Sasse Truth Bomb

 

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion from Nox and Friends.

Ben Sasse Schools Obstructionist Dems on Constitution at Kavanaugh Hearings

We can be reassured to learn these two facts:  There remains a handful of adults in Congress … and not all members of the GOP are RINOs.

During the first day of the confirmation circus hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse (R) used his 20 minutes at the microphone to remind the so-called progressive members of Congress, and their claque of noisy hired thugs in the gallery, how our Constitution – still the law of the land – establishes the separation of powers and declares that Congress may not delegate legislative authority to independent commissions staffed by unelected bureaucrats.  Note that Sasse correctly pins the origins of this congressional usurpation of power to the regime of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, arguably America’s first socialist president.

This article is by Jame Copland, a senior fellow and director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute (which, despite its name, is not a leftard think tank).

https://www.city-journal.org/ben-sasses-master-class-16152.html?utm_source=City+Journal+Update&utm_campaign=ac52cd8c14-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_05_08_29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c08930f2b-ac52cd8c14-109323889

Ben Sasse’s Master Class  by James Copland, in City Journal, 5 September 2018

Day one of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was largely a farce, but the committee’s youngest member, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, stepped up as the adult in the room. In the middle of what Sasse accurately labeled a “politicized circus,” he delivered a master class on the proper allocation of authority among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the federal government. Sasse’s separation-of-powers roadmap is one that nominee Kavanaugh has followed throughout his 12 years on the federal bench.

At the outset, Democratic senators played the part of resistance warriors and sought to derail the proceedings. Perched at the left flank of the Democrats’ left-side phalanx, the two junior-most of their number—2020 presidential aspirants Cory Booker and Kamala Harris—jostled for camera time, while Republican chairman Chuck Grassley struggled to maintain order. Grassley implausibly claimed that the Democrats had had plenty of time to read 42,000 pages of materials from Kavanaugh’s White House years that had been released some 15 hours earlier. He largely missed the broader point: the objecting senators had announced their opposition to Kavanaugh the moment that he was nominated.

In the gallery, scores of protesters attempted to invoke the heckler’s veto and were promptly escorted out by capitol police. A coterie protesting for abortion rights donned the red habits and bonnets of the oppressed women of the novel-cum-dystopian-television-series The Handmaid’s Tale. The father of a victim of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, accosted Kavanaugh during a recess, before security intervened. Kavanaugh’s former law clerk, Zina Bash, who has been prepping the judge for the hearing, became the subject of a deranged social-media firestorm, when conspiracy-minded leftists argued that she was making surreptitious hand signals to white supremacists.

Amid this chaos, the 46-year-old Sasse, who holds a Ph.D. in American history from Yale, explained the Framers’ view of American government. Sasse argued that judges wear black robes instead of red and blue jerseys—and get life tenure, rather than seeking elected terms of office—because the judicial branch is supposed to leave policymaking to Congress. Sasse invoked the civics of Schoolhouse Rock!, the public-service shorts that aired on Saturday mornings in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The Schoolhouse Rock short “I’m Just a Bill,” first aired in September 1975, shows a talking piece of legislation explaining to a boy how a bill becomes a law:

I’m just a bill
Yes, I’m only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I’m off to the White House
Where I’ll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I’ll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

These lyrics still explain the legislative process, but as Sasse observed, they’re increasingly irrelevant to how the federal government exerts control. Though the legislative branch “is supposed to be the center of our politics,” it isn’t, because “more and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year.” Starting in the 1930s and especially since the 1960s, Sasse said, a “self-neutering” Congress ceded much of its authority to “a bunch of alphabet-soup bureaucracies.”

Perhaps as much as any judge sitting on the federal bench, Kavanaugh has stood athwart this congressional abdication of constitutional duty, yelling, “Stop!” The seminal Supreme Court case enabling Congress to transfer its power to alphabet-soup agencies is the New Deal–era decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which upheld the constitutionality of agencies “wholly disconnected from the executive department” that were “created by Congress as a means of carrying into operation legislative and judicial powers.” In a footnote in a dissenting opinion earlier this year, in PHH Corporation v. CFPB, Kavanaugh questioned the foundations of Humphrey’s Executor. He dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s opinion upholding Congress’s decision to vest authority over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in a single director, unanswerable to the president. Kavanaugh viewed that as a step too far beyond what Humphrey’s Executor allowed.

The litigant in the CFPB case decided not to ask the Supreme Court for review, though similar cases are pending. But in other cases in which Kavanaugh has dissented from his colleagues’ acquiescence to congressional delegations of authority, the high court has agreed with his reasoning. In 2008, in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board—an independent body appointed by another independent body (the Securities and Exchange Commission). Judge Kavanaugh viewed the twice-independent agency as an unconstitutional extension of Humphrey’s Executor. The Supreme Court agreed, and Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion favorably cited Kavanaugh’s.

Kavanaugh did not delve much into the substance of these issues in his brief opening statement before the committee on Tuesday. (He instead focused his designed-to-be-inoffensive remarks on his personal story, highlighting his dutiful embrace of his role as husband, son, and father.) But as he had in his speech when the president announced his Supreme Court nomination, Kavanaugh stressed how he teaches his law students “that the Constitution’s separation of powers protects individual liberty.”

Those separation-of-powers concerns explain some of the progressive opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination—an opposition that, as Sasse explained, has been similar for every Republican Supreme Court nomination for the last 31 years. Yes, senators objecting to Kavanaugh’s nomination are indeed worried about how he might rule on hot-button cases that animate their base—among them abortion rights and gun control, the first two issues highlighted by ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein in her opening remarks. But make no mistake: when Sasse decries the delegation of authority to administrative agencies “because people don’t have any way to fire the bureaucrats,” progressives tend to view that as a feature, not a bug.

They’re wrong; and Sasse is right that the current political circus is unhealthy for the republic. The Founders would be unhappily surprised to learn that so many Americans view presidential contests as live-or-die, “Flight 93” elections; or that many voters in those elections are animated principally by prospective Supreme Court nominations, as 21 percent of American voters reported they were in 2016 exit polls.

Sasse, a persistent critic of his own party’s president, is no “drain the swamp” populist. But such populism can be all that’s left for objectors in a political system that leaves most divisive decisions to unelected administrators and judges. Jurists like Kavanaugh—judicially modest, but forcing elected legislators to do the business of legislating—are necessary preconditions for lowering the political heat.

 

— SafeSpace, with a hat tip to felinity —

A Splintered Nation a Broken Church

 

 

Introducing my new book

Book Cover 003

Now I am looking for a good agent who will take it on.

 

Introduction

A Splintered Nation and A Broken Church is a book which will hopefully encourage the reader to get involved in restoring our nation to an independent sovereign Constitutional Republic. You must admit that our nation has been on a very long journey towards its demise, what started out to be a sovereign Constitutional Republic, with the founders being Protestant Christian, putting in place moral values, integrity, a Constitution demanding and guaranteeing freedom, equality, and a limited government for the people and by the people. The book sort of hop-scotches through the research concerning the history of our politics and political corruption, resting at times on some major misconceptions and turning points as corruption consumed the political landscape of our nation.
Do you find yourself wondering how and why we find our nation in the state that that it is? know when it started, know how simple political rivalry turned into political parties, with specific ideological agendas and how those agendas evolved into one global liberal socialist party, or socialism the new face of the Democratic Party. A long progression and evolution since its founder Andrew Jackson. With the election of Lincoln, a former Whig turned Republican to get elected, the Republican Party gained it permanency as most Whigs went Republicans. Nonetheless, both parties are corrupt and the common link of corruption is illicit gain both monetary and political power. The book explores the fullness of intent for their corruption and vile behavior, their vile corrupt conspiracy to control the people.
Control and power have established the Shadow Government that is a huge and grossly oversized bureaucracy of unelected officials, departments and agencies that control the people by regulations, the Shadow Government is protected by corrupt politicians of both parties, primarily the global socialists… the new face of the Democrat Party. President Trump ran with the Ideal of draining the Swamp, thinking it meant both the “Deep State” and corrupt Congress. However, the Swamp is the corrupt Democrats and the RINOs who have moved in the direction of money and political power. The size of our government is a mockery of what the founders envisioned in the Constitution. The book looks at the liberal conspiracy against the Protestant church since the 1960s and why should the liberals with the objective of taking control of the nation and now the ultimate objective of a North American Socialist Union and a powerful part of the Global Socialist Union. Research has revealed problematic conditions existed that could not be ignored but must be eliminated or made of no relevance, and that is where Protestant Christianity comes into the picture. The church is broken into two main theologies, liberal and evangelical or liberal and biblical theologies, regardless, the research reveals the division which liberal theology denies, the truth of the Bible it teaches about sin. The Bible is the basis of our moral values, integrity and the character of our culture is Christianity. However. from the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s United Nation’s Charter and the liberal activists of the 1960s exposes the real conspiracy of socialism 2009-16 as it was accelerated by Barack Obama, or Barry whatever the only President in our history who demonized the Bible believing Christians.
The research links politics and the church. It also links the Civil Liberties Act, originated with the Kennedy brothers, then the assassination of John allowed Johnson to implement the Act and take it for his accomplishment and opening the door for minority groups such as the ACLU, LGBT, NAACP, Communist Party of America, and the liberal Press, Nation of Islam, all of which were recruiting people groups for Democrat votes. All a little pushy and all joining in against the church, the Second Amendment, law enforcement, border security, The Boy Scouts, the Military, our Flag and all patriot or Christian expression even Christian cake decorators. However, it was the church and Christian values, ethics, integrity woven into the American Dream. The use of political correctness and the freedom of speech is for liberals only. Black-white-red-yellow-whatever, racism is the biggest tool in the liberal box, intolerance and sexual abuse, (the most hypocritical tools) and further against the church is the favorite of bigotry and a fantasy God and fantasy religion. A lie is now the truth, and vile activity including thuggery violence and breaking the law is only wrong if you are a Christian or conservative.
Things really accelerated since George HW Bush and his push for the socialist union and the UN. There has never been a viler and more lawless as Bill and Hillary Clinton, then George W. with his revenge war on Iraq, when he should have gone to Afghanistan. Obama brought a new attempt to destroy the nation in civil unrest, and violent thuggery. The real eye opener is in research, not what is reported in the “Mainstream News” and liberal social networking. Researching exposes links, and it is up to the researcher to explore those links, see where your candidate stands then vote, and yes, your vote does count. Secondly, by the nature of the beast proper research will give the individual an opinion, and everyone needs a studied opinion to help discern the players and the direction they are headed. I pray the book encourages you to research and be educated enough to protect your mind against the onslaught of evil wrong, against the socialist agenda for your freedom. In this book I hope you find enough material to spark your interest to step back and do your own research. Stand for the truth and don’t compromise on the truth or your faith, even though they call you closed minded, therefore, you won’t be suckered into believing the lies.

“When you reject the truth, you will believe lies.” 

You will become a slave to liberal socialism.

 

If My People…

 

 

One Nation Under God

Happy Fourth of July – Happy Independence Day – Happy Birthday America!

Whichever you would prefer is fine by me.  But God Bless America is what I would like to say on this fourth day of July 2018, and the 242nd anniversary of our independence as a sovereign Republic.

The nation has had some troubled times, but Americans pulling together to overcome the threats against our nation and our freedom has always made us stronger and more united, more together.  However, liberal-socialism that budded in 1933 – 1945 (FDR and the UN) and just kept growing in liberal ideologies and blossomed with Obama’s presidency, but seems like it is wilting with the election of Trump who has so far, done a decent job of exposing the roots.

However, you must agree that Obama was the greatest divider known to history.  Obama splintered our nation where “We the People” actually have allowed liberalism split even the Christian church, and it is us (“We the People”), who own the shame and the following reasons we need to humble ourselves before God and our neighbors, confess our sin and pray seeking the face of almighty God asking Him to heal our nation!

The shame of …  and we the people must confess with our lips, our culpability.

We confess that:

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word … and called it pluralism.

We have worshiped other gods… and called it multiculturalism.

We have endorsed perversion… and called it an alternative lifestyle.

We have exploited the poor… and called it the lottery.

We have neglected the needy… and called it self-preservation.

We have rewarded laziness… and called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn children… and called it a choice.

We have shot abortionists… and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children… and called it building self-esteem.

We have abused power… and called it political savvy.

We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions… and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography… and called it freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers… and called it enlightenment.

Search us O God and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.  Guide and bless the men and women who have been sent to direct to the center of Your will.  I ask it in the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ … Amen.

This was a prayer given to open a session of the 1996 Kansas Legislature, by Pastor Joe Wright, who was asked to open the session.  The response was immediate when a good number of the legislators walked out during the prayer, and that was way back then.  I wonder if Kansas still invites Pastors to Open, or do they even still permit an opening prayer?  Liberal politicians have called this prayer racist, divisive, and offensive.  The Pastor was labeled as an extremist, intolerant, and hate-filled.

Think about it, where are our values?  Where is our integrity?  Where is our security?  Just where are we as a nation today?  Our condition is a shame.  And the shame must be on the conservatives who have allowed it to happen, we have failed to hold our politicians accountable.

So, I ask you to commit to praying for our nation every day using the 2Chronicles 7:14 guide.  Your commitment will be between you and God, it is like someone asking a Christian friend to pray for me or this or that and that request is soon forgotten because we are just that way.  “Oh yes I will Pray for you” … and as soon as we are separated we get caught up in the world and forget.  I used to shock people when, regardless where we were, I would grab their hand a pray for them or their need.

Father, we need your unconditional love and forgiveness, we need you to heal our nation, in the name of Jesus.  Amen.

 

Thanks R.S. Helms

 

Okay, So When are they going to fire?

Shareholders Rake Anti-Gun Dick’s CEO Over Coals During Public Shareholders Meeting

Now, Dick’s Sporting Goods is hearing from its stockholders.

Since the company reacted to the February massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School by betraying its customers who support the Second Amendment, Dick’s has been hit by the gun industry, from street-level stores to corporate decision-makers.

But at a shareholders meeting on Wednesday, Dick’s heard from people with skin in the game.

In a direct attack on Dick’s CEO Edward Stack and other members of the company’s board, shareholder David Almasi, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, raked the company’s leadership over the coals.

To the company’s top officers, Almasi charged, “virtue signaling” was more important than the company’s sales.

TRENDING: Smug NY Reporter Forced to Edit Out Racist Statement Printed About Kimberly Guilfoyle

After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s announced it would no longer sell AR-15s (the “assault weapon” liberals hate the most these days) and would restrict firearms sales to those 21 years of age or older.

Those might be considered defensible business decisions, perhaps with worries about liabilities in mind, but Dick’s directors went even further, hiring an anti-gun Washington lobbying firm to actively work against Second Amendment freedoms in the nation’s capital.

Almasi cited that decision in particular in his attack.

Listen to the whole thing here:

After the Parkland shooting, Almasi said, “Dick’s Sporting Goods immediately engaged in corporate virtue signaling, by ending the sale of AR-15s, high-capacity magazines and other accessories. Dick’s also no longer sells guns to people until three years after they’re eligible for military service.

“In addition, Dick’s reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun restrictions, even though you’re literally in the business of selling guns …

“The company is willfully giving up money. It’s damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment, even while the vast majority of … citizens support the amendment,” Almasi said.

“Thirty percent of Americans own guns and another 11 percent live with someone who does. Now you’ve alienated them.”

Will Dick’s regret its anti-gun positions?

YesNo

.
98% (2240 Votes)
2% (41 Votes)

RELATED: Florida Revokes Hundreds of Carry Permits After ‘Deceitful’ Worker Sabotages Background Check System

According to Fox Business Network, Dick’s has made up for its losses in firearms-related sales in other areas and the stock has risen by 13 percent over the past month.

Liberals like the crew at ThinkProgress are crowing that that proves the Dick’s critics are wrong, but it could well be a short-term effect from the political moment. Dick’s got a lot of headlines out of its anti-gun stance, and liberals could well have decided to patronize the stories because of the publicity.

In the long-term, though, Dick’s has a vested interest in pleasing its outdoors customer base, and its anti-gun decision was a flagrant snub to millions of Americans who could well have been spending their money at Dick’s instead of at a competitor. And shareholders don’t like having company executives who are “willfully giving up money.”

It’s likely not the last time Dick’s shareholders rake the company execs over the coals.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

Something to Think About…

Considering the chaotic and splintered condition of our Nation and the broken nature of our Christian church, just about anything could happen.  The Nation and Christians has to do several things.  We need to walk Circumspectly paying close attention to everything around us, pray for discernment, strength and a national Christian revival.  We must join together with our real conservative leadership and get rid of the Shadow Government and Drain the Swamp.  We know, according to Bible prophecy, that we will suffer the period of a one world order and Christians will be under great persecution, however, only God knows the appointed time.  It is my studied opinion, that the time has not yet come, and for the Christian and the Nation to continue to move through life as a free Nation, we must crush liberalism’s plan for globalization.  Pray with me for revival, with the heart of 2nd Chron 7:14.

God Bless you.

R.S. Helms.

 

The following story is reblogged on Bob’s Opinion from AMAC, the Daily Torch, and authored by Robert Romano … Thank you all.

 

 

 

AT&T-Time Warner Merger – Mass Media Consolidation Could Lead the Way to One-Party Rule in The U.S.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2018   |   By Collaborative Correspondent  

Time Warner ATT
Control the Media – Control the People

A vibrant and healthy democracy depends on the free marketplace of ideas.

Call it what you want. Viewpoint diversity. Access to alternative views.

In today’s media and information-driven society and culture, being able to find the opposing view on an issue, to compare the pros and cons of public policy matters or different products and services, is critical to how the American people make decisions about just about everything.

What to buy? Who to vote for? What to watch? Which music to listen to? What to wear? The plethora of choices we have today is owed entirely to the openness of the Internet and other media that facilitates and enables brand development.

But what if that process could become compromised or disrupted in a bid to control media? To control what messages were available to the public? This is the very real danger facing policymakers today in an environment increasingly moving towards mass media consolidation.

With federal judge Richard Leon’s approval of the $107 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, allowing the two companies to combine, the floodgates are opening for content distributors like AT&T — which owns Directv — to also own much of content that plays on those platforms.

Now, Comcast is expected to bid against Disney to buy much of Fox’s media content properties.

So, what’s the problem? Besides the antitrust laws that are invoked by monopolization in any industry, mass media consolidation has meant fewer and fewer companies controlling almost all major media in the country.

A comprehensive Free Press 2018 study on major media ownership finds that just 21 corporations own all the television broadcast stations, 21 that own the radio broadcast stations, 13 that own pay television channels, 11 that own daily newspapers and 18 that own telecom and cable. That number keeps getting smaller every time there’s another merger.

A chapter on the topic in Censored 2006 by Bridget Thornton, Britt Walters and Lori Rouse, “Corporate Media is Corporate America” noted the massive overlap of individuals who sit on the boards at major media outlets and those of non-media corporations.

Then there is the dominance in tech by Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Rapidly, the number of separately owned options is dwindling.

Along with media consolidation, there is also a growing call for political consolidation in Washington, D.C. — and even one-party rule.

In April, Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey retweeted an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Teixeira that called for “Democratic One-Party Rule” in the U.S. as a means of reconciling the nation’s challenges and implementing the progressive agenda. You see, all that debate by Congress and disagreement over which direction to go in is getting in the way of that agenda, so democracy no longer functions the way they want it to. Today’s captains of the information industry are getting impatient. They want to see Utopia in their lifetimes.

It will be anything but.

But leaving that aside, forget about competitive elections, Leyden and Teixeira warn: “America can’t afford more political paralysis. One side or the other must win. This is a civil war that can be won without firing a shot. But it is a fundamental conflict between two worldviews that must be resolved in short order.”

The resolution: “Democratic One-Party Rule.”

Dorsey’s comment was astonishing, writing briefly, “Great read.” Really? What about the part where the authors called for one-party rule? What about the part where they called it a civil war? No?

Just, “Great read,” as if having one political party control the most powerful country in the world to govern with no dissent as the climatic outcome of a civil war “without firing a shot” was just an after-thought for the billionaire.

Who needs alternate viewpoints when there’s media empires to consolidate and an undemocratic agenda to implement? Just hurry up and work it into the afternoon schedule. Dictatorship by close of business. Can we get that yesterday?

Twitter like other social media giants cast themselves as an open platform, a device for free speech basically and the marketplace of ideas. But what if big media doesn’t live up to that and starts censoring political content of one of the two major parties in a bid for absolute power?

Would that be “anti-competitive” enough for Judge Leon to say it might pose an antitrust issue under federal law?

That is why the AT&T-Time Warner merger today is so important for the media landscape of tomorrow, and why the Justice Department must appeal Judge Leon’s decision, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

It may not happen overnight, but we are witnessing the end of media. This is the age of medium. And if we are not careful, one day there may only be one-party rule, too. That will not lead to liberty and prosperity, but to tyranny.

From – Daily Torch – by Robert Romano

A Deep Concern …

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion … from AMAC Newsletter.

 

Nearly Four In Five College Departments Don’t Employ A Single Republican

 

columbia-university-college-768x500

 

To set foot on an American college campus, as anyone who’s spent a picosecond thereabout lately can tell you, is to step through a left-wing looking glass. But a jaw-dropping new study from the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reveals just how deep the rabbit hole goes: among tenure-track college professors at the nation’s top-ranked liberal arts schools, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by more than 10 to 1.
Rather than culling data from some voluntary survey, the report uncovers the political leanings of 8,688 elite academics by cross-referencing publicly available voter registration information with faculty lists from 51 colleges. At these schools, “78.2 percent of departments do not employ a single Republican.” And that’s just the topline.
The numbers below the fold, broken down by college and field of study, are even more alarming. Over at Wellesley College, perhaps best known for fostering pantsuited diplomats and disdain for the late Barbara Bush, there are 136 Democrat professors for every Republican. More than a third of the colleges assessed have ratios of at least 20-to-1.
At the low end of the spectrum are schools like the Naval Academy, where still more than twice as many Ds as Rs appear at the front of the lecture hall. Lopsided leanings are also evident in key disciplines, such as environmental studies (25-to-1), the humanities (32-to-1), and sociology (44-to-1).
Even If You’re Liberal, This Is Bad News
Look, it’s news to no one (except maybe the frequently confused Matt Yglesias) that the Left smothers conservative thought in academe. But at this magnitude, the consequences go far beyond who gets to wear tweed jackets with elbow patches. Each year, America’s universities ingest millions of bright but ideologically inchoate young people fumbling towards adulthood. Failing to expose them to an extensive menu of different ideas is a sure recipe for parochialism and intellectual indolence.
Even those who would welcome a unanimously liberal generation of Americans must recognize that a mind untested is as useful as a pencil unsharpened: it may be the tool you need, but good luck filling out your Scantron. The most valuable test of one’s worldview is to be confronted by an earnest exponent of a different or even contradictory one.
Moreover, consider the impact of straitjacketed thinking on academic inquiry. Despite being lavished with billions by American taxpayers, the social sciences are engulfed in a vexing replication crisis. Hundreds of findings once considered axiomatic have been impossible to reproduce, casting doubt on entire corpuses of published work in some disciplines.
Is this really all that gobsmacking, however, given the tool we use to appraise its validity? Peer review aims to ensure that academic evidence can be trusted by subjecting it to the rigorous scrutiny of reviewers with expertise comparable to the author. Yet as activists and politicians grasp ever more desperately at studies to lend scientific heft to their policy wish lists, academic research has become increasingly politicized. A panel drawn from a cohort of homogeneous thinkers cannot be expected to fairly assess evidence that has a political impact.
Look no further than the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a tool social psychologists developed that purports to measure unconscious prejudice. After being cited in more than 3,000 peer-reviewed papers by “psychologists [desiring] to help solve social problems,” and eagerly circulated by fellow travelers in the media, it was revealed that the test returns wildly unreliable results and has no impact on discriminatory behavior.
Despite failing to meet basic scientific standards, the IAT has been taken by more than 17 million people worldwide, featured in multimillion-dollar federal grants, and made the centerpiece of countless corporate diversity workshops. These academic blunders carry a price we will continue to pay until we recognize the limitations of peer review in an echo chamber.
This Means the ‘Consensus’ Is Tilted
The same applies to the notion of “scientific consensus,” commonly aired today in discussions about climate change. In 2014, noted demagogue John Oliver excoriated the media for daring to present viewers both sides of a political question by holding a “statistically representative” mock debate. To illustrate the percentage of scientists who agree on climate change, he trotted out 97 extras in white coats to shout down three climate skeptics.
To this profusion of unintentional irony, the NAS study adds another nugget: the 25-to-1 partisan ratio among environmental studies faculty means that out of professors who declare for a party, 96.2 percent are Democrats. By no means does this invalidate the conclusions of climate scientists. But policymakers should be aware that the oft-cited “consensus” is not necessarily a meeting of purely objective minds.
Let’s face it: the academy’s ability to perform credible peer review and proclaim scientific consensus will be hindered until it reclaims ideological pluralism. But how? The study argues that, “[t]he solution to viewpoint homogeneity may lie in establishing new colleges from the ground up” because reforming hidebound institutions “seems a very tall order.” Yet a vast new expansion, in the context of bloated federal outlays and overextended state budgets, seems even more improbable.
There is no choice but to reform existing universities, although it will take a Herculean effort from within to expand the institutional Overton window. These days, you can hardly walk through a quad without turning up some provost or vice chancellor underfoot, vowing to promote diversity. It’s past time for these administrators to show some mettle and apply that principle not just to race, sex, and creed, but to ideas also.
That means ceasing the assault on academic freedom and putting the kibosh on the heckler’s veto. Those interested in a truly plural discourse on campus should also think twice before reaching for the typical administrative pro-diversity playbook. Mandatory training seminars and hiring quotas are poor solutions, whomever they favor. Instead, we should take matters into our own hands.
Here’s How to Start
First, students and professors with divergent views must be bold enough to publicly voice them. The chilling effect of overwhelming viewpoint discrimination drives right-leaning prospective young academics into tight-lipped diffidence, if not different callings altogether. The magnetism of compelling mentors—visible evidence that conservatives indeed belong—is an indispensable counterweight that must be strengthened.
Meanwhile, freethinkers should join (or promote and support) nonpartisan organizations that defend viewpoint diversity and freedom of speech on campus, like the Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The surveys, tools, and research that groups like these produce are materiel for the vanguard.
Finally, right-leaning professors should strive to play a larger role in peer review, though not a tendentious one. These panels should not become venues for ideological combat, but a variety of perspectives is a needed check on cognitive biases, to which even pedigreed scholars are susceptible.
It goes without saying that all this may come at a substantial individual cost, denominated in professional opportunities and even personal relationships. But it must be paid. Otherwise, partisan faculties will continue to gather momentum like heavy stones tumbling down a hillside. The few conservatives in academia must be willing to stand athwart these boulders yelling Stop, no matter the risk of being flattened. The integrity of the academy depends on it.
From – The Federalist – by William Estes

Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control in America |

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion..

via Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control in America |