-
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
While complaining about her loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton claims that the “Electoral College is an abomination” for “obvious reasons.”
IN FACT, the Electoral College is a safeguard against mobocracy, which the authors of the Constitution rejected because it allows the majority to easily violate the rights of the minority. Here are the specifics:
• Early during the convention at which the U.S. Constitution was written, James Madison, the father of the Constitution and primary author of the Bill of Rights, declared that the new government they were creating must provide “more effectually for the security of private rights and the steady dispensation of Justice.”
• He then stressed that violations of these ideals “had more perhaps than any thing else, produced this convention.”
• Madison then singled out “democracy” as the cause of those abuses and pointed out that all societies are “divided into different Sects, Factions, and interests,” and “where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger.”
• Continuing, he stated that this is “verified by the histories of every country” and is the cause of slavery, “the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”
• Thus, Madison emphasized that it was the duty of the Convention to “frame a republican system” of government that would better “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
• Elaborating on that point, Madison stated that the “only defense against the inconveniencies of democracy consistent with the democratic form of government” is to “divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that in the first place a majority will not be likely at the same moment to have a common interest separate from that of the whole or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be apt to unite in the pursuit of it.”
• Other delegates to the Convention concurred, like Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who observed “that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U.S. labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
• For the purpose of curbing such evils, Madison and the other framers of the Constitution developed a system of checks and balances on the powers of the government that they formed, such as the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the Constitutional amendment process, the Bill of Rights, and the Electoral College.
• The Electoral College was designed to prevent heavily populated states from dominating the election for president. As shown in the electoral precinct map from Washington State University professor Ryne Rohla, the vast majority of America’s communities voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Yet Hillary Clinton’s popular vote count was higher, mainly due to support in big cities.
• In essays explaining the Constitution’s protections against mob rule and government power, Madison wrote, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
• Those principles produced the U.S. Constitution, which is the world’s longest-standing written constitution and an exemplar for many other countries that have copied its provisions into their constitutions.
Hyperlinks to the sources of all the facts above are available at https://www.justfactsdaily.com/in-fact/n0000848Comment
-
Bout makes me want to puke, all this talk about Trump destroying democracy, in my mind he's the great white hope at this point in time, Can you imagine what America 250 would be like if the dems had control!!!??? Just to add, I think the longest any other constitution has lasted is like 17 years, just some perspective.
Stick with what works!
-
-
I just realized when you're younger it's "Bang your head" which then turns into break your hip or pick your teeth.Comment
-
I miss Charles Krauthammers astute observations and analyses
“How right Charles Krauthammer was on his take on Trump when he first wrote this column in March 2018 before his death. To my friends ‘of a different persuasion,’ I'm not trying to sell anything or anyone, but I do feel this is an interesting take on our very controversial president who I truly believe is not Republican or Democrat.” ~ Harris Gardner
A TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP
By Charles Krauthammer
A different take on Donald Trump: (a non-political agenda)
Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a "Pragmatist." (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)
"We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation varied from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.
At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.
I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.
Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.
Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.
Immigration isn't a Republican problem, it isn't a Liberal problem, it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.
The impending collapse of the economy wasn't a Liberal or Conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.
Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.
Trump uniquely understands that China's manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.
Here again, successful businessmen, like Trump, who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.
As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Hamburgers.
I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.
You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some people do not like him is because:
(1) he is antithetical to the "good old boy" method of brokering back room deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;
(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered
by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;
(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;
(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;
(5) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.
Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to "out crazy" one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return.
We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us?
Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?
I submit that a pragmatist is just what America needs right now. People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it's better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved," so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success).
Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job; that says it all.
He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country.
God Bless America
~ Dr. CharlesComment
-
The debunking of Karl Marx's whole school of thought:
Marx built his entire economic system on the labor theory of value, and the labor theory of value is wrong. He claimed that the value of a good equals the socially necessary labor time embedded in it. This collapses the moment you ask why a bottle of water sells for ten dollars in the Mojave and fifty cents in Vienna. The labor is identical. The price is not.
Carl Menger settled this in 1871 with his "Principles of Economics." Value is subjective. It arises from the ranking each acting person assigns to units of a good at the margin, not from hours sweated in production. A diamond commands a high price because the marginal unit satisfies an urgent want, while water, abundant, satisfies a trivial one. Marx never answered Menger because he could not. The "Capital" volumes he left unfinished circle the transformation problem endlessly: he could not reconcile labor values with the actual prices markets generate, and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk demolished the attempt in 1896 in "Karl Marx and the Close of His System."
Then there is the matter of capital itself. The capitalist advances present money against an uncertain future return, absorbing the risk the worker avoids by demanding payment now instead of after the product sells eighteen months later. That premium on present goods over future goods is interest, and it reflects time preference, not theft. Böhm-Bawerk named this in 1884. Marx had no theory of interest because he had no theory of time.
You see the same blindness in his monetary thinking. Marx assumed value was an objective substance you could measure and centrally administer, which is precisely the fantasy that justifies a central authority printing the money supply. Hard money like gold or Bitcoin imposes discipline because no planner sets its quantity by decree. Easy money is the Marxist instinct dressed in a suit: someone in a committee decides what your labor is worth and dilutes it at will.
Every socialist calculation since 1917 has crashed into the wall Ludwig von Mises identified in 1920. Without market prices, you cannot allocate capital, because you cannot calculate. Marx never priced anything. He counted hours and called it science.
HandeComment
-
"America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination
and on an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand." Harry S. TrumanComment
-
"He who dares, Wins"
British SASComment
-
"Do what you can,
With what you have,
Where you are"
Teddy Roosevelt
He had many good quotesComment
Comment