Tag Archives: free speech

FCC Gameplans to Shut Down Patriot Talk Radio

The FCC is quietly planning an all out assault on free speech and Conservative/Patriot talk radio in America. In a report from DickMorris.com, Mr. Morris outlines how the FCC, with the blockage of the Fairness Doctrine by Congress, will once again do an end around Congress and try to silence free speech through regulatory gimmickry. Mr. Morris makes 3 very valid points on their plans in his new book REVOLT! :

First, the FCC led by another Obama appointed Czar named Mark LLoyd*   Who just  happens to be another radical along the lines of one self-avowed Communist Van Jones, will attempt to shorten the radio license period from the now required renewal of 8 years, to requiring re-licensingevery 4 years. This would give the radical progressives under LLoyd’s direction life and death decision-making powers over all radio stations before the people get rid of Obama and all of his appointed radical cronies. Time is of the essence here, and they know it. These types of actions have been commonplace from within the Obama administration and his radical lapdogs for the entire time he has been in office. They are trying to make Congress powerless, and to an extent they already have. These radicals are not elected by the people, therefore have no authority to create laws that support their progressive agenda of stifling any opposition to their Socialist utopian ideology.

Next up in the FCC”s game-plan to stop Americans from speaking up against their agenda is in requiring all radio stations to produce 25% of their programming locally.  This would make it economically impossible for stations to be broadcast nationwide for free, therefore shutting a number of them down. Talk radio listeners have every right to listen to the station of their choice, regardless of what Mr. Lloyd’s Socialistic wishes are in this situation. keep in mind that while all of this is going on, NPR and PBS suck off millions of taxpayer dollars to basically promote the Democratic agenda  on a yearly basis. The wife of  Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller,  Sharon Percy Rockefeller, is CEO at WETA, the Washington DC PBS affiliate, and her compensation for 2009  was a very capitalistic $447,166.00. Her husband votes and lobbies for funding for PBS, a direct conflict of interest that is illegal at its base. So anyone trying to say PBS and NPR aren’t politically biased towards Democrats, needs to see that documented reality check I just laid down there. Why would the taxpayers allow the wife of a Democratic Senator, who also happens to already be filthy rich, bilk the taxpayers for a salary larger than the President of the United States?

The last set of  illegal plans coming out of the FCC and the radical FCC czar Mark Lloyd to shut down free speech in talk radio seem to come right out of Obama’s fake social justice scams using the very same community organizing scheme that allowed him to lie his way into the White-house in 2008.  The FCC wants to establish “Community Advisory Boards” to report on whether the radio stations are “satisfying the needs of the community.”  More illegally appointed “advisors” would be given the authority to provide the basis for denying radio broadcasting licenses to anyone who doesn’t agree with the Liberal agenda, and of course the Democratic Party that they have heavily infested today.

To top the agenda off, the FCC wants the power to fine stations for failing to “comply with the community advisory boards” with the fines being paid directly to the FCC ! This would be the final piece in making Liberal ideology the de-facto law in radio broadcasting across the land! In a country where the radical Liberals already control the Main Stream media which receive their talking points memo’s from the Obama administration Liberal Democratic propaganda operatives, the censoring and financial threats to free speech and talk radio represent a very clear and present danger to America today. The FCC must be stripped of this false, self-appointed authority today, whether it takes de-funding them, or deleting this tyrannical band of radical misfits program all together.

Congress needs to get on this situation and do it today, instead of letting it sneak by while the Liberals put up the distraction of the phony budget debate that is going on now.

* http://www.nevilleawards.com/obama_marklloyd.shtml

Progressives Politicize Tuscon Massacre to Strip Liberties

Progressives are pointing to Arizona and using it is an example as to why Americans have far too many liberties – we might just hurt ourselves.

A New York Times article demonstrates how the left is using the horrific tragedy in Arizona to push Progressive agenda items: gun control.

..[Arizona’s] gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit.

Loughner was committed and delusional.  He was going to kill people even if he didn’t have a gun.  Since he seems to have committed himself to the act, regardless of the consequences, he may have just stolen a car or delivery truck and driven it through the crowd and right on top of Rep. Giffords, after having plowed through tens of people.  He could have made a bomb similar to that of  Timothy McVeigh’s using fertilizer and diesel fuel.  Jared Lee Could have killed just as many people so many different ways that no set of laws or regulations on the method were going to prevent it from happening.

Have no fear though, it is far beyond the ability of a true progressive to let any crisis go to waste.  Politico is reporting that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) is getting a Federal gun and ammunition control bill ready for presentation to the house on Monday (emphasis mine).

Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunitionused by the 22-year-old assailant.

While crazy people with guns is certainly not desirable, the government is not going to be able to prevent these tragedies.  It never has been and never will be able to.  Even in complete police states, the evil-doers get guns and bombs and still kill huge numbers of innocent bystanders.

The Politico post continues with a total politicization of the event:

Another vocal supporter for gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures

uh, Jared didn’t use an assault weapon – or will their be a new class of assault weapon? .. this is about Mr. Quigley’s agenda.

If attacking the second amendment wasn’t enough, Rep. Robert Brady is going after free speech.

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

I can’t wait to see the definition of “threatening”.

I hope this is taken the right way.  I in no way condone the horrific acts allegedly committed by Jared Lee Loughner.  I have the families of the deceased and injured in my thoughts and prayers, but this is not the time to push a progressive agenda.

Tuscon Massacre and The Delusional Left

Keith Olbermann, the Washington Post, Sheriff Dupnik and the rest of the radical left are once again wrong – borderline delusional in-fact.  Olbermann and WaPo blame “political rhetoric” for Jared’s lapse of sanity.  Sheriff Dupnik said that it was due to a bigotry and prejudice.  None of those could possibly be further from the truth.

Jared Loughner was, and probably still is, off his rocker.  He believed that the government was controlling people through grammar.  In all of his ramblings, there was no particular party that he attacked – no popular ideology that he seemed to back – just mind control, some anarchist ramblings and his ideas on currency.

Jared did seem concerned that the U.S. dollar was not backed by a precious metal.  Around that, some debate could be had.  He also was working to foster his own currency .. that’s where it goes from discussion to delusion.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s statements were more hurtful than helpful.

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” said the sheriff. “And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

This does not appear to be a hate crime or anything motivated by race or prejudice.  The only one talking as if this tragedy was racially or hate-motivated is Sheriff Dupnik.  Political aspirations there Dupester?

Of course, it wouldn’t be a liberal pile-on without The New York Times. With an editorial entitled “Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona”, the old grey lady is just what she used to be.

..it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.

Apparently, the all-knowing editor doesn’t believe this “see how terrible the Conservatives are” speech is adding to the anger that he or she so much derides.  Where is the blame for those that “demonize” the wealthy, wall street bankers, the religious right, the anti-abortionists?  Why are those angry folks not to blame?  What about those that would force government-run health care, FCC take-over of the internet, or the destruction of California’s agricultural center down the throats of a disapproving majority?  They aren’t part of the anger?

The editorial is an example of the imaginary problem it purports to solve.  The anger from the right is a response to the oppressive “we know what’s better for you” attitude from the left.  It is the typical oppression vs. liberty struggle that has gone on far longer than the history of this nation, but that is not the real problem.

John M. Roll, Christina Taylor Green, Gabe Zimmerman, Phylis Schneck and Pamela Simon did not die because of Jared Lee Loughner’s alignment to or agreement with either progressive liberalism or Conservatism.  They were not attacked because of weak or strong borders, abortion, government spending nor military activity.  They died because a crazy man decided he was going to kill some people, damned the consequences.  Once someone is committed to doing something regardless of the consequences, laws cannot stop them.  Laws are about consequences – if you do a thing, here is the penalty.  If someone cares not about the penalty, the law is ineffective.  There are many things which the government cannot prevent – this was one of them.

No information has surfaced that says that Jared was an avid watcher/listener of Beck, Rush, O’Reilly, Levin or any other Conservative talk show.  Why does the Times editor make that accusation?  In fact, Jared seems to have been driven to this over his disdain for supposed government-run mind control using grammar as the method. That is hardly a tea party plank and I am fairly certain that neither Palin, Bush nor Sean Hannity have made that claim.  I am certain that any sane Conservative would dismiss that theory out-of-hand.

Blaming Conservatives for this tragedy is a despicable attempt by a few left-wingers to further their own causes.  If liberals need to know where to find fault, they can place the blame  squarely on the shoulders of Jared Lee Loughner.  He committed a terrible act and will face trail for it.  Blaming anything or anyone else is in itself .. a great delusion.

Cass Sunstein: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Cass Sunstein. I really don’t have a good (tasteful) way to describe this man other than Extreme Left Wing Socialist Liberal. He has some extremely questionable and left wing views. The position Obama appointed him to makes him very dangerous indeed.

Here’s his Bio from Discover The Networks:

Born in September 1954, Cass Sunstein earned a BA degree from Harvard College in 1975. Three years later, he received a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he had served as executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

After graduating from law school, Sunstein clerked for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1978-1979), and then for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1979-1980).

From 1980-81, Sunstein worked as an attorney-advisor in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and then took a job as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School in 1981. Two years later he also became an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science. In 1985 he was made a full professor of both law and political science. He would continue to teach full time at the University of Chicago Law School until 2008, at which time his status changed to that of Visiting Professor. Today he also holds the title of Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

Sunstein is a contributing editor to The New Republic and The American Prospect and has frequently testified before congressional committees. He played a particularly active role in opposing the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998.

In 2008 Sunstein served as an advisor for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. After Obama’s 2009 inauguration, Sunstein was appointed to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In 1993 Sunstein published the book The Partial Constitution, which contains a chapter titled “It’s the government’s Money,” wherein Sunstein writes that “the Constitution … forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases.” By Sunstein’s reckoning, a system whereby the government funds childbirth but not abortion “has the precise consequence of turning women into involuntary incubators” and “breeders” whose bodies are sacrificed “in the service of third parties” (i.e., fetuses).

With regard to citizens who object to having their tax dollars finance abortions, Sunstein writes:

“There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections.”

Also in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a “First Amendment New Deal” in the form of a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would authorize a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure that a “diversity of view[s]” is presented on the airwaves.

According to Sunstein, private broadcasting companies do a disservice to the American public by airing programs only if their ratings are high enough, or airing commercials only if advertisers can afford to pay the cost of a 30- to 60-second spot:

“In a market system, this goal [of airing diverse views] may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

“If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters,” Sunstein writes, “a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access [to the airwaves] will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome.” Government, he sayshas a moral obligation to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that represent a “diversity” of views:

“The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

According to Sunstein, the judicial system should issue rulings to make it clear that private media companies do not have the final say in rejecting “diversity” commercials.

Asserting that government regulation of the broadcasting industry is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, Sunstein writes: “It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech.'” He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming [and] content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

Reasoning from the premise that public television stations provide benefits to society that profit-driven private enterprises do not, Sunstein calls for a government mandate that “purely commercial [television] stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

On April 14, 1999, Sunstein published an opinion piece in The Chicago Tribune titled “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes.” He wrote:

“In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

In his 2001 book, Republic.com, Sunstein argued that the Internet posed a threat to democracy because it promoted cyberbalkanization, a phenomenon whereby people isolate themselves ideologically within groups that share their own political perspectives, while turning a blind eye to any views or facts that might challenge their beliefs. To counter this tendency, he called for government-imposed diversity on websites promoting a particular political perspective. Specifically, he suggested that all partisan websites should feature “electronic sidewalks” providing links to resources that offer opposing views. In a 2001 interview, he elaborated:

“Sites of one point of view [would] agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated, and sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.”

Several years later, Sunstein retracted this suggestion as a “bad idea.”

In 2004 Sunstein published The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than EverArguing that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that they are granted by the government, the book drew its inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a new bill of rights. WorldNetDaily reports that among the mandates laid out in the book are the following:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

In The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights [such as the foregoing], they may migrate into the Constitution itself.” He adds that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.” Another notable quote from the book is the following:

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.” (p. 3)

Sunstein, who believes that the federal courts are dominated by conservatives, agrees with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s assertion that the Constitution is a “living” document whose meanings and mandates change with the passage of time.

According to The Weekly Standard:

“Sunstein would give up on the idea that law is supposed to be an apolitical discipline in which practitioners put aside their political beliefs. The judiciary Sunstein contemplates would have Democratic and Republican caucuses.”

Contending that “the judiciary is already politicized,” Sunstein says the notion that “judges are not policymakers” is a “myth.” Judges’ “political commitments,” he states, “very much influence their votes.” He contends that “judges are subject to conformity pressures, and like-minded judges go to extremes, in the sense that ideological predispositions are heightened when judges are sitting with others who were appointed by presidents of the same political party.”

In 2005 the American Constitution Society sponsored a conference at Yale Law School titled “The Constitution in 2020,” whose purpose was to give liberal/left lawyers and judges a forum wherein they could trade ideas on what they would like the U.S. Constitution to look like 15 years down the road, and how they could influence it toward that end. Sunstein participated in this forum, where he put forth his ideas about a “Second Bill of Rights.” According to The Weekly Standard:

“The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize ‘positive’ rights, not just ‘negative’ rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits. The bottom line is that Congress would no longer have the discretion to decline to enact liberal policies. The triumph of the left would be constitutionally mandated.”

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.”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.”

In their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler brainstorm about ways to increase the number of organ donations that Americans make each year. They theorize that the main reason why more people do not arrange to donate their organs posthumously is because in order to do so, they are required to actively give “explicit consent” for such procedures, which few people ever take the time to do. To remedy this, Sunstein and Thaler advocate a policy of “presumed consent” — the opposite of explicit consent — whereby the the government would “presume” that someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation unless that person has explicitly indicated his or her wish to prevent such an action.

Sunstein and Thaler realize, however, that such a proposal “is a hard sell politically” because “[m]ore than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter.” Thus they propose an alternate solution — “mandated choice” — where the government forces all people to make a decision on the matter:

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences. Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

Under such a system, government “incentives and nudges” would replace “requirements and bans.”

Sunstein’s views about human cloning have been the subject of much controversy. By his reckoning, cloning should pose no moral dilemma because human embryos are “only a handful of cells.” In 2003 Sunstein wrote:

“It is silly to think that ‘potential’ is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have ‘potential’ and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them.”

In a 2002 paper (titled “Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?”) for the Harvard Law Review, Sunstein wrote:

“Moral repugnance might well be a response to vaguely remembered science fiction stories or horror movies, or to perceptions based on ignorance and confusion (as in the idea that a clone is a complete ‘copy’ of the original, or a ‘copy’ that is going to be evil).”

Added Sunstein:

“For some people, cloning might be the only feasible way to produce a biological offspring. It would certainly not be ludicrous to say that as a matter of constitutional law, the state has to produce a strong justification for intruding on that choice in cases in which it is the only realistic option.”

Sunstein is an animal-rights activist who once said, in a speech at Harvard University: “We ought to ban hunting, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” He also has stated that livestock and wild animals should have legal “rights” and should be empowered to file lawsuits; that the human consumption of meat is a practice that should be ended permanently; and that the use of animals for work, entertainment, science, and food is akin to “human slavery.” “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,” Sunstein wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school. He expanded on these ideas in his 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions.

On July 4, 2008, Sunstein married his second wife, Harvard professor Samantha Power, whom he had met when they both worked as advisors to the presidential campaign of Sunstein’s longtime friend and former University of Chicago Law School colleague, Barack Obama.

In 2008 Sunstein authored a paper proposing that the government use a variety of methods to limit or eliminate conspiracy theories critical of the U.S. government. These methods suggested that the government could:

  • ban conspiracy theories outright
  • impose a tax on those who advance conspiracy theories
  • engage in counter-speech to “discredit conspiracy theories and theorists”
  • hire private parties to engage in counter-speech
  • engage in informal communication with such private parties, encouraging them to help

Added Sunstein: “Our main policy claim here is the government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.”

I changed none of the words above, only added some links direct to his books in Amazon, & to PDF files on his papers.

Lets take a look at some of his radical views caught on film.

Here he is discussing his book on FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

What you need to understand about FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights is that it mirrors the USSR’s Communist Bill of Rights, take a look.

Here he discusses Roe V. Wade

“The Constitution doesn’t refer specifically to Privacy Rights”

Here is Cass Sunstein discussing his book Nudge:

As you can see, your stupid, and since you won’t act in your own best interests, on your own, the government will just “nudge” you into doing what the government thinks is in your best interest.

And here’s a few on Animal Rights and Hunting

“A full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison more rational as well as a more conversible animal than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month.”

Here is a compilation, and he also discusses his position interpretation if the 2nd Amendment

“We ought to ban hunting I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun, that should be against the law, it’s time now”

“Our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen as…..not the same as but in many ways morally akin to slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

And Cass Sunstein on a way to regulate internet free speech

Basically the “Fairness Doctrine” playing out on every website you try to look at.

Now here is Cass Sunstein lying to get Senate Confirmation

Is there really any doubt he lied based on the information above?

Here is Senator Sessions explaining why he cannot vote to confirm Cass Sunstein

Unfortunately, Cass Sunstein was confirmed. Now lets try to understand the job to which this Radical has been appointed.

From WhiteHouse.Gov:

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA, pronounced “oh-eye-ruh”) is a Federal office established by Congress in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act. It is part of the Office of Management and Budget, which is an agency within the Executive Office of the President. It is staffed by both political appointees and career civil servants.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA reviews all collections of information by the Federal Government. OIRA also develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in several areas, including information quality and statistical standards. In addition, OIRA reviews draft regulations under Executive Order 12866.

What does that mean exactly? According to the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Sunstein, a friend of President-elect Barack Obama from their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school, will mark a sharp departure for the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Although obscure, the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.

Here Sean Hannity & Ann Coulter Discuss Cass Sunstein and his Radical Views

Cass Sunstein is a left wing idealogue that would elevate animals over people. Cass Sunstein reinterprets laws and has them sounding exactly the opposite of what actually is written. Cass Sunstein supports a Communist Bill of Rights and redistribution of wealth. Cass Sunstein believes the people are ignorant and need a little push, just a little “nudge,” to do the right thing (determined by government). Basically, Cass Sunstein believes the government should dictate every aspect of your lives, but remember, you are no better than animals. And Cass Sunstein has been handed the position, by Barack Obama, to redefine our written laws, and make these radical views law.

Ralph Nader Wants to Eliminate Free Speech

Ralph Nader is using his Public Citizen corporation to push for an amendment to one of the amendments in the Constitution that is in the Bill of Rights. Nader is after the first amendment, the right to free speech. He is so disappointed that the supreme court upheld the actual amendment that prevents Congress from making any law that restricts speech that he is now seeking to change the Constitution.  From washintonexaminer.com:

“Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press.”

If that’s not caveated to hell without him even saying so..  Corporations like Public Citizen (a not-for-profit) would not be held to that rule nor would the media.

What that means is the media corporations, and groups like ACORN could send as much money as they like to political candidates, but Jim’s Toy inc.  would be limited.  Ralph is off his rocker and if the Democrats try to push this load of horse-hockey through, that will be icing on the cake.  Vote for the amendment, you’d better have a career-change plan in-place.

It will start with limiting the speech of corporations, because they have too much money and therefor power.  Then, it will be people making over … say $150,000 a year for the same reason.  Then, because the opposition party has too much power, we should limit their contributions and speech.  Lastly, anyone we don’t like shouldn’t be able to contribute nor should they have a right to free speech.  This is a ridiculously slippery slope.  Leave the constitution alone, especially free speech.

The left was warned on the whole health care thing and they ignored that flare.  Touch the Constitution for such a self-serving, power-grabbing purpose and you’re all toast.  Every, single one of you.

Recent Entries »