Foreword for the book was written by the Reverend Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R. (1908-2005), a Canadian Roman Catholic priest and philosopher, a Christian scholar of St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, metaphysics, and medieval philosophy. This Foreword adds to the value of this tome.
However, the Foreword is somewhat misleading, as the good priest set out apparently to find what was good in the work, and he found enough of it to be able to write a praiseworthy introduction. True, as intimated by Father Owens, the author Randall admires and places Aristotle on the intellectual pedestal “The Philosopher” deserves. Father Owens points out and praises Randall and “his penetrating insight to insist that Aristotelianism ‘can be applied to any social and cultural materials…to Soviet Russia, to medieval Christendom, to India, to New York City.’ ” This was apparently the type of statement...
As Ronald Reagan used to say, when repeatedly correcting misstatements, “here we go again!” And yes, I repeatedly hear the United States of America referred to as a democracy by both parroting ignorants as well as those who know or should know better. Just recently a letter to the editor in my local paper argued that the Electoral College (EC) is not a good system because, “in a true democracy every vote should count and the candidate who gets the most votes should win.” Attempting logic with an Aristotelian syllogism, the writer continued, “Two of the last three men elected president were runners-up in popular votes in their initial elections. This indicates either the system is flawed or that the apportionment of electors is inequitable.”
The letter writer is dead wrong: First, the Founding Fathers created for us a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and they, almost to a man, abhorred the idea of framing a “true [or mass] democracy” for the emerging United States. A democracy for them was the capricious and irresponsible rule of the mob. Second, it was the letter writer’s attempted syllogism that erred not the Electoral College. The EC system is neither “flawed...
“I went to Communism as one goes to a spring of fresh water, and I left Communism as one clambers out of a poisoned river strewn with the wreckage of flooded cities and the corpses of the drowned.” --- Arthur Koestler
Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler is both a literary masterpiece and a tour de force in intellectual historical drama; it is as eloquent, but even more intense than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Both dramas are fast moving and intensely emotive. But whereas in Solzhenitsyn’s little epic we are dealing within injustice, imprisonment, useless labor, and hopelessness, in the case of Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, we are dealing with the more immediate arrest and incarceration of a former apparatchik, a former Bolshevik whose hands are not completely clean and who had participated in bringing about the state of persecution and terror in which he finds himself now as a victim.
The personal significance and historical context of this masterpiece is inextricably entwined with the life and career of its author, Arthur Koestler (1905-1983; photo, right). Koestler was a Hungarian ethnic Jew, a journalist and a former...
It is refreshing to see President-elect Trump on his “Thank You” tour speaking from a podium that proclaims “Merry Christmas.” The Trump victory was a revolt against Cultural Marxism, also known as political correctness. In that world, Merry Christmas is watered down into “Happy Holidays.”
In fact, says one strategic analyst, “Trump won because he got on his side a big segment of the population that has been under furious and brutal attack for more than 50 years by the political correctness of Cultural Marxism. This cultural and sociological attack from Cultural Marxists was extremely intense and conducted at full high speed for the last eight years of the Obama regime with its grand social engineering and cultural remake of the country.”
Ron Aledo, a retired U.S. Army officer and former senior analyst for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), has written a provocative analysis of the U.S. election results, saying that Trump’s victory was economic but also cultural.
He says that the Trump victory was “not only an incredible miracle as he won basically against all and everything, from CNN to furious non-stop (and something ridiculous) attacks...
No one can accuse me of being an inorderly harsh critic of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Quite the opposite. I have written at least two articles defending the CIA over the years, even when politically incorrect to do so. Truth be told, unlike the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which has been relatively left unscathed by the political establishment and the mainstream media (MSM) — even and despite such atrocities as were committed by the FBI (with the connivance of the roguish Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms; ATF) at Ruby Ridge (1992) and Waco (1994) — the CIA has been a punching bag not only for left-wing conspiracy wackos but also the MSM (liberal) media.
The CIA has been the subject of much political bashing in the past, even when the agency during the cold war provided the intelligence and operative counterforce to the dreaded KGB, serving veritably as the defensive “sword and shield” of America and the free world. But since the days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, Janet Reno’s Justice Department, and George Tenet’s CIA (in office 1996-2004), the agency has had deplorably more than its fair share of myriad intelligence failures and political...
On Tuesday this week we all should have been jubilantly celebrating the 224th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the original 10 amendments to the United States’ federal constitution. Remarkably, it slipped by relatively unremarked. Yet our Bill of Rights may actually be the most significant of our republic’s founding documents.
The Declaration of Independence announced our nationhood. The Constitution defined our government. The Bill of Rights confirms our liberty as free people who are not subservient to our government.
There is a lot wrong today that the authors of the Bill of Rights anticipated and meant to preclude. But the Framers knew that natural and civil rights, including these broad and individual ones that were defined so early on, are actually not worth the parchment they’re inked on. They’re worth what each generation holds they mean regardless of original intent. That’s how they’ve often become too loosely interpreted.
There was strong agreement among the Founders about the importance of these principles to a civil, democratic society and in their belief that they were codifying rights that were mostly pre-...
We all know that the gun control community has co-opted the phrase ‘common sense.’
What is ‘common sense’ to them, is foolishness to us.
It may be common sense for the gun control folks to want taxpayers to fund the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) anti-firearm research efforts.
But it’s foolish and counterproductive for us to permit the CDC to engage in fake science again, as they did in the past.
One can often hear the plaintive call for more firearms violence research and the funding that supports it. But the history of such research is rife with lies and distortions and it would be foolish to set the gun control crowd loose with our tax dollars, when their past has shown such disregard for the truth.
Our NRA is watching. They have a long institutional memory and they keep us alert.
ATTENTION: Medical Research On “Gun Violence” Is Contaminated With Propaganda, by Dave Hardy, Page 30, America’s 1st Freedom, December 2016.
We shouldn’t let honesty rot in the trenches of debate, especially when some of that debate depends on today’s science that proves our Founders instincts to be correct. Yet, that’s exactly...
Donald Trump spoke with Taiwan’s President Tsai-Ing-wen (photo, below) on December 3, triggering a thunderstorm of media clatter and protestations. Some mainstream media analysts were “aghast” at the incident. But the fact is Trump was correct to take the call from the diminutive but steely, determined, and democratically elected Taiwanese president. The Taiwanese have lived under the threat of invasion and even nuclear attack from the communist Chinese for decades.
Mellifluous-voiced David Wright, a talking head on ABC News crowed, “it is difficult to tell if Trump’s conversation was a rookie mistake or a deliberate provocation”; while ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd further expounded stating that either way Trump’s posture was “problematic.” The media dog and pony show on Sunday morning reminded me of the egregiously liberal bias I witnessed by ABC News commentators during election night coverage.
Most of the historic antecedents for the One China policy that the United States has observed for nearly 40 years have been ascribed to Republican President Richard Nixon. And while it is true that it was Nixon who opened up China, it was Democrat Jimmy Carter...
Under the guise of suppressing “fake news,” the elite media and their allies are creating a censorship regime to ban legitimate conservative news from platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
In a November 19 editorial, The New York Times complained about “millions of people” having been taken in by “fake news stories,” such as that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump for president. Think about this claim. For over a year Pope Frances has been denouncing capitalism and calling for open borders. Trump had been openly critical of the pope. If anyone believed the pope had suddenly endorsed Trump for president, they were living in a fantasy land. It’s extremely doubtful that millions believed such rubbish.
But the Times went further, citing a “BuzzFeed News analysis” finding that “during the last three months of the presidential campaign, the 20 top fake news stories on Facebook generated more engagement—shares, likes and comments—than the 20 top stories from real news websites.”
Forget for a moment about what constitutes “real news.” Does the Times really want to cite BuzzFeed as a respectable source of news and information? Didn’t President...