Ministry of Truth,Obama Style

[bonnie]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ministry_of_truth_obamastyle.html

October 08, 2009

Ministry of Truth, Obama-style

By John Griffing

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

- George Orwell

President Obama has been agitating for the authority to criminalize political opponents since he took office. First there was the raft of DHS reports profiling conservatives as terrorists. Then came the push for a new fairness doctrine, subsequently refined to be achieved in diversity regulations to be imposed on local radio stations. Following these attacks on free speech was the much debated hate crimes legislation, considered by many to be a back-door path to silencing critics of the administration. But, while dangerous to free speech, none of these draconian policies could do as much damage as new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein's shocking proposal to ban "falsehoods" -- a term left up to the Obama administration to define. If Sunstein succeeds, free speech will be truly dead in America.

These revelations are found in Sunstein's new book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, in which he attacks the plague of "rumors" besetting the Obama administration. Rumors must be regulated, according to Sunstein. Suspiciously, Sunstein's definition of "rumors" never seems to favor conservatives. To combat "rumors," Sunstein proposes fines, and even obligatory retractions, in the case of Internet publications.[1]

In his new book, harsh penalties would be meted out for those that "spread rumors about an appointee of a Democratic president," an occurrence likely to increase if Sunstein continues to assault the very foundations upon which America is built.[2] Sunstein will have to accuse millions of Americans of "spreading rumors." Perhaps Sunstein even dreams of an eventual final solution for rumor perpetrators.

The flaw in Sunstein's logic should be obvious to even the mildly literate: libel and slander laws already exist to address Sunstein's alleged concerns. What Sunstein is after is not merely a redress of disinformation, or even the ability to dismiss critics as liars, but rather the actual power to threaten critics with the penalty of law. No due process need be given to those Sunstein accuses of lying. All that will be required is a "notice to take down," in the case of the Internet. As Sunstein writes, "Those who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice." But who determines falsehoods? Not a court of law, if Sunstein's proposal is enacted.

Sunstein, arguably the most powerful bureaucrat in America at present, will decide who is lying and who is telling the truth. At present, if someone lies, there is a sure remedy already in existence: Sunstein, President Obama, or any other official about which a deceptive statement is made, can provide information to contradict the claims of the "liars." The only problem for Sunstein and Obama is the frequency with which accusers are telling the truth, and no contradictory information exists.

As it happens, the ability to contradict opponents is not a strong suit of the Obama administration. The President is consistently caught in a web of falsehoods on issues like healthcare, with no credible defense to offer. If only Sunstein could simply issue a "notice to take down" decree to all those pesky web journalists who don't get leg tingles when President Obama speaks, Obama's "truth" could proceed in a vacuum. But, for now at least, facts are still available for those who care to seek them.

In Sunstein's ideal new republic, though, any plan of the Obama administration would be unchallengeable. Inconvenient facts would be unreportable. Not even the infamous Sedition Acts approached the degree of disdain for the Constitution inherent in Sunstein's philosophy. Sunstein would scrap the First Amendment if it saved him political embarrassment. And Sunstein provides plenty to be embarrassed about, such as writing to endorse the use of cap and trade, to conceal redistributive justice, or saying that animals should have the same rights as human beings.

Bottom-line, freedom of the press is protected not only when it is helpful to the President. It is protected in all cases at all times. Apart from inciting violence or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, no precedent exists for the regulation of free speech. Our revered charter of liberty does not say that government can regulate free speech when it is politically expedient or deemed necessary by an animal-worshipping socialist posing as an environmentalist. The First Amendment to the US Constitution says that, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This staunch prohibition may be inconvenient in the extreme to the Obama administration, but anyone who plots to counteract this constitutional protection of liberty is, quite simply, a traitor and should be removed from public service.

The essence of America is freedom for all who seek it. This includes freedom of the press, freedom to speak the truth, freedom to criticize our leaders. If America becomes a land of "freedom for some," it will cease to be America. There is no possible justification for the desecration of liberty, and if an ideology requires the desecration of liberty to succeed, it has no place in America. Freedom of speech, that precious gift men have died to protect, is rubbish to Sunstein, who considers the Constitution to be nothing more than a set of outmoded guidelines:

A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government... Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name.

Sunstein adds that his proposal is "almost certainly unconstitutional." It is curious that an effort to restrict the freedom of individual Americans to express ideas is "democratic" in Sunstein's lexicon.

Ideas are not criminal offenses in America. Beliefs are not censorable. Sunstein seeks to create an America where deviation from an arbitrarily ordained political orthodoxy becomes a punishable act. And this is not something to which Americans should ever consent. Sunstein should be removed from his position at once.

[1] Cass Sunstein, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), 78-79.

[Guest]

I remember when people said things like this could never happen in America.

[bonnie]

I remember when people said things like this could never happen in America.

Now many are saying "it's about time".

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

I remember when people said things like this could never happen in America.

Now many are saying "it's about time".

I'm afraid you're right.

[phkrause]

I personally don't know, I'd like to know how many? Because I have not heard anyone say its about time.

pk

[bonnie]

I personally don't know, I'd like to know how many? Because I have not heard anyone say its about time.

pk

Without going back thru posts I can't give you a number here. They are all for the intrusion of government into most area's of our lives.

How many here champion the universal health care? How many have actually read it?

It does not seem to concern anyone that the intent is for the government to force you to purchase insurance,cut services,penalize Dr's for treating as they believe they should.

Most back the global warming nonsense without knowing or bothering to read exactly what that will do to our freedoms.They cannot tell me what tomorrow will bring weather wise,but they know what conditions of "millions" of years ago were and what that will mean today.

These are the people that tell me that Noah and the flood is nothing but a fable,the same type of mentality that thinks maybe they have found the "missing link" of 44 million years ago.

I happen to believe the biblical creation is correct so I have to assume these very educated people are dead wrong with their missing link.

I believe the biblical story of Noah so those that debunk that will have a hard time convincing me .

How many here are more than willing to see the "energy" bill in force and take their freedoms with it.

Everytime you turn on the news you hear our freedoms slipping a little more. And how much concern or disagreement do you hear on this forum except from a few conservatives.

Obama supporters and there seem to be many here raise no objection as to what is taking place other than to blame Bush

[bonnie]

Like everyone else no matter how educated they may be,I have no idea what may have been here prior to creation. I know I do not believe these very educated men that are promoting the "missing link". If they dismiss Noah and the flood tell me again why my faith should be placed with people like this?

I believe the creation story,Noah and the flood,if that cannot be believed neither can the life,death,and resurrection of Christ.

Now that is really a whopper

Our freedoms are slowly being eroded with the excuse of a "crisis". We are going to be facing a crisis but I don't think it is going to be my carbon footprint

[phkrause]

I still have not heard or read anyone say "Its About Time." And than I would like to know "about time for what?". Time for the End of the world? or Time for Christ to come? or Time for another flood? I'm curious About time for what?

pk

[bonnie]

I still have not heard or read anyone say "Its About Time." And than I would like to know "about time for what?". Time for the End of the world? or Time for Christ to come? or Time for another flood? I'm curious About time for what?

pk

There are those here and we have them locally that think it is about time for those things that Obama promises and is doing.

It is about time the rich gets theirs,time for government takeover of just about everything.

I have read more than once here that the question gets asked,"What is so bad about socialism"?

Do I think the world will end next week? No,haven't a clue when.

If Obama is not the real deal that will usher in end time events he is a good practise run for us and to realize just how fast a man like this can put the necessary ingredients into action.

Instead I hear very few SDA's even showing a concern.Only praise

If we are to remain here a length of time yet the probability of doing so in any kind of freedoms we have known is highly unlikely.

To many want government oversight in their daily lives. From business to our health care it seems like a good trade off to many

[phkrause]

"I hear very few SDA's even showing a concern.Only praise"

Bonnie I have to disagree with this statement you made. First, because almost everyone at my church votes republican and has no use for Obama, Second, in all my years as a SDA most adventist's I know are republicans.

pk

[bonnie]

"I hear very few SDA's even showing a concern.Only praise"

Bonnie I have to disagree with this statement you made. First, because almost everyone at my church votes republican and has no use for Obama, Second, in all my years as a SDA most adventist's I know are republicans.

pk

Not around here.Talked with one the other day and she was concerned only that Obama might be blamed for the way things are going.

She is not sure about the health care bill but says if it passess at "least the rich will get theirs and it is about time"