Liberals want to blame rightwing ‘misinformation’ for our problems.

 THOMAS FRANK: 

Liberals want to blame rightwing ‘misinformation’ for our problems. Get real.

These days Democratic politicians lean on anyone with power over platforms to shut down the propaganda of the right. Former Democratic officials pen op-eds calling on us to get over free speech. Journalists fantasize about how easily and painlessly Silicon Valley might monitor and root out objectionable speech. In a recent HBO documentary on the subject, journalist after journalist can be seen rationalizing that, because social media platforms are private companies, the first amendment doesn’t apply to them … and, I suppose, neither should the American tradition of free-ranging, anything-goes political speech. . . .

This is a party that has courted professional-managerial elites for decades, and now they have succeeded in winning them over, along with most of the wealthy areas where such people live. Liberals scold and supervise like an offended ruling class because to a certain extent that’s who they are. More and more, they represent the well-credentialed people who monitor us in the workplace, and more and more do they act like it.

Democrats are now the Party of HR.

Plus:

What all this censorship talk really is, though, is a declaration of defeat – defeat before the Biden administration has really begun. To give up on free speech is to despair of reason itself. (Misinformation, we read in the New York Times, is impervious to critical thinking.) The people simply cannot be persuaded; something more forceful is in order; they must be guided by we, the enlightened; and the first step in such a program is to shut off America’s many burbling fountains of bad takes.

Let me confess: every time I read one of these stories calling on us to get over free speech or calling on Mark Zuckerberg to press that big red “mute” button on our political opponents, I feel a wave of incredulity sweep over me. Liberals believe in liberty, I tell myself. This can’t really be happening here in the USA.

But, folks, it is happening. And the folly of it all is beyond belief. To say that this will give the right an issue to campaign on is almost too obvious. To point out that it will play straight into the right’s class-based grievance-fantasies requires only a little more sophistication. To say that it is a betrayal of everything we were taught liberalism stood for – a betrayal that we will spend years living down – may be too complex a thought for our punditburo to consider, but it is nevertheless true.

Yep.

13Posted at 7:58 am by Glenn Reynolds   

Biden Justice Department Sides Against Free Speech

 Biden's DOJ Against Free Speech

SUPREME COURT

Biden Justice Department Sides Against Free Speech Advocates in Big First Amendment Case

The federal government weighs in on Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L..

Our Free Speech Crisis

WILLIAMS: Our Free Speech Crisis

 

The First Amendment to our Constitution was proposed by the 1788 Virginia ratification convention during its narrow 89 to 79 vote to ratify the Constitution. Virginia's resolution held that the free exercise of religion, right to assembly and free speech could not be canceled, abridged or restrained. These Madisonian principles were eventually ratified by the states on March 1, 1792.

Gettysburg College professor Allen C. Guelzo, in his article "Free Speech and Its Present Crisis," appearing in the autumn 2018 edition of City Journal, explores the trials and tribulations associated with the First Amendment. The early attempts to suppress free speech were signed into law by President John Adams and became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Later attempts to suppress free speech came during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln and his generals attacked newspapers and suspended habeas corpus. It wasn't until 1919, in the case of Abrams v. United States, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally and unambiguously prohibited any kind of censorship.

Today, there is growing contempt for free speech, most of which is found on the nation's college and university campuses. Guelzo cites the free speech vision of Princeton University professor Carolyn Rouse, who is chairperson of the department of Anthropology. Rouse shared her vision on speech during last year's Constitution Day lecture. She called free speech a political illusion, a baseless ruse to enable people to "say whatever they want, in any context, with no social, economic, legal or political repercussions." As an example, she says that a climate change skeptic has no right to make "claims about climate change, as if all the science discovered over the last X-number of centuries were irrelevant."

Rouse is by no means unique in her contempt for our First Amendment rights. Faculty leaders of the University of California consider certain statements racist microagressions: "America is a melting pot"; "America is the land of opportunity"; "Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough"; and "There is only one race, the human race." The latter statement is seen as denying the individual as a racial/cultural being. Then there's "I believe the most qualified person should get the job." That's "racist" speech because it gives the impression that "people of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race." Other seemingly innocuous statements deemed unacceptable are: "When I look at you, I don't see color," or "Affirmative action is racist." Perhaps worst of all is, "Where are you from, or where were you born?"

We should reject any restriction on free speech. We might ask ourselves, "What's the true test of one's commitment to free speech?" It does not come when people permit others to say or publish ideas with which they agree. The true test of one's commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive.

The test for one's commitment to freedom of association is similar. Christian Americans have been hounded for their refusal to cater same-sex weddings. For those who support such attacks, we might ask them whether they would seek prosecution of the owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide services for a neo-Nazi affair. Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress? The true test of a person's commitment to freedom of association does not come when he permits people to associate in ways he finds acceptable. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive.

I am afraid that too many of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principles of liberty. Most people want liberty for themselves. I differ. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

READ MORE: CONSTITUTION  FREE SPEECH

Franklin Graham Banned on FaceBook

Facebook Blocks Franklin Graham for 2016 Post on Transgender Bathroom Bill

BY TYLER O'NEIL DECEMBER 30, 201 

During Christmas week, Facebook suspended the account of Christian evangelist and philanthropist Franklin Graham — son of the late evangelical giant Billy Graham — for a 2016 post about North Carolina's bathroom bill. Facebook blocked him for 24 hours, but rescinded the ban and apologized. Even so, the action is likely to spark an uproar across the Christian community.

"I think it was a personal attack toward me," Graham, president of both the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) and Samaritan's Purse, told Fox News on Sunday morning. He noted that the post in question was defending North Carolina's House Bill 2, "a good law... to protect women and children." The bill would have prevented men from masquerading as transgenders to access women's spaces — but transgender activists claimed it would have violated the rights of transgender people.

"If you disagree with their position on sexual orientation, then you can be classified as [having posted] hate speech or that you are a racist," Graham declared.

"Facebook's a private company and they can certainly do what they want," the evangelist added. "But the president of the company, Mark Zuckerberg, when he spoke before Congress — I think it was April — he said Facebook is a platform for all ideas. Well, it's obvious his staff hasn't got that memo."

Graham encouraged Facebook to "have a standard that doesn't move."

When asked for the Christian response to this censorship, the evangelist jumped immediately to forgiveness.

"First of all, I accept Facebook’s apology and I appreciate them stepping up and doing that," Graham said. "But I think as Christians we don’t back down and we don't change who we are and what we say and what we do. We represent the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ, and Jesus said, 'I am the way, the Truth, and the Life and no man comes to the father but by me.' All truth is in the Lord Jesus Christ, and I would encourage Facebook and for Christians to stand on God’s word and His truth."

"I’m certainly against hate speech," Graham insisted. He clarified, "I’m certainly against people using Facebook to incite violence against somebody like that... that’s terrible. But just having a different opinion other than somebody at Facebook, and then to be labeled as hate speech… that's sad."

SPLC Leads Soros-Funded Groups in 'Orwellian' Attempt to Ban 'Hate Speech' on Social Media

Facebook defines "hate speech" as "a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics," including gender identity.

Graham's original post responded to Bruce Springsteen's decision to cancel his North Carolina concert over the notorious "bathroom bill," H.B.2. "Bruce Springsteen, a long-time gay rights activist, has cancelled his North Carolina concert. He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going 'backwards'… Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God," Graham posted.

Graham being blocked over this specific post seems rather odd, since he did not attack anyone in particular for "protected characteristics." He merely defended a law, H.B.2, that transgender activists opposed. While the law prevented men who identify as women from using public restrooms and locker rooms, it did in fact also prevent perverted men from doing so. Graham did not suggest that men who suffer from gender dysphoria are perverts — he did not discuss "transgender women" at all.

Facebook rightly apologized for the ban. "A page admin for Franklin Graham’s Facebook page did receive a 24-hour feature block after we removed a post for violating our hate speech policies," the company said in a statement. "Upon re-reviewing this content, we identified that the post does not violate our hate speech policy and has been restored."

Organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have encouraged tech companies like Facebook to define "hate speech" as broadly as possible, to push all "hate" off the Internet. The SPLC is notorious for branding mainstream conservative and Christian organizations "hate groups" if they disagree with progressive views on issues from sex and gender to immigration and Islam's relation to terrorism. Their "hate group" labels inspired at least one terrorist attack in 2012.

Redefining "hate speech" along the new Orwellian lines that "speech is violence" can lead tech companies to silence anyone — even an evangelist as prominent as Franklin Graham, whose page has 7.5 million "likes" on Facebook.

This is not the first time prominent Christians have been blocked on the site. Jenna Lynn Ellis, a spokeswoman for the James Dobson Family Institute, had her article removed from Facebook "because it looks like spam and doesn't follow our Community Standards." Robert Gagnon, a prominent scholar on the topic of biblical sexuality, has been blocked numerous times because he espouses traditional Christian doctrine on sexuality.

In August, Facebook deleted videos posted by the conservative video nonprofit PragerU and "shadow banned" the organization's page. While Facebook later apologized, the employee who personally carried out the censorship was given a slap on the wrist.

Responding to these and many other episodes, Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, sent an ultimatum to big tech companies. Unless Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter adopt a free speech charter and stop censoring conservative and Christian voices by December 31, 2018, he pledged to lead his 60-million-strong Christian organization to pressure Congress to drop Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, unleashing a torrent of lawsuits.

The Inside Story About Facebook's Censorship of PragerU

In the wake of Franklin Graham's suspension, Johnson is almost certain to follow through on this, and even more.

This episode should open the eyes of all Christians everywhere, but it should also chill non-believers and anyone else who prizes a platform on social media. If someone as mainstream as Franklin Graham can be blocked for a post two years in the past, no one is safe. Facebook may be censoring Christians and conservatives today, but who's to say they won't be censoring LGBT activists tomorrow? Indeed, many on the far Left have also complained about censorship.

Watch Graham's interview below.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

60-Million-Strong Christian Group to Big Tech: Stop Censorship or Face Torrent of Lawsuits

Scotland's New 'Anti-Hate' Campaign

Scotland's New 'Anti-Hate' Campaign Threatens Christians: 'You Should Be Worried'

 

BY CHRIS QUEEN OCTOBER 15, 2018

CHAT 193 COMMENTS

These days more than ever we hear people talking about hate. The media in particular obsesses over so-called "hate crimes." The logic behind this fear is that incidents motivated by hatred over religion, gender, class, or any other distinction are somehow worse than crimes committed over money, love, or any other number of factors.

And, of course, we know that too many elements of our society brand mere differences of opinion as hate. Advocates of traditional marriage often receive the brand of "hater" because they believe in a particular definition of wedlock, even though these people may have never expressed outright hatred toward anyone. That's just one example, but accusations of hate regarding differences in political or cultural philosophy happen far too often lately.

We're seeing this phenomenon rear its ugly head in the UK in particular. Last month, the police in South Yorkshire began a campaign to ask citizens to report acts of hate where a crime had never actually taken place:

View image on Twitter

SouthYorkshirePolice

✔@syptweet

In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it #HateHurtsSY

4:45 PM - Sep 9, 2018

• 813
• 11.5K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

That's right, the police want folks in South Yorkshire to tattle on their neighbors if they express an opinion or make a remark that someone could constitute as "hate." You can't get much more Orwellian than that.

The Scottish government's "One Scotland" initiative is going after hate crimes as well with a new campaign of posters and videos that announce to "bigots," "racists," "homophobes," "transphobes," and "disablists" that Scotland has "had enough" of hate crimes.

Here's how the campaign defines hate crime:

Hate crime can be verbal or physical and has hugely damaging effects on the victims, their families and communities, and we all must play our part to challenge it.

Hate crime comes in many forms and examples, including:

• Race (e.g. threatened because of where they are from or the colour of their skin)
• Religion (e.g. have abuse shouted at them because of their beliefs or religious dress)
• Sexual orientation (e.g. tormented because they’re holding hands with another person of the same gender)
• Transgender identity (e.g. humiliated, intimidated or threatened online for being transgender)
• Disability (e.g. attacked because they are disabled)

The goal of omitting hate crimes from Scotland is all well and good, particularly when police in Scotland say they saw over 110 hate crime incidents each week (according to the One Scotland website) last year alone. Because no matter how firm anyone is in his or her beliefs, no one should commit physical violence or verbal abuse against another person for any reason.

The trouble with the One Scotland campaign is that it takes a remarkably smug tone, especially when it comes to the generic category of "bigots." The posters, aimed at religious intolerance, read, “Dear Bigots, you can’t spread your religious hate here. End of sermon. Yours, Scotland.” It doesn't take too much sensitivity to wince at the curtness of that statement.

Over at the wonderful British resource Christian Concern, Tim Dieppe points out the problem with going after "bigots" in such a way:

This poster assumes that all bigots are religious. This is highly offensive and disturbing. Imagine if the poster had said: “Dear Bigots, you can’t spread your Jewish hate here.” People would rightly accuse them of antisemitism. What about: “Dear Bigots, you can’t spread your atheistic hate here.” Again, this unreasonably singles out atheists for criticism. Could you imagine the Scottish government putting up a poster saying: “Dear Bigots, you can’t spread your Islamic hate here.”? I hope not, and neither should they. How come assuming that all bigots are religious is acceptable when assuming all bigots are atheists, or Jewish, or Muslim, would not be acceptable?

The implication is that all religious people are bigots. This is insulting, but it is hard to believe that the insult is not intentional in this case.

He then goes on to discuss the fact that, since the other signage in the series addresses attitudes toward specific behaviors but the "bigot" portion of the campaign is vague, adherents to any faith can face accusations of hate for expressing their opinions about any behavior they find immoral. Dieppe even concludes that someone in Scotland could report Jesus Himself for a hate crime if He were in the country today.

Dieppe notices the smugness of the campaign as well when he writes:

The poster closes with “End of sermon.” The reference to a sermon clearly shows that Christians are the target of this poster. It is actually state anti-Christian propaganda, portraying Christians as hateful bigots.

This is where we have got to. The state propagating anti-Christian propaganda. Where next?

David Robertson, a pastor who blogs, tweets, and podcasts as The Wee Flea, reported One Scotland to the police for a hate crime because of the way the campaign paints religious people — particularly Christians — as bigots:

You state that “A hate incident is any incident that is not a criminal offence, but something which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hate or prejudice.”   By your own criteria your posters, especially the one on religion is a hate incident. I perceive it as being motivated by hate and prejudice.

Why? In my day-to-day life I experience a great deal of anti-Christian prejudice, fuelled by ignorance and prejudice. Your poster will just add to that.

Robertson may well be engaging in a publicity stunt by reporting the campaign to the police and encouraging others to do the same, but he makes his point loud and clear.

Hatred goes both ways, and if people of faith are supposed to accept everyone and make no generalizations, believers should expect the same treatment — particularly from the government. Scotland is egregiously out of line with this campaign. End of sermon.

ESPN - Curt Schilling - FOSpeech

ESPN has fired Curt Schilling. The company said that his speech went against company values because ESPN is “an inclusive company.”

What’s at stake here?

Curt Schilling has a right to say biological men don’t belong in women’s bathrooms in whatever controversial way he wants. And ESPN has a right to give Caitlyn Jenner the “Arthur Ashe Courage Award” for being a men’s sports icon who now publicly identifies as a woman. And whether we agree or disagree with Schilling’s message or ESPN’s isn’t the point.

The bigger issue is that ESPN, like any other company, has a right to control its message, which means it should be generally free to make employment decisions based on its values, not Curt Schilling’s, and certainly not the government’s.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.  We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.

>>> For More on This, See Ryan T. Anderson’s New Book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.” 

The same is true for religious institutions, only more so. While ESPN is committed to being “inclusive,” it’s a large corporation whose main focus is reporting sports in ways that make money. Religious institutions and some family businesses, on the other hand, have more robust substantive commitments driven by faith, not profits alone.

Jewish, Christian, and Muslim schools, for example, provide comprehensive learning environments that support distinctive beliefs and distinctive worldviews. That’s why parents sacrifice to save their money to send their kids there—to avoid the secular liberal indoctrination of many government-run public schools, and to have their children formed intellectually and spiritually in keeping with their values.

So it seems all the more important that religious schools have at least the same freedom as ESPN to make employment decisions based on their sincere beliefs.

ESPN didn’t want to be associated with Curt Schilling’s message. The same is true for the bakers, florists, and photographers, only more so. They have beliefs about marriage—that it’s the union of husband and wife—and they don’t want to be forced by the government to convey a contrary message.

Whether we agree or disagree with the bakers, florists, and photographers isn’t at issue here. At issue is their beliefs and the messages they send. Taking photographs of a gay wedding ceremony and then creating a visually appealing slide-show and photo album, or arranging altar flowers for same-sex nuptials, or decorating a cake with rainbow frosting and two grooms on top all convey messages these professionals say they can’t send.

And yet, while liberals are cheering ESPN and celebrating its freedoms, they are working to pass laws that would eliminate similar freedoms for religious institutions and wedding professionals. While they celebrate ESPN’s rights, they want to deny similar rights to others.

As I explain in “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. During this time, it is critical to protect the right to disagree and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

If you’re cheering ESPN today, remember that freedom needs to be a two-way street. Even if you disagree with the beliefs of religious schools and bakers, protect their freedoms. Respect everyone’s rights—even if, especially if, you disagree with them.

New 'Right to Dignity' Could Trump the Right to Free Speech and Religion

Kennedy's New 'Right to Dignity' Could Trump the Right to Free Speech and Religion

BY JOHN MERLINE

07/06/2015 

When President Obama was first running for office in 2008, he promised that he'd go about "fundamentally transforming" America once in office.

But it wasn't the 47-year-old Senator from Illinois — who went on to win two presidential elections — who'd bring about such a transformation. It was a 78-year-old unelected Supreme Court justice from California named Anthony Kennedy.

That, at least, is the conclusion one can draw from a compelling column in the Sunday Washington Post by legal scholar Jonathan Turley about Kennedy's Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

Turley notes that Kennedy, pretty much all on his own, has fashioned over the years the idea that there's a "right to dignity" embedded in the Constitution.

"Kennedy wove this concept of protected dignity through a series of cases," Turley explains, which "peaked with Obergefell, which he described as an effort by the petitioners to secure 'equal dignity in the eyes of the law.'"

(By the way, Turley supports gay marriage and is generally a liberal on other issues.)

The problem, Turley notes, is that Kennedy's inferred right to dignity could easily conflict with the First Amendment's stated rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

"Should the right to dignity trump free speech and free exercise?" Who knows, Turley says. It will up to the courts to decide.

We already know what will happen if it does go that route.

In Canada, for example, a comedian was found guilty of violating human rights "after he got into a trash-talking exchange during an open-mike night." France prosecuted a comedian for making jokes deemed anti-Semitic. People in Greece and Italy have been similarly prosecuted for saying things that allegedly harmed someone else's dignity.

Turley says that criminalizing "hate speech" in the U.S. "could now be justified as protecting the dignity rights of groups and balancing the 'danger' of free speech."

Were that to come about, it would be far more fundamentally transformative to the land of the free and the home of the brave than anything that Obama, or any other elected official, could have ever hoped to achieve.

After all, ObamaCare can be repealed, Obama's executive orders rescinded, his regulations undone and his spending and tax hikes reversed.

But the court lives by the doctrine of "stare decisis" — a Latin term that means to stand by things that have been settled. So however the Supreme Court decides to define Kennedy's new "right to dignity," it will be as close to permanent as anything can get in this country.

Follow John Merline on Twitter: @IBD_JMerline.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/070615-760425-kennedy-ruling-on-right-to-dignity-has-profound-implications.htm#ixzz3fD1En6ms
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

 

JUNE 14, 2015

The New Inquisition

How long will this country remain free? Probably only as long as the American people value their freedom enough to defend it. But how many people today can stop looking at their electronic devices long enough to even think about such things?

Meanwhile, attempts to shut down people whose free speech interferes with other people's political agendas go on, with remarkably little notice, much less outrage. The Internal Revenue Service's targeting the tax-exempt status of conservative groups is just one of these attempts to fight political battles by shutting up the opposition, rather than answering them.

Another insidious attempt to silence voices that dissent from current politically correct crusades is targeting scientists who do not agree with the "global warming" scenario.

Congressman Raul Grijalva has been writing universities, demanding financial records showing who is financing the research of dissenting scientists, and demanding their internal communications as well. Mr. Grijalva says that financial disclosure needs to be part of the public's "right to know" who is financing those who express different views.

He is not the only politician pushing the idea that scientists who do not march in lockstep with what is called the "consensus" on man-made global warming could be just hired guns for businesses resisting government regulations. Senator Edward Markey has been sending letters to fossil-fuel companies, asking them to hand over details of their financial ties to critics of the "consensus."

The head of the National Academy of Sciences has chimed in, saying: "Scientists must disclose their sources of financial support to continue to enjoy societal trust and the respect of fellow scientists."

This is too clever by half. It sounds as if this government bureaucrat is trying to help the dissenting scientists enjoy trust and respect -- as if these scientists cannot decide for themselves whether they consider such a practice necessary or desirable.

The idea that you can tell whether a scientist -- or anybody else -- is "objective" by who is financing that scientist's research is nonsense. There is money available on many sides of many issues, so no matter what the researcher concludes, there will usually be somebody to financially support those conclusions.

Some of us are old enough to remember when this kind of game was played by Southern segregationist politicians trying to hamstring civil rights organizations like the NAACP by pressuring them to reveal who was contributing money to them. Such revelations would of course then subject NAACP supporters to all sorts of retaliations, and dry up contributions.

By The People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission

J Tatler - http://pjmedia.com/tatler -

The One Disruptive Tactic That Can Recover Our Constitution: Controversial New Book Has Practical Plan

Posted By Scott Ott On May 4, 2015 @ 2:26 pm In Book Reviews,History,Politics | 32 Comments

The constitutional government of these United States of America is sick beyond the curative, or even palliative, powers of the ordinary process of legislation, elections, and the appointing of constitutional judges. Perhaps the only solution left to us is civil disobedience, to throw sand in the gears of the regulatory state. [See related episode of PJTV's Trifecta in video below.]
So says Charles Murray in his new book By The People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, scheduled for release May 12. His remedy: create a “Madison Fund,” from private donations, to vigorously defend small businesses and individuals against the unconstitutional regulations that strangle our economy and our liberty. By flooding the zone, Murray hopes to cripple the ability of the regulatory state to fight a multi-front war against we, the people.
In a word, it’s the Cloward-Piven strategy, in reverse (my description, not Murray’s). Rather than overwhelming the welfare system to force total nationalization — to get more stuff from government — Murray would overwhelm government agencies to get them to stop arbitrary enforcement actions; to leave us alone except in situations that genuinely threaten public health and safety. He likens it to the way police don’t stop every speeding car, but only those that pose the greatest threat to the well-being of others.
Even Murray acknowledges his plan is a long shot, but it may be the last, best hope. (There’s much more to the plan than the brief summary in this review).
Charles Murray leaped onto the public stage in 1996 with The Bell Curve, which studied the links between intelligence, ethnicity and economic success in a world that increasingly makes mental acuity a prerequisite to prosperity. In 2013, he stirred the pot again with Coming Apart, a disturbing look at class division in America.
Although you may not agree with his proposal in By the People, his explication of the problem is must-reading.
All three branches of government have found it in their best interest to shirk responsibility and blame. Congress passes broad legislation and delegates both specifics and enforcement to executive branch agencies. This, in effect, allows the executive to usurp the role of the legislature, thereby violating the keystone of our Constitution — separation of powers. The Supreme Court, for its part, has let stand (stare decisis) precedents established by the Roosevelt court after FDR cowed it into submission with his threat to pack the Court with more justices until they blessed his budding autocracy. It was the most effective brush-back pitch in the history of the game, and now the Court hides behind stare decisis, rather than taking a swing that would undercut the power of big, centralized, remote-control government.
Murray is provocative to the core. But that’s not a bad thing in such times, especially because he backs his provocations with data, history, and rational analysis that leads you from skepticism, to acceptance. At the very least, he earns every penny of your investment of time and money. And perhaps, he’ll earn your allegiance to a plan that just might work.  Having run for local office, and seen the sausage factory from within, I feel Murray’s pain, and to a large extent agree with his diagnosis and prescription.

---

Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pjmedia.com/tatler
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/04/the-one-disruptive-tactic-that-can-recover-our-constitution-controversial-new-book-has-practical-plan/