(visit the link for the full news article)
Disturbing audio has emerged of White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a previous white paper called for banning “conspiracy theories,” demanding that websites be mandated by law to link to opposing information or that pop ups containing government propaganda be forcibly included on political blogs.
In an audio excerpt of an interview which was posted on the Breitbart.tv website today, Sunstein discusses how conservative websites should provide links to liberal websites and vice versa or even how political blogs should be made to include pop ups that show “a quick argument
Name: Cass R. Sunstein
Work Address: University of Chicago Law School, 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60637
Telephone: 773-702-9498 (business)
Fax: 773-702-0730 (business)
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
I believe that when they do that, then we all should take a page from political history. In the past, long before the advent of the internet and newspapers, when people were wanting to put out an opposing political view, what they did was to print and put out a pamplets, then gave them out. Now here is the idea, they do that, and then what all we should do, is starting to just use the technology and get some old printing presses and start to put out the information to the general public at large. Yes it would cost, but if you look at it as a means that would end up stopping the government in its tracks, it would be a necessary expense, protected under the freedom of Speech and the press. As it is just an opinion, carefully construsted arguments would sway public opinion. Enough cities do that and the federal government would then end up having to divert resources that it can not afford to do such to try to counter if not just give up.
So even when you give Cass a chance to put his own theories into practice, he doesn't really show up to the dance!
The Obama I know
Cass R. Sunstein
Posted: March 5, 2008 12:53 PM
Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.
He is also a friend
Well, I guess it comes once again as no surprise to the Constitution believing Americans in this country.
Barack Obama has continued the tradition of nominating another justice to the United States Supreme Court that got at least some of her education outside the United States in Great Britain, and also from the liberally focused Harvard, one of its U.S. branch campuses.
Elena Kagan is another East Coast liberal who obtained at least some of her schooling, according to news reports, from Oxford in England, whose system of government and also legal education is focused on the government being above the citizenry and "sovereign" while, of course, in this country our government is just the opposite.
At least on those rights as outlined in America's Bill of Rights which were meant as protection against both the government, and the corporate commercial (property) entities.
Which was why those first Americans fought to break free from British influence and control way back in 1776, while the progressives and liberals in this country seem to be hell-bent on returning this country to British rule and control.
If not directly, then through the U.S. Supreme Court.
Elena Kagan and her Socialist ‘hero’ Cass Sunstein
When it was announced in 2008 that Cass Sunstein would be joining the Harvard Law School faculty, Kagan said:
“Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time — the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential. His work in any one of the fields he pursues — administrative law and policy, constitutional law and theory, behavioral economics and law, environmental law, to name a non-exhaustive few — would put him in the very front ranks of legal scholars; the combination is singular and breathtaking.”
Sunstein has argued in favor of bringing socialism (in the form of expanded wefare benefits and wealth redistribution) to the United States, but contends that the country’s “white majority” opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:
“The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics).”
Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:
“During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.”
[Cass Sunstein on "Climate Change" and "distributive justice"]:
In 2007 Sunstein co-authored (with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner) a 39-page University of Chicago Law School paper titled “Climate Change Justice,” which held that it was “desirable” for America to pay “justice” to poorer nations by entering into a compensation agreement that would result in a financial loss for the United States. The paper refers several times to ”distributive justice.”
Sunstein and Posner further speculate about the possibility of achieving this redistribution by means other than direct payments:
* “It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”
* “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”
* “If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation’s interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives.”
* “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”