+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 23

  1. #1

    Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'

    Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions


    Posted: January 14, 2010

    12:30 am Eastern


    ** Aaron Klein
    © 2011 WND
    In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."

    Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.
    Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.

    In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"

    "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

    In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed ** WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."

    Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, where** government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers ** planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, there** introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

    Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories ** raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

    Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice ** reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

    Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban ** Sunstein include:

    • "The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."
    • "The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
    • "The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused ** a U.S. military missile."
    • "The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."
    • "That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed ** federal agents."
    • "The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."
    Sunstein allowed that "some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true."

    He continued: "The Watergate hotel room used ** Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged ** Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House.

    In the 1950s, the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of 'mind control.'”

    Sunstein's paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November's climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

    Sunstein: Ban 'right wing' rumors

    Sunstein's paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.
    WND reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."

    In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports ** "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.
    He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged
    associations."

    Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.

    'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'

    WND also 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 the U.S. had 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 ** nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."
    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.
    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 ** current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government ** 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 ** 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.


    If this asshole Cass Sunstein had his way implemented, it would make certain individuals on this site very happy.
    "The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
    ...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two".

  2. #2

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein



    This is Cass Sunstein. This is the asshole that would like the government to ban "conspiracy theorizing".
    Last edited by Knight-mare; 08-11-2011 at 03:13 PM.
    "The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
    ...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two".

  3. #3
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    WND....LOL.

    Maybe you want to start using ChickTracks as a valid resource?
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  4. 08-15-2011, 02:52 PM


  5. #4

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    WND....LOL.

    Maybe you want to start using ChickTracks as a valid resource?
    Still posting crap I see. Keep talking, someday you'll say something intelligent.

    You obviously hate it when other people have discussions and debates about conspiracy therories on anything from 9/11, the New World Order, the shooting of JFK, the fake moon landing. Go yourself!

    Maybe you should whine about it to Cass Sunstein because he feels the exact way that you do, because he's been whineing to the government about trying to ban conspiracy therorizing. :1crysad::1crysad:

    But that will never happen, because conspiracy therorizing will never go away.
    "The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
    ...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two".

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,063

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Interesting paper...
    Part I explores some definitional issues and lays out some of the mechanisms that
    produce conspiracy theories and theorists. We begin by discussing different
    understandings of the nature of conspiracy theories and different accounts of the kinds of
    errors made by those who hold them. Our primary claim is that conspiracy theories
    typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a “crippled
    epistemology,” in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational
    sources. Those who hold conspiracy theories do so because of what they read and hear. In
    that sense, acceptance of such theories is not irrational from the standpoint of those who
    adhere to them. There is a close connection, we suggest, between our claim on this count
    and the empirical association between terrorist behavior and an absence of civil rights
    and civil liberties.10 When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple
    information sources, and they are more likely to accept conspiracy theories.

    Part II discusses government responses and legal issues, in light of the discussion
    in Part I. We address several dilemmas of governmental response to conspiracy theories,
    such as the question whether it is better to rebut such theories, at the risk of legitimating
    them, or to ignore them, at the risk of leaving them unrebutted. Conspiracy theories turn
    out to be especially hard to undermine or dislodge; they have a self-sealing quality,
    rendering them particularly immune to challenge. We suggest several policy responses
    that can dampen the supply of conspiracy theorizing, in part by introducing diverse
    viewpoints and new factual assumptions into the hard-core groups that produce such
    theories. Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of
    extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to

    expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.
    but it is just that... an academic paper. Nothing more.
    It is a VERY informative academic paper on the 'conspiracy theorist'.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    I would love it if government comes out into the open to defend their claims against conspiracy exposers. But they don't because they know their lies can be exposed through reason.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,063

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    No. "Government" does not come out and rebut CTs because to do so legitimizes them. However, failure to rebut the CTs causes them to claim, like you have, that they cannot rebut them. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's a lose/lose situation for them.
    Better to simply not respond.

  9. #8

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein




    Obama Information Czar Cass Sunstein Confronted on Cognitive Infiltration of Conspiracy Groups



  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by yyy123 View Post
    No. "Government" does not come out and rebut CTs because to do so legitimizes them. However, failure to rebut the CTs causes them to claim, like you have, that they cannot rebut them. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's a lose/lose situation for them.
    Better to simply not respond.
    Yes that is a good point but it can be viewed from another side too.
    If the Gov can release the "classified" concrete information they claim to have it should put them in the clear. End of argument.
    Sure you will have conspiracy researchers who will want to scrutinize and turn that evidence upside down but in the face of concrete and logical irrefutable evidence the conspiracy theories will become minimized as they fall short.
    But then the Government is not the governing body anymore really. Most of these things are being held back from even the government. The industrial military complex and all the other acronyms they have going seems to be running the show now.
    Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.:yelcutelaughA:

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,063

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by 1stein View Post
    Yes that is a good point but it can be viewed from another side too.
    If the Gov can release the "classified" concrete information they claim to have it should put them in the clear. End of argument.
    Sure you will have conspiracy researchers who will want to scrutinize and turn that evidence upside down but in the face of concrete and logical irrefutable evidence the conspiracy theories will become minimized as they fall short.
    But then the Government is not the governing body anymore really. Most of these things are being held back from even the government. The industrial military complex and all the other acronyms they have going seems to be running the show now.
    You're assuming the "evidence" presented by the 'government' will be accepted. It won't. For example, what evidence would be acceptable to the CTers in order to prove the lunar landing took place? They have pics, lunar samples, records and recently, orbiter pics of the landing sites. Yet...

    They know it would be a lose / lose situation for them. All that would come of it would be an unending banter. Much like what takes place in this circus (7Eleven is a perfect example... his premise, research, evidence and vetting processes have been completely destroyed, yet...). Disregarding the CTers is a better position to take... less headache.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by yyy123 View Post
    You're assuming the "evidence" presented by the 'government' will be accepted. It won't. For example, what evidence would be acceptable to the CTers in order to prove the lunar landing took place? They have pics, lunar samples, records and recently, orbiter pics of the landing sites. Yet...

    They know it would be a lose / lose situation for them. All that would come of it would be an unending banter. Much like what takes place in this circus (7Eleven is a perfect example... his premise, research, evidence and vetting processes have been completely destroyed, yet...). Disregarding the CTers is a better position to take... less headache.
    Well they can then produce the evidence anyway.

    If they were so transparent and honest as they would like us to believe then producing all they have would be coherent with that.

    Who would you believe? The guy who says "I have the proof but you cannot see it so take my word for it" Or the guy who says "I cannot show you all the evidence, only what I choose to"

    Or the guy who says "Here is the evidence, let's see what it points to."

    Clearly if people suspect the govt and create conspiracy theories then the govt themselves would be to blame for that.
    Given that they remain silent if they DO have something to hide they can now sweep conspiracy FACT out along with conspiracy theory and claim its all hogwash, and we must take their word for it because they have the unseen evidence.
    Gullible people will believe them because people can never be THAT bad can they? HAHAHAHA!!

    So the assumption is that they are probably honest and there is a minor detail in the evidence they don't want the public to see because.......hmm lets see now...the classic reasons. "It will create a panic" "It is a sensitive issue to the families of those who suffered and died." As if we are all children who has to listen to Big Daddy.

    Fact is the govt is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people not it's master or tyrant.

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,063

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
    Well they can then produce the evidence anyway.
    What portion of 'lose/lose' situation do you not comprehend?
    If they present their 'evidence' the CTers disregard it as false (ex; 9-11, Lunar landing) If they do not address the CTer's 'evidence' that is said to be 'evidence' of conspiracy.
    By addressing the CT the only thing that is produced is endless banter... just like this forum. It is a lose/lose scenario.
    Quote Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
    If they were so transparent and honest as they would like us to believe then producing all they have would be coherent with that.

    Who would you believe? The guy who says "I have the proof but you cannot see it so take my word for it" Or the guy who says "I cannot show you all the evidence, only what I choose to"

    Or the guy who says "Here is the evidence, let's see what it points to."

    Clearly if people suspect the govt and create conspiracy theories then the govt themselves would be to blame for that.
    Given that they remain silent if they DO have something to hide they can now sweep conspiracy FACT out along with conspiracy theory and claim its all hogwash, and we must take their word for it because they have the unseen evidence.
    Gullible people will believe them because people can never be THAT bad can they? HAHAHAHA!!

    So the assumption is that they are probably honest and there is a minor detail in the evidence they don't want the public to see because.......hmm lets see now...the classic reasons. "It will create a panic" "It is a sensitive issue to the families of those who suffered and died." As if we are all children who has to listen to Big Daddy.

    Fact is the govt is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people not it's master or tyrant.
    You have proven my point and the point of the paper. It is less headache and less expensive to ignore the CTers and let them believe whatever they want.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by yyy123 View Post
    What portion of 'lose/lose' situation do you not comprehend?
    If they present their 'evidence' the CTers disregard it as false (ex; 9-11, Lunar landing) If they do not address the CTer's 'evidence' that is said to be 'evidence' of conspiracy.
    By addressing the CT the only thing that is produced is endless banter... just like this forum. It is a lose/lose scenario.


    You have proven my point and the point of the paper. It is less headache and less expensive to ignore the CTers and let them believe whatever they want.
    What happened to leading by example?

    If YOU were involved in some crime/conspiracy and you ended up being caught they would want to know everything and withholding any piece of evidence would be a crime.

    Double standards and hipocracy. But the sheeple are so meek by now they just allow it to happen.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    86

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by 1stein View Post
    Most of these things are being held back from even the government.
    No evidence for that statement, though. Must be true though, cuz I read it on t'internet.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,063

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
    What happened to leading by example?

    If YOU were involved in some crime/conspiracy and you ended up being caught they would want to know everything and withholding any piece of evidence would be a crime.

    Double standards and hipocracy. But the sheeple are so meek by now they just allow it to happen.
    Moron... you've got that exactly wrong. IF I were involved in a crime/conspiracy to commit a crime and caught... I would be arrested. It would then fall to the prosecution to produce the evidence to convict me. It is not up to the accused to provide the evidence to prosecute.

    Given your scenario... Who was 'caught'? What charges have been filed against the "government" or guilty party? Who was arrested?

    Again... as stated multiple times already... it is better for the government to not respond to conspiracy theories because any rebuttal they put out will simply lead to an endless banter over minutiae. In other words... the supporters of the given conspiracy theory will not accept the explanation or evidence presented. They will continue to claim cover-up/conspiracy because the information they were given will not mesh with the YouTube videos they believe.
    Your continual harping on this proves the point. You think the CTers will accept a press release/report from the 'government' addressing their given CT... they will not and you know it.

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    289

    Re: Obama Czar - Cass Sunstein

    Quote Originally Posted by yyy123 View Post
    Moron... you've got that exactly wrong. IF I were involved in a crime/conspiracy to commit a crime and caught... I would be arrested. It would then fall to the prosecution to produce the evidence to convict me. It is not up to the accused to provide the evidence to prosecute.

    Given your scenario... Who was 'caught'? What charges have been filed against the "government" or guilty party? Who was arrested?

    Again... as stated multiple times already... it is better for the government to not respond to conspiracy theories because any rebuttal they put out will simply lead to an endless banter over minutiae. In other words... the supporters of the given conspiracy theory will not accept the explanation or evidence presented. They will continue to claim cover-up/conspiracy because the information they were given will not mesh with the YouTube videos they believe.
    Your continual harping on this proves the point. You think the CTers will accept a press release/report from the 'government' addressing their given CT... they will not and you know it.
    Sure you can argue that. One the one hand you have a point but then that sword cuts both ways. The CT evidence can also be debunked and because the government owns the mainstream media they will have the upper hand even to push their conspiracy further.

    On the other hand if there is concrete physical proof thus physics knowledge and evidence that cannot be refuted for example that a building that explodes from the top down does not cause any extreme pressure on the floors below, or that an airplane crumbles up like a tin can instead if disappearing into a building, then the above argument is only used as a cop-out because they know it is going to prove their official theory as incorrect.

    "Never before end never after" 911 did planes crash the way they assume or did buildings come down in the way they assume.

    That already calls for re-investigation and or re-creating of an event to prove its validity. How about building a wall the strength of the Pentagon walls and setting up a plane from the Air-force graveyard to fly into it at 500+ miles an hour?

    A lot of allegations have been made against the 911 official story and the people involved but it falls on deaf ears because the Government controls it. Not once did the people whom the accusations were made against even try to make a crimin injuria case against their accusers. Why?

    Because then the accusers claims will have to come under investigation and it might uncover the government conspiracy to further its own agenda at the cost of thousands of local and foreign innocent lives.

    But its safer to cop out saying what you said above. This allows time to drag on while they do what they planned to in the first place. Even if they admit to it now. They already destroyed the lives of thousands of people at the expense of US taxes.
    Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.:yelcutelaughA:

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Gay Porno Czar Link
    By Yawn... in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 01:34 PM
  2. Did Obama appoint a Cabinet czar?
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2011, 11:15 PM
  3. Obama’s New ‘Medicare Czar’ Opposes Free Markets
    By brucefan in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-15-2010, 09:32 AM
  4. Stuck on Stupid: Obama's Czar Fetish
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 12:58 PM
  5. Obama's pedophilic safe school czar.
    By danrush1966 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-07-2009, 01:23 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •