New Media Alliance - Nancy Salvato

By Nancy Salvato

The constitutional amendment process is a complicated and lengthy affair. This is because we cannot be certain what consequences might arise from a seemingly minor alteration of the Constitution. To be sure, exchanging the electoral-vote system for direct election would adversely impact the entire constitutional and political structure of the United States.

To begin, our Constitution is dedicated to securing everybody’s rights. This requires that we be concerned not only with size, but with the character of the majorities voting our president to office. There are many ways in which our Constitution is configured to prevent simple majorities.

▪ The federal system prevents less populous States from being engulfed by more populous States.
▪ A bicameral legislature divides responsibilities between House and Senate on grounds other than those of population.
▪ Power is invested in a non-elective judiciary.
▪ Each State has a minimum of three electoral votes in the Electoral College.

One way the Electoral College creates moderately characterized numerical majorities includes assuring that each state’s vote actually represents the state’s interests in the selection and election of Presidents. By requiring a majority of electoral votes to win the presidency, a political party must campaign in all or most of the States -expanding its base of support beyond a narrow geographical region.

Political parties must appeal to a wide range of interests in order to gain a majority electoral vote. This is an inducement to more moderate political platforms which are less likely to put off those on the fence and promotes compromise among minority factions who want their interests represented within the party, all of this taking place well in advance of elections. Compromise between minorities is what creates a majority. But it is well to remember that a party’s capacity to command the allegiance of its followers is constantly challenged. Coalitions vary and parties are elected in and out of office based on support for their platform and their adherence to the platform while in power. Parties are wise to continually seek new bases of support and not to alienate any interests.

If the Electoral College was replaced by direct election, size, not the distribution of votes, is all that would matter. State interests would no longer receive the same consideration, their power diminished under direct election. No longer compelled to moderate their views or compromise with other groups within their resident States, interest groups would radicalize the public opinion influencing our Presidential Candidates, who would no longer feel compelled to present a broadly based platform within each State, or even campaign in all the states. Minorities would find their political power greatly diminished. Our Constitution would no longer secure everyone’s rights.
For more comprehensive information about this subject, go to:
Direct Popular Election of the President - http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.482/pub_detail.asp

By Nancy Salvato

“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.” – James Madison, Federalist #51

Classical Philosophy

By reading the Greek historians Herodotus (484BC-425BC), Thucydides (460BC-395BC), known as the father of scientific history and political realism, Polybius (203BC-120BC), who wrote about political balance, and Plutarch (46AD-120AD) who emphasized the importance of virtue, and philosophers Plato (428BC-348BC), known for his theory of forms and Aristotle (384BC-322BC), who created a system of philosophy, and the Roman philosophers Cicero (106BC-43BC), the famous orator and historians such as Livy (59 BC – AD 17), the framers became well acquainted with the greatest thinkers of Greek and Roman civilizations.

From Plato and Aristotle, “they learned about monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic constitutions, about oligarchies and democracies, about tyrannies and kingships, about the origin and nature of government, and about the polity—that regime described by Aristotle as essentially a limited democracy blending the monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements of government, in which the greatest political power is exercised by landholders.” From their extensive studies, they concluded, as indicated in Thomas Jefferson’s own words, that, “History informs us what bad government is.”A good constitution enables society to have a high degree of liberty, order, and justice. When people expect a perfect union instead of a more perfect union, this is when we’re headed for trouble. No country has ever attained perfect freedom, order, and justice for everyone, though some have tried to force such a goal. This sort of utopianism breeds disastrous consequences.

Modern Political Philosophy

Leo Strauss (1899-1973), a “political philosophy” professor, despised utopianism, an impossibly idealistic social theory of which modern day examples include Nazism and Communism. He was well acquainted with the danger wrought by any regime that aspired to global domination, having lived through the rise of Hitler and Stalin. Strauss spent most of his career teaching at the University of Chicago and studying the writings of the ancient Greeks. Strauss understood that America is founded on a mixture of classical (Greco-Roman), Biblical, and modern political philosophy which included the ideas of Machiavelli (1469-1527), whose Discourses on Livy explained how to start a republic with the necessary checks and balances, Hobbes (1588-1679), an English philosopher who wrote in Leviathan about the need for strong central authority, and Hume (1711-1776), a Scottish philosopher, who developed a naturalistic philosophy putting trust in human reason. Modern political philosophers were reacting to the dominant influence of revelation in their day. Their philosophies were rooted in science and reason. Biblical Philosophy

Protestant biblical philosophers, such as Luther (1483-1546), who challenged the authority of the Papacy by writing that faith need not be mediated by the church, and Calvin (1509-1564), a French Protestant Theologian were, at first, authoritarian and gave sovereignty to the monarch. This was in contrast to Catholic theorists, who limited the power of Kings to preserve their own authority and the autonomy of the Church. Protestants, for obvious political reasons, enlisted the aid of the Kings to resist the Catholic Church. However, Protestant sects soon rejected the top-down ecclesiastical structure of power in favor of a bottom-up approach. Their own church was to be run by members of the congregation and they began to think of political authority in the same way. Anglicans were more politically conservative, favoring governmental authority, whereas Quakers tended toward more radical democratic ideas.

Strauss learned much from his study of religion, classical, and modern political philosophy. He recognized that religion could be constructive or destructive, depending on the belief system. He also recognized religion’s role as a balance to moral relativism, the replacement of moral authority with progress and science. He focused his teachings on the tension that has evolved in western civilization between what he called “life in accordance with Revelation or the life according to Reason — Jerusalem versus Athens.” Strauss taught his students that the liberty that we take for granted and which stems from the mixture of classical, Biblical, and modern political philosophy is at risk not only from outside forces, but from swinging too far in the direction of the radical left and radical right wing factions in this country. Outside forces, such as radical Islamists, who use terrorism as a tool to wage violent Jihad against our country are not open to talk and persuasion. Militant and religious extremists inside our own country do great damage to individual freedom, as well.Know Thy Enemy

Straussians are critics of multiculturalism. They believe this movement has contributed to a decline in education and that within this institution there is a need to revive a, “sense of citizenship and civic responsibility.” There is also a need to repair, “vital national institutions such as the armed forces,” so that we can protect ourselves from our outside enemies. But first we need to recognize our enemies. William Bennett said it best after 9/11, stating that we need a moral clarity so that we can recognize evil.

By Nancy Salvato

“Textbooks today are trapped in an ideological straitjacket that, in contrast to the surrounding popular culture, restricts content and sterilizes social realities.” – The Mad, Mad World of Textbook Adoption

I’ve always enjoyed learning about history. When I look back on my history classes, it wasn’t because I was interested in reading the textbooks, it was the teacher who made history come alive, by inserting anecdotes that made it “real,” showing footage of actual events, or by connecting what happened in the past to the present. As a matter of fact, most of the textbooks I used put me to sleep. I loved to read and often wondered why we couldn’t just read books instead of textbooks to learn about people, places, and events.

During my senior year of high school, learning was a little more fun because we read news magazines and newspapers for Current Events class and because we read works of fiction and non fiction in Language Arts. In college, history classes as an upper classman were the most compelling because there were no textbooks, just books on a particular aspect of history. All things considered, it is somewhat surprising that I majored in history without reaching the conclusion of many of my peers who believed history to be completely boring. I have to credit the teachers who made it a subject worthwhile.

When I taught history, the yardstick against which I measured myself was being able to emulate my best teachers by inserting anecdotes into discussions, finding relevant footage, or providing the etymology of words so students could better understand what was being discussed. I realized my students and I were at a disadvantage when I had to teach about something in which I wasn’t well read. I remember a friend telling me, always provide your students a text with less information than the teacher’s resource; this way, you can always fill in the gaps and appear more knowledgeable. While this was good advice at the time, as I have matured and have become more well-read, I realize that there are gaps of which the very best teachers aren’t even aware. This is because there is an ideological battle being fought which has impacted many students’ and teachers’ ability to see the big picture.

At the We The People National Academy I received a much more balanced and complete presentation of the political theory leading to the Constitution. There was so much information that I am still reading about and researching, some of the ideas to which I was introduced during this three week study seminar. Perhaps more importantly, I realized that I was at a serious disadvantage in my previous learning compared to colleagues who understood much better than me the influence of religious doctrine in the development of our founding documents and its relevance today.The epiphany that I had not been working with all the pieces of the puzzle was disturbing, to say the least. Without critical examination of all the information, it is much harder to see the parallels between the past and present and to hone in on what is most relevant at any given moment. Sometimes entire sections of the puzzle are kept from students and teachers because of the misguided notion that there must be a wall of separation between church and state. There are important differences in religious thinking of which one must be aware to make sense of our history and current events and which are critical to understanding the role of We the People in the governance of our country.

According to Aristotle, there are three good systems of government: monarchy “government by one;” aristocracy “government by the best ones;” and polity, the other two together with the participation of all the other (freemen) citizens. (It wasn’t until the advent of Christianity when St. Paul said that all people are one in Christ that all other citizens was meant to be all inclusive.) When the above mentioned systems of government fail, “it is because they are degenerating, viz. monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and polity into democracy. Democracy is the term Aristotle uses for what we nowadays would call mob-rule.” Just like marriage doesn’t mean happily ever after (a couple has to work at it for it to succeed), implementing a form of government doesn’t mean happily ever after either. It takes work to maintain the balance necessary to evolve and function in a country’s best interest. (A Philosophical and Historical Analysis of Modern Democracy, on the American)Thomas Aquinas wrote, “Sovereignty or political authority within civil society lies ultimately in the people, who holds it from God and for whose benefit all civil authority and government is instituted. Not all theologians agreed with Aquinas’ conclusion. According to Luther, original sin “had totally corrupted human nature, completely depriving man of his freedom. Therefore authority rested with secular rulers, who received their power directly from God, making the king sovereign. The Catholic Church rejecting this view at the Council of Trent maintained that mankind is not totally corrupted and “retains his freedom both to sin and to accept the saving grace of God.” Calvinists claimed sovereignty lay with some of the people, “specifically in the honest hardworking and thereby hard-earned property people, who were the predestined members of the Church.” It’s important to note that the political philosophers Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau, were all influenced by Calvinism. (IBID)The French Revolution differed from the American Revolution because the sovereignty of the people was absolute (beginnings of socialism), given to the people from a God, whom it was believed did not intervene with the affairs of human life or the natural laws of the universe (Deism). The French attempted to sweep away established churches and other institutions of government and start from ground zero. The French ended up with what Aristotle would have considered, “mob rule.” Although some of the founders were deists, the Declaration of Independence affirmed the self evident truths that, “sovereignty comes from God, to whose moral law all are subject, and to whom all are accountable.” Sovereignty was given from God to the people who vest it in the King or other form of authority. (

IBID) It is important to understand that whether you believe in a higher power or not, the sovereignty of the American people rests on the idea that it is given to us from God and that we are all held accountable to God. Should established ideas of right and wrong in this country be changed to reflect the notion that moral truth or justification is relative, in other words, moral relativism, despite the fact that according to the Pew Research Center, an overwhelming majority of Americans (78%) view the Bible as the word of God? Should a minority of Americans decide on what our sovereignty should be based? Those who believe we are all members of a global society believe that our system of government is subject to a global system of laws. Should they have the power to undermine our Constitution, the rule of law established by the Framers? There is a minority that is attempting – and in some cases succeeding – in systematically erasing all reference to God in this country. This is having a negative effect on how we learn history and how we approach current events. It has also skewed the way we approach science. Rather than pose a hypothesis and then test the hypothesis, there are many atheist scientists who begin with the idea that because there is no proof that God exists, that God doesn’t exist. There is no scientific consensus on this idea. Scientists who would like to continue investigating the idea of intelligent design are not given the academic freedom to do so. They are blacklisted. In our textbooks, the approach has been to take religion out of our history and out of our scientific inquiry. This is no different than the blacklisting of ideological liberals in Hollywood during the McCarthy era, back in the late 1940s and 1950s.

When academic freedom to test hypothesis is taken away, we are left with ideologically driven texts and consensus. This is very dangerous to freedom. We have already seen this occur with the idea that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man and that global warming is bad. The more ideology directs us to one world Socialism, the more it undermines our capitalistic driven economy. As the facts present: the more freedom in an economy, the more prosperous a country. At this moment in time, the issue of academic freedom is probably more far reaching and is as great a threat to our liberty as limited school choice, dumbed-down curriculum, lack of accountability, or unsafe school environments, which typically dominate when the topic of education is in the news. Thanks to

Ben Stein, the issue of Intelligent Design, which falls under academic freedom is garnering renewed attention and hopefully people will tune in and learn more about the importance of presenting a balanced curriculum in our schools, but even more than that, allowing for a more balanced coverage of issues, such as global warming, so that scientific consensus truly means consensus, not just a group of like-minded people furthering an agenda. Should the religious influence in our founding documents be erased from our history, should scientific consensus continue to be based on hypothesis, instead of testing hypothesis to build scientific consensus, and if people continue to give their sovereignty to an elite group of people for a handout, then every freedom for which our Founders dedicated their lives, and for which our soldiers continue to fight and die, has been in vain. It is with every ounce of my intellect that I will continue to fight for my country and I enlist others to do the same. The preamble to our nation’s Constitution is written in the present tense for a reason.

By Nancy Salvato

Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich are featured together in a television commercial which focuses on how conservatives and liberals can come together to find solutions for problems caused by climate change. Mr. Gingrich’s explanation for joining this $300 million dollar advertising campaign is to force conservatives into debating liberals about the ways our country should best promote alternative energy sources. This in itself is a fine idea because I don’t know any person who wants our country to continue relying on oil for fuel. Most would agree that cleaner sources of energy are preferable.

While there should be robust debate about how best to pursue alternative energy, I believe this ad is misleading because it presents these two political adversaries as working together to find solutions to the problem of climate change in and of itself, as if there is a scientific consensus that climate change truly poses the problems outlined in Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Speaking of Al Gore, he is the person who is funding this effort and hired the advertising agency known for their caveman and talking lizard/Geico ads to produce these commercials.

Certainly, Gore has become a master of hyperbole in order to draw attention to his cause. While becoming a great promoter, he has done a great disservice to true science. The global warming argument is based on two assumptions. The first is that it’s caused by man and that we can stop it. While we may contribute to global warming, it is difficult to conclude that our activities can substantially affect the changes in temperature. The second assumption is that global warming is inherently bad. We cannot ignore dramatic climate shifts that have occurred in the past and declare that all climate changes are due to human activity and bad.

A true scientific investigation begins with a hypothesis, or assumption. Scientific findings are not based on one. Here’s why.
Have you ever held a ball in front of a dog and moved it up and down and sideways so that the dog moves its head in the same direction? Now, have you ever asked the dog yes and no questions while doing this so that it appears as if the dog is answering yes or no to your question? It would be wrong to believe the dog is really thinking about what you are saying. The dog is simply following your hand. This can be proved because if you asked the dog the same questions without moving your hand, you’ll find that the yes and no movement will stop. You have in effect stopped one variable, moving your hand, in order to determine whether it is your questions or hand movement that influences the dog. This is how scientists try to find out the answers to why some things happen.

Do you know anybody with allergies? Allergies can make people feel like they have a cold or as if they are feeling sick. Sometimes doctors will tell the patient to stop eating certain foods to determine whether the allergy symptoms, such as a runny nose, will stop. This is called isolating the variables that might cause something to happen to determine which one is at work. Some people can’t drink milk, others can’t eat peanuts. If a person stops doing both at the same time, and the symptoms stop, that person cannot be sure which food is causing the allergy because they have not isolated (testing their effect separately) all the variables.

Usually more than one variable must be considered when determining the cause of a situation. Sometimes we can’t know all of the variables. Let’s pretend there are chocolate and vanilla cupcakes at a birthday party. You notice that your friend takes two chocolate cupcakes. Does this mean that your friend loves chocolate more than strawberry flavored cupcakes? Do you have enough information to decide this to be the truth? Of course not, because strawberry wasn’t one of the choices. You might think that your friend likes chocolate more than vanilla. But what if your friend loves chocolate but can’t eat it because it gives him headaches? You don’t have enough information to be sure. Sometimes you cannot know all the variables in a situation.
In science, in order to determine the cause for something to happen, you must isolate all the variables in order to determine their influence on or how they affect what happens. We don’t always know all the variables; therefore, like magic, sometimes things are not all they appear to be.

Kids and adults sometimes assume, or believe, that they are the most important variable in any situation. What if you came home and found your mother blowing her nose and with tears in her eyes. And what if the last time you spoke with her she asked you to put your skateboard away so she wouldn’t trip and fall over it. Glancing around, you notice your skateboard in the middle of the floor. Instantly, you decide that your mom fell down and hurt herself on the skateboard. Before you start apologizing, look around. There is an onion on the counter and mom is cooking dinner. She might have been chopping onions. Often, we jump to the conclusion that we are the cause for something we have absolutely no control over. We could move the skateboard but mom is still going to react to the onion. We cannot change the effect of the onion.

Scientists theorize or hypothesize about what might cause something to happen or about what might change something so that it won’t happen. When scientists theorize, they can never be 100 % certain about what they believe unless they can take into account all the variables. This is why scientists think in percentages. They might say they are 80% sure and leave 20% to the possibility that they may be wrong. They don’t say they know all the answers, but that they know most of them. If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science. Junk science happens when scientists believe something based on just some of what they see. This is because this is not using the scientific method correctly.

There is no scientific consensus on global warming. And there is no scientific consensus on man being the cause of global warming.
According to a study published by the Heartland Institute, there are 500 scientists with documented doubts about man made global warming. The summary of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

“…largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science. The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further.”

In science, the goal of true science is to test hypothesis to reveal supporting or non-supporting evidence for the idea in order to bring us closer to the truth.

I’m disappointed in Newt Gingrich. His motivation may have been genuine but the means does not justify the end. The issue of global warming has everybody’s attention but mostly for the wrong reasons. It is time to correct the misinformation and place this issue into the proper perspective so that our energy is focused not on the distracting shiny thing but on the best ways to become energy independent so we don’t provide petro dollars to terrorist.

By Nancy Salvato

Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich are featured together in a television commercial which focuses on how conservatives and liberals can come together to find solutions for problems caused by climate change. Mr. Gingrich’s explanation for joining this $300 million dollar advertising campaign is to force conservatives into debating liberals about the ways our country should best promote alternative energy sources. This in itself is a fine idea because I don’t know any person who wants our country to continue relying on oil for fuel. Most would agree that cleaner sources of energy are preferable.

While there should be robust debate about how best to pursue alternative energy, I believe this ad is misleading because it presents these two political adversaries as working together to find solutions to the problem of climate change in and of itself, as if there is a scientific consensus that climate change truly poses the problems outlined in Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Speaking of Al Gore, he is the person who is funding this effort and hired the advertising agency known for their caveman and talking lizard/Geico ads to produce these commercials.

Certainly, Gore has become a master of hyperbole in order to draw attention to his cause. While becoming a great promoter, he has done a great disservice to true science. The global warming argument is based on two assumptions. The first is that it’s caused by man and that we can stop it. While we may contribute to global warming, it is difficult to conclude that our activities can substantially affect the changes in temperature. The second assumption is that global warming is inherently bad. We cannot ignore dramatic climate shifts that have occurred in the past and declare that all climate changes are due to human activity and bad.

A true scientific investigation begins with a hypothesis, or assumption. Scientific findings are not based on one. Here’s why.
Have you ever held a ball in front of a dog and moved it up and down and sideways so that the dog moves its head in the same direction? Now, have you ever asked the dog yes and no questions while doing this so that it appears as if the dog is answering yes or no to your question? It would be wrong to believe the dog is really thinking about what you are saying. The dog is simply following your hand. This can be proved because if you asked the dog the same questions without moving your hand, you’ll find that the yes and no movement will stop. You have in effect stopped one variable, moving your hand, in order to determine whether it is your questions or hand movement that influences the dog. This is how scientists try to find out the answers to why some things happen.

Do you know anybody with allergies? Allergies can make people feel like they have a cold or as if they are feeling sick. Sometimes doctors will tell the patient to stop eating certain foods to determine whether the allergy symptoms, such as a runny nose, will stop. This is called isolating the variables that might cause something to happen to determine which one is at work. Some people can’t drink milk, others can’t eat peanuts. If a person stops doing both at the same time, and the symptoms stop, that person cannot be sure which food is causing the allergy because they have not isolated (testing their effect separately) all the variables.

Usually more than one variable must be considered when determining the cause of a situation. Sometimes we can’t know all of the variables. Let’s pretend there are chocolate and vanilla cupcakes at a birthday party. You notice that your friend takes two chocolate cupcakes. Does this mean that your friend loves chocolate more than strawberry flavored cupcakes? Do you have enough information to decide this to be the truth? Of course not, because strawberry wasn’t one of the choices. You might think that your friend likes chocolate more than vanilla. But what if your friend loves chocolate but can’t eat it because it gives him headaches? You don’t have enough information to be sure. Sometimes you cannot know all the variables in a situation.
In science, in order to determine the cause for something to happen, you must isolate all the variables in order to determine their influence on or how they affect what happens. We don’t always know all the variables; therefore, like magic, sometimes things are not all they appear to be.

Kids and adults sometimes assume, or believe, that they are the most important variable in any situation. What if you came home and found your mother blowing her nose and with tears in her eyes. And what if the last time you spoke with her she asked you to put your skateboard away so she wouldn’t trip and fall over it. Glancing around, you notice your skateboard in the middle of the floor. Instantly, you decide that your mom fell down and hurt herself on the skateboard. Before you start apologizing, look around. There is an onion on the counter and mom is cooking dinner. She might have been chopping onions. Often, we jump to the conclusion that we are the cause for something we have absolutely no control over. We could move the skateboard but mom is still going to react to the onion. We cannot change the effect of the onion.

Scientists theorize or hypothesize about what might cause something to happen or about what might change something so that it won’t happen. When scientists theorize, they can never be 100 % certain about what they believe unless they can take into account all the variables. This is why scientists think in percentages. They might say they are 80% sure and leave 20% to the possibility that they may be wrong. They don’t say they know all the answers, but that they know most of them. If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science. Junk science happens when scientists believe something based on just some of what they see. This is because this is not using the scientific method correctly.

There is no scientific consensus on global warming. And there is no scientific consensus on man being the cause of global warming.
According to a study published by the Heartland Institute, there are 500 scientists with documented doubts about man made global warming. The summary of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

“…largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science. The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further.”

In science, the goal of true science is to test hypothesis to reveal supporting or non-supporting evidence for the idea in order to bring us closer to the truth.

I’m disappointed in Newt Gingrich. His motivation may have been genuine but the means does not justify the end. The issue of global warming has everybody’s attention but mostly for the wrong reasons. It is time to correct the misinformation and place this issue into the proper perspective so that our energy is focused not on the distracting shiny thing but on the best ways to become energy independent so we don’t provide petro dollars to terrorist.