Home > Communism/Marxism/Socalism/Racism/FASCISM, Current Federal Legislation, FCC, Miscellaneous > Obama’s Czar Cass Sunstein… Just WHO Is This Radical, Anti-American Extremist Sitting In Our White House?

Obama’s Czar Cass Sunstein… Just WHO Is This Radical, Anti-American Extremist Sitting In Our White House?

Czar Cass Sunstein


In the world of Obama there can be no dissent or criticism of the “messiah” squatting in our White House, and any attempts to impugn the Obama plans for “change” must be demolished. So if negativity comes from the internet , then of course the blogosphere must be added to litany of government control and censorship.

The Obama appointment of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor, to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is a rather formidable nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. In this position Sunstein has powers that are unprecedented and very far reaching; not merely mind-boggling but with explicit ability to use the courts to stifle free speech if it opposes Obama policies. In particular, Sunstein thinks that the bloggers have been “rampaging out of control” and that “new laws need to be written” to contain them. Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” should give everyone serious pause for concern. Considering Sunstein’s position, the powers with which Sunstein is endowed are very, very, troubling.

The Wall Street Journal reported that “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 is crucial as the administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.””

Sunstein is another Obama “Czar” but is really the chief regulator of what can or cannot appear on the internet. It is very scary that the person who is in charge of public cyberspace believes that – “Whether you’re a blogger or the York Times or a Web hosting service – you should be held responsible even for what your comments say.”  

Currently you’re immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Just who is this radical, anti-American law professor with a long time association with Obama?

Below is a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein.

Second Amendment

“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds. As late as 1980, it would have been preposterous to argue that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns, and no federal court invalidated a gun control restriction on Second Amendment grounds until 2007. Yet countless Americans politicians, in recent years, have acknowledged that they respect the
individual right to bear arms, at least in general terms. Their views are a product of the energetic efforts of meaning entrepreneurs – some from the National Rifle Association, who have press a particular view of the Second Amendment. ”

“The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as jurisprudential twins.”

Hunting & Animal Rights

“We ought to ban hunting”

“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”

Free Speech

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”
“A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”

“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”

“…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”

“The site’s of one point of view agree to provide links to sites of the other point of view. So 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 access to competing views.

Or maybe a popup on your screen that would show you an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view.

If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction, it would be great and if we can’t get voluntary arrangements maybe Congress should hold hearings about mandates.”

Sunstein verbally shuffles around and throws out the “aw shucks” smokescreen: “If we could do this voluntarily…”

“Sometimes, the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated…”
– Cass Sunstein

BUT, as usual, a Cass Sunstein argument devolves to:  If the people won’t do what’s good for themselves voluntarily, government will have to nudge them in the right direction–using the force of the government, of course.

Readers have a simple formula for determining loss of freedom: when a government official talks of “doing something for your–or the public’s–own good, it means you’re about to lose part of your freedom. 


“In what sense in 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 …”

Second Bill of Rights

“My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.”

“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.”

“For better or worse, the Constitution’s framers gave no thought to including social and economic guarantees in the bill of rights.”

Animal Rights

“Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives…”

40 years ago, Cass Sunstein would have been labeled an “anti-American, anti-freedom crackpot.”  Now, however, he’s slithering around OUR WHITE HOUSE, making laws We, The People will have to obey or become criminals.

Here’s one of Sunstein’s wet dreams, cooked up back in 2009, by Czar Sunstein’s henchmen slithering around in the Spokane, Washington area.  Proposition 4 would have been the perfect launch for Czar Sunstein’s diabolical schemes. It’s got his hoof prints all over it.  Fortunately, the Liberty-Loving people of Spokane and the surrounding areas were paying attention to this nightmare. They rose up and said “HELL NO!”, stopping what would have been a HUGE power grab.
It writes into Spokane’s City Charter ten different “rights” – a wish list including almost everything from mandating the City guarantee health care, to restricting an employer’s right to communicate with their employees, to a mandate for low income housing for all.

Some of its more extreme provisions include:

·      Mandates that the City guarantee access to “affordable health care” for everyone.

·      Requires the City ensures enough low income housing stock to “meet the needs of the low-income community”.

·      Gives the ecosystems the “right to exist and flourish”.  This is including but not limited to all groundwater, surface water, aquifer and river systems; gives anyone the right to bring legal action on behalf of the ecosystems.

·      Mandates “prevailing wage” and a 15% apprenticeship quota not only on all Spokane City projects but all private construction projects over $2 million.

·      Requires employers to be “neutral” during any union organizing; forbids employers from holding any “non-work related” meetings during work hours.

·      Gives virtually anyone the right to file a lawsuit to enforce the mandates and requires that courts remedy violations up to and including restoration of damaged ecosystems; grants plaintiffs (not defendants) attorney’s fees and costs; strips corporations of any legal standing.

·      Gives the unelected neighborhood councils veto power over developments at the request of as little as 15% of voters in a neighborhood.


How did such an extreme measure make it to the ballot?

The measure started out as an initiative to voters.  The group behind the initiative, “Envision Spokane” obtained enough signatures to force the City Council to put it on the ballot.  Unfortunately amendments to the City Charter require only 2,800 signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

What is likely to happen if Proposition Four passes?

·      It will destroy jobs and stifle the local economy.  Small businesses will be driven out of Spokane.  New businesses most certainly will not locate here.  Clearly city residents will lose hundreds, if not thousands of jobs.

·      It will spur hundreds of frivolous lawsuits, clogging courts, and costing taxpayers and small businesses millions in legal fees.

·      City taxpayers could be required to spend millions to provide health care for city residents.

·      The cost of construction for both taxpayers and private parties will soar.

·      There would be a “gag order” placed upon employers’ communications with their employees.

·      A handful of unelected people will be given the right to determine the future of neighborhoods, including Downtown Spokane.


Who will pay for all of this?  How will it affect City services?

Taxpayers will pay.  The truth is, if the Charter amendment passes, tax dollars that would have gone for parks, senior services, libraries, police protection and other vital services will instead be spent on frivolous lawsuits and bureaucracy.


Will it bankrupt the City?

Following everything in Proposition Four would bankrupt the city. Health care alone would cost tens of millions of dollars. Yet much of Proposition Four is clearly unconstitutional or a violation of other state and federal laws, so the immediate effect will be millions of dollars in legal fees.

Proposition Four is also likely to stifle economic activity throughout the city. New construction projects will stop, businesses will move away, property values will sag. This will reduce the amount of tax revenue coming into the city, at just the time Proposition Four demands sharply increased spending.

The result: a broken city budget.


Why do you say Proposition Four is unconstitutional?


The sponsors of Proposition Four admit that some provisions, including granting “rights” to ecosystems and taking them away from corporations conflict with federal law. Proposition Four also attempts to regulate banking, but that is already done by federal and state authorities who will not cede responsibility to a city.  The result: lawsuits and confusion at city hall.


Will Proposition Four clean up the river and aquifer?

No, and the truth is that Envision Spokane’s negative claims about the river are simply false.  Overall, the quality of water in the aquifer and Spokane River is good. There are many efforts already underway to improve it, with forceful enforcement action by both the state Department of Ecology and federal Environmental Protection Agency. Our water comes from an area comprising two states and dozens of municipal governments. It cannot be regulated or improved by the City of Spokane acting alone.


Will Proposition Four create jobs?

No. Proposition Four will cost city residents thousands of jobs. It would be a virtual building moratorium. It would impose harsh, unrealistic new costs on many businesses, forcing them out of the City. It would stifle financial activity and require cutbacks in City employment and services. The one group that is sure to get work – the lawyers who will be fighting in court for years over Proposition 4.


Who is behind Proposition Four?

An organization called “Envision Spokane”, a coalition of activists, unions, social groups and others, each with its own special interest.  While it purports to be locally driven, the truth is the initiative is really the brainchild of the group’s “consultant”, the Pennsylvania-based, “Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund”.  The head of the fund, Tom Linzey, is an environmental lawyer with an extreme political agenda, which he apparently intends to impose upon any community that will acquiesce.


Why should people and businesses outside the City of Spokane even care about this issue?

It’s clear that if this is successful in Spokane, then the group behind it intends to take it everywhere.  Communities across Washington State and the Nation will be next. Tom Linzey — the man behind this proposal, is also the head of the Pennsylvania-based, “Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.” His record is clear: if he does not like the results of our elected, democratic process, then he wants the ability to impose his wishes on everyone else by filing expensive lawsuits.  This type of city charter gives him the standing he needs to start these lawsuits.


The following unintended consequences would result if the Envision Spokane charter amendments (Proposition 4) were approved by voters.:

1. The City would have to raise taxes to cover costs for the City to defend itself in the many resulting lawsuits.

2. Massive job losses could occur due to businesses relocating to other cities.

3. New businesses choosing not to locate in our City will result in lost opportunities for economic development and increased job opportunities for our citizens.

4. This proposal takes rights away from citizens and grants them to inanimate objects such as soil and trees.

5. Most of the amendments contained within the measure are clear violations of the United States Constitution. These pieces will most certainly be challenged in court. The remaining language has intentionally been drafted in vague terms and cannot be implemented without being first defined by a court of law. This will cost the city hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to defend itself in court.

6. The healthcare provision contained within this proposal would cost millions of dollars to implement and sustain. The result would be cuts to services such as fire and police, and could completely bankrupt the City.

7. The Bill of Rights will grant a 15 percent minority of citizens in a neighborhood council district the right to block any new development, such as a home, church, hospital, or even a fire station.

8. The initiative will increase the cost of housing in Spokane and force everyday heroes like teachers and police officers to search outside the city limits for affordable housing.

9. Spokane’s elected officials should lead a civil debate on these issues, not an international political organization.

10. The Envision Spokane Community Bill of Rights is a power-grab by a minority of residents and out-of-state political activists seeking a launching pad for such measures.  They attempted it in Spokane, and you can believe they’re busy working diligently to impose this diabolical scheme elsewhere.

Keep a CLOSE eye on your legislators. You can bet they will try this again.
Here is the platform for Proposition 4: 

Proposition 4 – Spokane, WA, COMMUNITY BILL OF RIGHTS

Residents have the right to a locally-based economy to ensure local job creation and enhance local business opportunities. The right shall include the right to have local monies reinvested locally by lending institutions, and the right to equal access to capital, credit, contracts, incentives, and services for businesses owned by Spokane residents.
Residents have the right to affordable preventive healthcare. For residents otherwise unable to access such care, the City shall guarantee such access by coordinating with area healthcare providers to create affordable fee-for-service programs within eighteen (18) months following adoption of this Charter provision.
Residents have the right to affordable housing, the right to a safely maintained dwelling, and the right to be free from housing discrimination. The City shall ensure the availability of low-income housing stock sufficient to meet the needs of the low-income housing community. People and families may only be denied renting or buying of a dwelling for non-discriminatory reasons and may only be evicted from their residence for non-discriminatory causes.
Residents have the right to access affordable and renewable energy sources.
Ecosystems, including but not limited to, all groundwater systems, surfacewater systems, and aquifers have the right to exist and flourish. River systems have the right to flow and have water quality necessary to provide habitat for native plants and animals, and to provide clean drinking water. Aquifers have the right to sustainable recharge, flow, and water quality.
Residents have the right, through their neighborhood councils, to determine the future of their neighborhoods, which shall include the right to adopt enforceable neighborhood plans, and the right to have growth-related public infrastructure costs funded by new development as provided by an impact fees Ordinance. The City of Spokane shall provide sufficient funding to neighborhood councils for the creation, adoption, and enforcement of neighborhood plans. Such plans shall respect and promote the rights delineated by this Charter.Residents may also determine the future of their neighborhoods by rejecting proposed land development projects, in accordance with the provisions of this Charter.
Workers have the right to be paid the prevailing wage on all private construction projects exceeding two million dollars in construction costs (as annually adjusted for inflation), and all public and publicly subsidized construction projects, within the City of Spokane. Workers have the right to work as apprentices on all private construction projects exceeding two million dollars in construction costs (as annually adjusted for inflation), and all public and publicly subsidized construction projects, through programs approved under the Washington State Apprenticeship Training Program, and each contractor and subcontractor building those projects shall be required to use apprentices for a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total hours worked on each project.
Workers have the right to employer neutrality when unionizing, and the right to be free from captive audience meetings, or other mandatory, non-work related meetings, in the workplace.
All rights recognized by the Community Bill of Rights are fundamental, inalienable, and self-executing. The City of Spokane, or any person, neighborhood, or neighborhood council aggrieved by a violation of their rights, or any person seeking to enforce the rights of ecosystems, may enforce these rights. Enforcement actions shall be filed as civil actions in a court of competent jurisdiction, against any person, government, or entity violating these rights, and sufficient legal and equitable relief shall be awarded to remedy the violation, including restoration of a damaged ecosystem. In any action to enforce any Charter right, the court may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys fee and expert fees. Corporations and other business entities shall not be deemed to possess any legal rights, privileges, powers, or protections which would enable those entities to avoid the enforcement of these rights, or which would enable them to nullify these rights. If any part or provision of these Charter provisions, or the application of these Charter provisions to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of these Charter provisions, including the application of such part or provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect.
§74.5 (New). Rights of Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Councils

A. The City of Spokane shall notify neighborhood councils of any proposals for commercial, industrial, or multi-unit residential land developments to be located within neighborhoods represented by those councils. That notice shall be given not more than five business days from the submission of a project permit application to the City by the developers of those proposals, and shall include notice to neighborhood councils representing neighborhoods adjacent to the neighborhood in which the land development is proposed to occur.

B. A neighborhood council may veto a land development project if requested to veto that project by a number of neighborhood registered voters equal to or greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general municipal election within that neighborhood. After being petitioned, if the neighborhood council determines that the land development project may adversely affect the neighborhood, and that the project is incompatible with either the neighborhoods planning, the Citys Comprehensive Plan, or the City Charter, the council may veto the project. Such action by the neighborhood council shall stop all site development associated with the project, such action shall be binding upon the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane shall defend such action against any legal challenges.

C. A neighborhood council shall veto a land development project if requested to veto that project by a number of neighborhood registered voters greater than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general municipal election within that neighborhood. Petitioners must find that the land development project may adversely affect the neighborhood, and that the project is incompatible with either the neighborhoods planning, the Citys Comprehensive Plan, or the City Charter. Such action by the neighborhood council shall stop all site development associated with the project, such action shall be binding upon the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane shall defend such action against any legal challenges.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: