Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November 24th, 2009

When some bloggers and talk show hosts pointed out Sunstein’s statist views during his confirmation, some “conservatives” and “libertarians” attacked them for mounting a smear campaign based upon misinformation and praised Sunstein for his libertarian-leaning views on regulation.

People who care about preserving their liberties should take the short-sighted commentaries from such nattering ninnies as Ed Morrissey, Ilya Somin, Richard Epstein, and Glenn Reynolds with a grain of salt. A good rule of thumb is that any person selected, nominated, or appointed by Brother O is bad for personal freedom and individual liberty in this country.

I.M. Kane

 


 

Cass Sunstein: Censor Hannity, right-wing rumors

Cites websites for ‘absurd’ reports of Obama’s ties to Ayers

By Aaron Klein

Websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors,” argued Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar.

In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

Ayers became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.

As WND reported, Obama and Ayers sat together on the board of a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund. Ayers also was a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was appointed as its first chairman in 1995.

Ayers reportedly was involved in hiring Obama for the CAC – a job the future president later touted as qualifying him to run for public office.

WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama’s award-winning autobiography “Dreams from My Father.”

However, such reports were characterized by Sunstein as “absurd” charges for which corrective measures can be taken.

Sunstein’s book – reviewed by WND – was released in September, after he was already installed as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

“In the era of the Internet, it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone,” Sunstein writes.

“Some right-wing websites liked to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers; one of the websites’ goals was undoubtedly to attract more viewers,” he writes.

Sunstein continues: “On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes.”

Sunstein presents multiple new measures he argues can be used to stop the spread of “rumors.”

He contends “freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective.”

Sunstein proposes the imposition of a “chilling effect” on “damaging rumors” – or the use of strong “corrective” measures to deter future rumormongers.

For websites, Sunstein suggests a “right to notice and take down” in which “those who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice.”

Sunstein also argues for the “right to demand a retraction after a clear demonstration that a statement is both false and damaging.” But he does not explain which agency would determine whether any statement is false and damaging.

Sunstein further pushes for “deterrence” through making libel lawsuits easier to bring.

Sunstein drafted ‘New Deal Fairness Doctrine’

Sunstein’s proposals outlined in his book “On Rumors” were not the first of his writings to recommend regulating talk radio or the news media.

WND previously reported Sunstein drew up a “First Amendment New Deal” – a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.

In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “Fairness Doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

Sunstein wrote it is “worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well.”

He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.” [emphasis mine]

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

“It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech,'” he writes.

Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.

Writes Sunstein: “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.”

Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, “stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues.”

He continues: “In a market system, this goal 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.”

In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts’ unwillingness to “require something like a Fairness Doctrine” to be a result of “the judiciary’s lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority.”

He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.

“Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned,” Sunstein writes.

But, he says, “at the very least, regulative ‘fairness doctrines’ would raise no real doubts” constitutionally.

Read Full Post »

When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life.  It was Susan Brownmiller’s tome, Against Our Will:  Men, Women, and Rape, which explained rape as an act of power, not just lust.  What I found particularly chilling was the chapter on war — how rape is used to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy’s spirit.

While edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a female.  Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution that would help shield me from danger.

The answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party.  I even became an activist for feminist causes, including violence against women.  Liberalism would protect me from the big bad conservatives who wished me harm.

Like most feminists, it was a no brainer to become a Democrat.  Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women’s issues.  They marched at my side in support of abortion rights.  They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace. 

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty.  But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance — therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn’t want to see.

One clue:  the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn’t exactly look Reagan-esque.  In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing.  On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums. 

Another red flag:  while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn’t do anything else to protect me.  In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America.  And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off?   Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra left Berkeley are sleaze bags.  Rarely a week goes by that I don’t hear stories from my young female clients about middle aged men preying on them.  With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

What finally woke me up were the utterances of bitch, witch, and monster toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year.  I was shocked into reality:  the trash talk wasn’t coming from conservatives but from male and female liberals.  

I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny.  Both the males and the females don’t care a whit about women.

Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.  If under Radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

My other epiphanies:  those pony tailed guys were not marching for abortion rights because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom. It was to keep women available for free and easy sex

And the eagerness for women to make good money?  If women work hard, leftist men don’t have to. 

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous.  And I realized something even more chilling about the Left.   Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women. 

It’s far worse than that:  many are perpetuators.

The Left’s behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existenceDemocrats need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote for liberals.

A strong, self sufficient woman, Palin eschews their protection.  Drop her off in the Alaskan bush, and she’ll survive just fine, thank you very much.  Palin doesn’t need or want anything from liberals, not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, not abortion, which she abhors.

Palin is a woman of deep and abiding faith.  She takes no marching orders from messiah like wannabes, like Obama.

And so the Left must try to destroy her. And they are doing this in the most malicious of ways: 

By symbolically raping her.

Just like a perpetuator, they dehumanize her by objectifying her body.   They undress her with their eyes. They turn her into a piece of ass.

Liberals do this by calling her a c___t,  ogling her legs, demeaning her with names like “sexy flight attendant,” and “Trailer Park Barbie,” and exposing her flesh on the cover of Newsweek.

And from The Atlantic Magazine’s Andrew Sullivan:  “Sarah Palin’s vagina is the font of all evil in the galaxy.”

Nothing is off limits, not actress Sarah Bernhardt’s wish that Palin be gang raped or the sexualizing of Palin’s daughters.

As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror.  Sexual violence is a form of terrorism.

The American Left has a long history of defiling people to control and break them. The hard core 60‘s leftists were masters of guerilla warfare, like the Symbionese Liberation Army repeatedly raping Patty Hearst. Huey P. Newton sent a male Black Panther to the hospital, bloodied and damaged, from a punishment of sodomy. 

The extreme Left still considers themselves warriors, righteous soldiers for their Marxist cause.  With Palin, they use sexual violence as part of their military arsenal.

Palin is not the only intended victim.  As the book, Against Our Will described, the brutality is also aimed at men. By forcing men to witness Palin’s violation, the Left tries to emasculate conservative men by rendering them powerless.

The wilding of any woman is reprehensible. But defiling a mother of five, with a babe in her arms, and a grandmother, is particularly obscene.  It is, of course, Palin’s unapologetic motherhood that provides fuel to the leftist fire.

Because, as a mother, and a fertile woman, Palin is as close to the sacred as a person gets.  She is not just politically pro life.  Palin’s whole being emanates life, in stark contrast to the darkness of the left, the life despoilers

These “progressives” are so alienated from the sacred that they perceive nothing as sacred.  And they will destroy anyone whose goodness shines a mirror on their pathology. The spiritually barren must annihilate the vital and the fertile.

It has been almost two years since I woke up and broke up with liberalism.  During these many months, I’ve discovered that everything I believed was wrong.

But the biggest shock of all has been realizing that the Democratic Party is hardly an oasis for women.  Now that it has been infiltrated by the hard Left, it’s a dangerous place for women, children, or other living things.

In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors. Rather than a shelter for the vulnerable, leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way.   Not a movement of hope and change, it is a cauldron of hate.

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hatred paralyzes life;  love releases it. 

Hatred confuses life;  love harmonizes it. 

Hatred darkens life;  love illuminates it.

In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness. [emphasis mine]

Read Full Post »