Cass Sunstein - The Most Evil Man In The Obama Administration - Outlines His Completely Insane Proposal For Information Regulation on Internet

Previous posts on Cass Sunstein:

 (CASS SUNSTEIN) WHO WROTE A BOOK CAREFULLY EXPLAINING WHY OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BECOME ANTIQUATED.

CASS SUNSTEIN ALSO WROTE ANOTHER BOOK WHICH ADVOCATES SETTING UP A MINISTRY OF TRUTH WHICH WILL ESSENTIALLY SUE CITIZENS WHO EXERCISE THEIR FREE SPEECH.

Cass Sunstein's Despicable Ideas On Regulating The Internet

Cass Sunstein: “Czar” in Wolf’s Clothing

Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Porn in the Classroom

If it wasn't bad enough that Obama's Safe School Czar is a NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) supporter, now we find he actually promotes the reading of gay porn by students.

From Gateway:

Scott Baker from Breitbart-TV.com and Co-Host of ‘The B-Cast‘ submitted this shocking report today on Obama’s deviant Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings.

Warning: The following material is very explicit.

EXCERPTS

Reflections of a Rock Lobster – Page 13

(At the age of six, the author frequently performed fellatio on his fellow first-graders in the school restroom, part of a “busy homosexual childhood.”)

My sexual exploits with my neighborhood playmates continued. I lived a busy homosexual childhood, somehow managing to avoid venereal disease through all my toddler years. By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory to perform fellatio on one another. A typical week’s schedule would be Aaron and Michael on Monday during lunch; Michael and Johnny on Tuesday after school; Fred and Timmy at noon Wednesday; Aaron and Timmy after school on Thursday. None of us ever got caught, but we never worried about it anyway. We all understood that what we were doing was not to be discussed freely with adults but we viewed it as a fun sort of confidential activity. None of us had any guilty feelings about it; we figured everyone did it. Why shouldn’t they?

---

Queer 13 – Pages 16 + 17

(A man masturbates and explicitly ejaculates as he sits on a hill overlooking his hometown.)

I sit down on the hard ground and cry a little. I fish my aged cock out of my jeans as though I can mark the scene with pleasure so later I can find it and reread it for understanding. Once imagined, it is my responsibility to jack off in front of it all. The air feels funny on my cock, which usually squirms like a larva in the darkness; it’s more sensitive than I am to the prickle of a slight breeze. There is nothing to arouse me except myself. My tract looks so boring, its emptiness so lacks potential, that I can almost believe in reality, since here is appearance spreading out at my feet. It only takes a minute. My crotch rings like an alarm clock, some pump mechanism kicks in, and after short flights my sperm falls on the gray dirt. I feet edgy and shallow, emptied out by the day ahead, and twinges of residual pleasure make me twitch.

Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).

GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims “furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students.” In other words, these are the books that GLSEN’s directors think all kids should be reading: gay kids should read them to raise their self-esteem, and straight kids should read them in order to become more aware and tolerant and stop bullying gay kids.

Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called “GLSEN BookLink,” featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own.

According to GLSEN’s own press releases from the period during which its recommended reading list was developed, the organization’s three areas of focus were creating “educational resources, public policy agenda, [and] student organizing programs”; in other words, the reading list (chief among its “educational resources”) was of prime importance in GLSEN’s efforts to influence the American educational system.

The list is divided into three main categories: books recommended for grades K-6; books recommended for grades 7-12; and books for teachers. (The books on the list span all genres: fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, even poetry.)

Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.

We were unprepared for what we encountered.

... (these were books that) weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured

explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers;

stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships;

stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers,

five-year-olds playing sex games,

semen flying through the air.

One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem.

Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

We knew that unless we carefully documented what we were reading, the public would have a hard time accepting it.

To be specific, the books we read were:

Queer 13

Being Different

The Full Spectrum

Revolutionary Voices

Reflections of a Rock Lobster

Passages of Pride

Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian

The Order of the Poison Oak

In Your Face

Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son

Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth

We can only vouch for what’s in these 11 books, since these are the only ones we’ve read through. Are there other books on the GLSEN reading list that are similarly outrageous? We can’t say for sure, but it seems very likely.

Let it be clear: This issue has nothing to do with gayness or straightness, which is irrelevant to this report. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.”

And this is not about censorship: It’s about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children.

Here are more excerpts:

Revolutionary Voices – Page 103

(An illustration about the change from “boy to man,” showing two Boy Scouts pointing at and looking at two adult men engaging in anal sex.)

A Process of Change, etching, 38 x 35.5 cm, 1999

---

Queer 13 – Pages 43, 44 + 45

(A 13-year-old boy has a violent sexual encounter with an older man, which causes the boy to become desperate for sex, and he ends up spending the rest of the year promiscuously getting “my cock sucked and my ass fucked” by “a seemingly endless supply of dicks” belonging to older men, concluding with “I really did enjoy those sexual encounters.”)

One day, on the bus to shop class, this ugly fuck of a man sat behind me and put his foot in the crack of my seat. He was skinny, with a patchy, pencil-thin mustache that besotted his oily face. I ignored him for most of the trip. I did notice that he changed buses when I did, but this time he sat beside me. He tried a little small talk, but then he suddenly and very nervously put his hand on my crotch. It never occurred to me to tell him not to. I’m not sure if I agreed to it or not, but he managed to get me to follow him to a nearby rest room at another secondary school “to play.” In the bathroom stall, lit by two scant rows of fluorescent lights, half of them burnt-out or flickering, he tried to kiss me, but I was too nauseated to do that. He sucked my nipples and played with my cock. I had no idea what to do. He then tried to get me to suck his. Somehow I knew this was expected of me, but I just could not put his ugly, foul-smelling penis into my mouth. When he forced it in I gagged so hard I started vomiting. Undaunted, he tried to put his cock in my ass. Thankfully, he came prematurely. He pulled up his trousers and left me in the toilet stall confused, frightened, crying, and praying to God for forgiveness of my horrible sin. I spent a good deal of time locked in the stall, trying to clean up, trying to wipe the smell of that act off with wet toilet paper, but I was doused in the stench of that man and what he had done.

This incident should have soured me on men, but it only made me more confused and needful. One day later, something accidental happened that would change my life. I discovered that at a urinal I could actually see someone else’s penis. I was ecstatic and fearful, but I wanted more. One day, at a local shopping mall, as I was trying to sneak a peek at penises in the rest rooms, a man at the urinal actually turned to me and started playing with himself. He flashed me a gold-toothed smirk and motioned for me to come over. Shocked, I zippered up and ran out, but the seeds had been laid. The whole world of rest-room sex had opened itself up to me.

Soon I was spending a great deal of time hanging out in shopping malls and cruising the rest rooms for sexual encounters. My rest-room exploits started to be a great burden on my mind. The better part of the year was spent making deals with God, asking for a sign, then ignoring and rationalizing everything I perceived to be a sign, praying for forgiveness, and being obsessed with raging hormones and a seemingly endless supply of dicks. I believed that it was all part of a test by God to see if I was a sinner. I was.

I had known before that something was up, and that I was attracted to men, but this toilet thing was a whole new realm of sin and Satan, a new level that I had never before imagined. The following years were spent praying for forgiveness and trying to purge my homosexuality through prayer and Bible study. While my classmates wondered what sex was like, content to masturbate over pinups, I was out there having my cock sucked and my ass fucked. These were grown men I was tricking with. Some were nice, grateful for a young boy to have their way with. Some were harsh and mean. There were a few nasty encounters, brutal and painful experiences, near-rapes, but through it all, I never thought that I had the ability to say no.

I was scared about what I was doing, scared of God’s judgment and of being caught in all those rest rooms and parks, but I really did enjoy those sexual encounters. That feeling of doing it to them and them doing the same for me was just too damn good.

OUR PRESIDENT THINKS TEENAGERS SHOULD BE ASSIGNED BOOKS THAT TALK POSITIVELY ABOUT ADULT-CHILD SEX AND "SUCKING COCKS".

OUR PRESIDENT THINKS IT IS OK TO APPOINT A SELF-AVOWED "ROWDY BLACK NATIONALIST TO HIS DE FACTO CABINET.

OUR PRESIDENT ALSO APPOINTED ANOTHER CZAR (JOHN HOLDREN) WHO WROTE A BOOK ADVOCATING FORCED ABORTIONS AND MASS STERILIZATION OF AMERICANS.

OUR PRESIDENT ALSO APPOINTED A "CZAR" (CASS SUNSTEIN) WHO WROTE A BOOK CAREFULLY EXPLAINING WHY OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BECOME ANTIQUATED.

CASS SUNSTEIN ALSO WROTE ANOTHER BOOK WHICH ADVOCATES SETTING UP A MINISTRY OF TRUTH WHICH WILL ESSENTIALLY SUE CITIZENS WHO EXERCISE THEIR FREE SPEECH.

THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT, FOLKS. HE BELIEVES ALL OF THIS IS OK. IT'S NORMAL TO HIM,

BECAUSE HE IS AN ABNORMAL HUMAN BEING.

HE IS SICK. AND, HE'S OUR PRESIDENT.

Cass Sunstein: “Czar” in Wolf’s Clothing

Guest Commentary be Edward Cline:

In “Reason is Forever” I commented on the phenomenon of liberals, collectivists, and fascist/socialist fellow travelers in the Obama administration endorsing the gagging of anyone who criticizes the administration and its agenda, and wishing to bestow a taxpayer-bought bullhorn on Obama’s propagandists. I also discuss the incremental move to censorship in America in “Censorship by Nickels and Dimes,” “Thought Crime: The Logical End of Politically Correct Speech,” and “The Move Towards Freedomless Speech.”

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was recently caught with its curtain drawn open for its role in that effort. Its director of communications, Yosi Sergant, was the facilitator of a teleconference of artists and other “cool people” who had not only benefited from NEA grants, but worked directly or indirectly to elect Obama. The ostensive purpose of the call was to enlist the active support of the invited participants to “sell” the Obama agenda, including the health-care bill, to the public. It took a while for the implications of that “call to arms” to sink into the consciousness of Patrick C. Courrielche, columnist for Big Hollywood, who subsequently, and with some apparent regret, reported the call in detail on the Big Hollywood blog site.

For having violated its nominally apolitical mandate (if it is a creature of politics, how could it be “apolitical”?), the NEA went mum after the whistle-blowing, and the director of communications has been either fired or “reassigned.” His whereabouts are otherwise unknown. Ben Smith, writing for Politico, notes that Sergant was an “outsider from Washington’s careful culture” -- that is, he was a novice in Washington’s culture of stealth and subterfuge and did not absorb the culture quickly enough.

One cannot blame him for the gaucherie. Observe the hubris of Obama and the Democrats in how they propose their blatantly socialist legislation, thinly disguised in populist euphemisms. Why shouldn't Sergant have just emulated the tactics of the White House? But, he obviously had the cooperation or sanction of the White House to conduct the enlistment drive, perhaps with the sage guidance of White House staffer Marion Phillips, who, in an official blog post called “Facts are Stubborn Things” requested that "fishy" criticisms of the administration's plans for health care reform be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Well, Courrielche had the decency to flag the White House and the NEA, instead. Nationally syndicated conservative columnist George Will also reported on the Big Hollywood exposé in “Artists in Harness” and in addition offers a brief critique of the NEA’s anti-esthetic standards (without offering any standards of his own). These NEA beneficiaries, Will notes,

…are just another servile interest group seeking morsels from the federal banquet. Are they real artists? Sure, because in this egalitarian era, government reasons circularly: Art is whatever an artist says it is, and an artist is whoever produces art….For government today, ‘art’ is a classification so capacious it does not classify.

Bigger game to bring down than Yosi Sergant is Cass Sunstein, Obama’s most recently appointed “czar,” formally the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is under the Office of Management and Budget, one of the few “czars” to be confirmed by the Senate. Sunstein, a tenured professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and who is married to Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, began teaching at Harvard Law School in the fall of 2008. That didn’t last long, because he is now on leave from Harvard to pursue the application of his collectivist theories and hypotheses.

Former dean of Harvard Law School and now U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan said of Sunstein on the announcement of his going to Harvard:

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.

But, hoist Sunstein out of the swirling maelstrom of his interests, and you find a totalitarian, a “czar“ in wolf‘s clothing. It is no coincidence that Obama, who was a mere “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School, would find him an appropriate choice to become a regulatory czar, one who can “regulate” just about everything he puts his mind to.

On environmentalism, he is open to persuasion. He argued against the so-called Precautionary Principle about the cost vs. benefit equation in enforcing environmental law, a position that raised the hackles of advocates of environmental crime and which he would be willing to reverse. He argues that animals should be represented in court. Apparently, he hasn’t made up his mind about whether animals should be conveyed the attribute of “personhood” that would allow them to file lawsuits for abuse and cruelty.

Substitute the planet, the environment, and glaciers for animals, and Sunstein‘s reservations would fall like the Maginot Line. One can wonder why such a subject would fascinate Sunstein, but not for long. Individuals fare no better in his legalistic universe, in which ideas just hover in space and orbit no central philosophy.

On the First Amendment and freedom of speech, Sunstein has definite ideas. One of his “New Deals” would be a rewrite of the Constitution to allow for mandatory or compulsory “diversity” of views in virtually every medium of “public” communication, but most especially in television and on radio. In his book, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (1995), he argues that that such a rewrite would “reinvigorate the processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”

In order to attain that goal, which would be the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine in all but name, he would support the creation of a federal panel of “nonpartisan experts” who would judge whether or not a television or radio station met their diversity criteria. If they did not, one imagines that they would refer the case and the offense to the Federal Communications Commission, which has the power to grant, deny or withdraw licenses to broadcast.

Sunstein proposes also that commercial broadcasters be required to subsidize “public” television or other commercial stations to ensure “less profitable but high-quality programming.” All this regulating and requiring, he asserts, would not violate the “spirit” of the Constitution. One can presume that he doesn’t regard the Sixteenth and Eighteenth Amendments as being in violation of that “spirit.”

Again, one may wonder why he believes “diversity” is necessary. Clearly, the mainstream media are on the side of Obama and his plans to fit the nation for the yoke of servitude. Not even the anchors and shills of ABC, CBS and NBC could boast that ‘diversity” thrives in the MSM. It is only on “renegade” broadcasters such as Fox, and in conservative radio talk shows that “diversity“ is not present, especially when they oppose the Obama and other collectivist agendas. One of Sunstein’s interests, as noted above, is behavioral economics and law, which treats individuals as non-sentient atoms that coagulate into insulated groups, and, as atoms, autonomously make “decisions” that affect the marketplace and politics, and so, society.

This position meshes perfectly with his argument in his 2001 book, Republic.com, that the Internet is dangerous to “democracy” because on the Internet individuals may further choose to ally themselves with groups that reflect their values, and so repel the leveling influence of “diversity.“ This, argues Sunstein, permits individuals to reject information or positions that might challenge their beliefs. Ironclad convictions cannot be allowed. “Rational actors” should be gagged or banished to the fringe of “democracy.” Open-mindedness should be made mandatory, even if it means regulating -- or censoring -- the Internet.

The object of that argument, of course, is not hard-core Democrats or wish-driven liberals, who, when faced with a rational argument against government-run health care, or smoking bans, or government-mandated nutrition guides, or public education, typically shut out reason in what Ayn Rand deemed “blanking out” the truth. In short, it is Sunstein’s political friends and allies who insulate themselves from reason and rationality. If they choose not to think about individual rights, then they cannot exist.

In his 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, Sunstein advocates a “Second Bill of Rights,” something proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union address in January, 1944. Like FDR’s “four freedoms” (introduced in his address to Congress in 1941), these rights include rights to an education, to a home, to health care, and to protection against monopolies, all picked out of the space of floating abstractions.

How to pay for these rights? Taxation. Sunstein is tax happy. In an April 1999 Chicago Tribune Op-Ed he castigated tax “grumblers” on the advantages and virtues of taxation.

Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending….It may be reasonable, in some cases, to cut tax rates. What is unreasonable and, in fact, preposterous is the all-too-familiar conservative rhetoric that flatly opposes individual liberty to the government power to tax and spend. You cannot be for rights and against government because rights are meaningless unless enforced by government…Rights to private property, freedom of speech, immunity from police abuse, contractual liberty, free exercise of religion--just as much as rights to Social Security, Medicare and food stamps--are taxpayer-funded and government-managed social services designed to improve collective and individual well-being…There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great Supreme Court justice, liked to say, taxes are ‘the price we pay for civilization.’

Without taxes there would be no property? Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Has Sunstein ever imagined that the purpose of government is to protect rights -- individual rights, not community- or society- or government-bequeathed rights -- not to “enforce” them? Perhaps. If he had, he rejected the idea. Note that his idea of rights includes what could only be called government-created entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. If it can be argued that rights originate anywhere but in the nature of man as a being of volitional consciousness responsible for his own life and happiness, then, of course, these “rights” can be “enforced” by government. Therefore, the government owns the chicken and the egg, and the individual is merely a “steward” of property that somehow originates in government coercion acting for “society.” Sunstein makes no distinction between them.

Sunstein’s position was better articulated in an April 2005 blog entry in connection with a Yale University conference, “The Constitution in 2020,” whose subject was the United States in the 21st century and how it should define itself. What should not be conceded at the conference, he suggested, was any notion that the Constitution should be regarded as an absolute defender of individual rights and liberty. An “absolutist” position on them is a natural enemy of “democratic deliberation.” He warned that in debate:

I will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. This idea, sometimes masquerading under the name of originalism or strict construction, represents a form of judicial hubris; it is bad history and bad law. It should be exposed and rejected as such.

Sunstein’s chief danger is his confessed ambition to be a de facto censor, or, as Ayn Rand characterized such a person in Atlas Shrugged, an intellectual cop. He would be perfect for the role. It is little wonder that Obama nominated him for the office, given the president’s own attempts to stifle freedom of speech and his wish for critics to not “do a lot of talking.”

Cass Sunstein, for all his academic credentials and books, is just another member of the Chicago-Beltway wolf pack. Hear them yelp and howl for “democracy.”

Crossposted at The Dougout

New Czarist Claim from Regulatory Czar: 2nd Amendment BALONEY

SUNSTEIN: My tentative suggestion is that the individual right to have guns as it's being conceptualized now is best taken as a contemporary creation and a reflection of current fears, not a reading of civic-centered founding debates. Modern gun owners who are invoking the Second Amendment on the basis of a principle they favor are perfectionists, not so different from older people who tried unsuccessfully - I'm pleased to say - to get the protection clause read to strike down mandatory retirement laws.

In terms of judicial developments, it is striking and noteworthy that well over two centuries since the founding, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns. Not once! It would be amazing - though, given that fact - don't be surprised if the first time it happens is in the next three or four years.

We have an FCC Czar who thinks the 1st amendment is an exagerrated...well " This freedom is all too often an exaggeration."

And now we have a regulatory 'czar' who thinks those who actually BELIEVE the 2nd amendment is real are some kind of ocd 'perfectionists'

How many of these incidents is it going to take before some people wake up?

If the FCC czar is not scaring them at WaPo when he threatens the 1st amendment directly, what will it take? An elected freak in reaction in a near future like Ron Paul with the powers gifted him by this SICK administration?

These guys are not playing footsy. The language they are using is direct. I take their words seriously.

They believe they are on the side of the righteous and the good and that the simple act of oppostion and defiance categorises you immediately as a right wing smear merchant nut or worse. These people are a danger to the republic.

THESE PEOPLE ARE A DANGER TO THE REPUBLIC

THESE PEOPLE ARE A DANGER TO THE REPUBLIC