Obama administration introduced an anti-free speech measure

[American Patriot]

Obama administration introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation

Frontpage Mag ^ | 10/16/09 | Deborah Weiss

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote.

Earlier this year, when the United States sought a seat on the HRC, it was a controversial decision. Many who found the HRC neither credible nor useful, opposed the move. Yet, others were more optimistic that America could change the HRC from within. Perhaps the U.S. could spur debate stemming from its opposition to China, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia on critical human rights votes.

Little evidence suggests that Americans on either side of the aisle contemplated the US entering the ring and supporting the opposition’s anti-freedom measures. Yet now, the current administration has done worse: it’s leading the charge.

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation. Second, it recognizes the media’s “moral and social responsibilities” and the “importance” that its potential voluntary code of conduct could play in combating intolerance.

This resolution appears to stem from, and constitute a step toward, the Organization of Islamic Conference’s resolution to “combat defamation of religions”. The OIC’s resolution would ban outright the “defaming” of religions, speech critical of religion (even if accurate), and open discussion about any negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs (such as Sharia law).

Though both resolutions mention “religions” generally, the context and references of the resolutions make them almost certain to apply only or disproportionately to Islam. Indeed, the defamation of religions resolution singles out treatment of Islam. Yet not surprisingly, the OIC has blatantly refused to curtail hate speech against Jews or Israel.

Further, it is the nature of religion to include a component of exclusivity, thus making it impossible to express one’s theology accurately without making “defamatory” remarks against another theology. For example, merely preaching that Jesus is the son of God can be viewed as an inflammatory remark and an affront to Islam. Additionally, the wording of this resolution makes its violation subjectively determined and comes dangerously close to outlawing certain emotions, such as hostility toward Islam or Muslims.

Critically important is the resolution’s attempt to internationalize norms on speech, potentially usurping fundamental constitutional rights. Strict constructionists of the US constitution view the constitution as “the supreme law of the land” (as the constitution expressly states), whereas those who view the constitution as “a living, breathing document” might not. But even under a strict construction, when the US signs a treaty, the treaty becomes binding on the US. Though this UN resolution does not constitute a treaty, it is fair to presume that because it is a US-led initiative, the US should be bound by it.

Also problematic is the resolution’s attempt to make the restriction of free speech a human right. In fact, it is free speech that constitutes a human right and not its restriction. Ideologies, ideas and religions do not, and should not be afforded “human rights”. They should be fair game for criticism, analysis, open debate and discussion. Religions and ideologies cannot be “defamed”. Once ideologies are afforded protection from criticism, it is in direct contradiction to individual human rights. Moreover, some of the language in the resolution is vague and open to interpretation. Given the parties on the HRC who adopted it, a broad construction of speech restrictions is likely.

It is no accident that countries which have no freedom of expression show support for this resolution. For example, Ambassador Hisham Badr from Egypt, in discussing his satisfaction with the resolution, stated that “freedom of expression…..has sometimes been misused.” He went on to imply that media which fails to comply with limitations on free speech are unethical.

Pakistan Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the OIC, confirmed that the resolution allows free speech to be trumped by the suppression of that which “defames” religion or expresses a negative stereotype of religion. He asserted that freedom of expression is important but this right carries “duties and responsibilities”, including the need to fight hate speech. He articulated the view that defamation of religion and negative stereotyping are forms of religious hatred. He made clear that in the OIC’s interpretation, such negativity applies not just to individuals, but to religions and belief systems, proclaiming that this constitutes a human rights violation.

Jean-Baptiste Mettei from France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, appears to be in denial about the meaning and impact of this resolution. While prefacing his remarks with praise for the resolution, the French Ambassador then declared that human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems. The EU summarily rejected the concept of defamation of religion, and expressly denounced the notion that the media has a moral and social responsibility to curtail speech. He argued that states should not interfere with the work of journalists, and acknowledged their right to editorial independence. As such, the EU could not support the restrictions on journalistic speech embodied in the resolution.

In the past, when the US addressed international speech norms, it went out of its way to ensure that treaties by which it was bound would not restrict free speech or undermine America’s first amendment protections. But now, change has come.

Arguably relinquishing one of America’s most fundamental freedoms, Obama is once again bowing down to the Muslim world. The interim ranking US diplomat, Douglas Griffiths explained, “[T]his initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” However, to the OIC, “respect” means the silencing of offensive speech against Islam.

With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms.

[vector7]

They are wanting to come down on FOX, Rush and the rest of the conservatives like a ton of bricks. The only thing holding them back is our documented freedoms.

It would not surprise me if they go UN treaties to get around our Constitution.

Did you see these posts and OSA?

[Beetle]

Sunday, October 18, 2009

---

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
White House boasts (on camera): We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government

---

Posted: October 18, 2009
7:11 pm Eastern




By Aaron Klein

---

WorldNetDaily

Anita Dunn

TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.
"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.
Check out the hot new best-seller -- "Muslim Mafia"
Continued Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."
Video of Dunn's remarks at the conference can be seen below:

(Story continues below)

Dunn was speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009, event focusing on Obama's media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, which seeks to promote collaboration between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. The event was held in Santo Domingo and was attended by the country's president.
Dunn has been facing some criticism since she led a White House campaign last week against Fox News, slamming the top-rated network as an "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion journalism masquerading as news."
Fox hit back this past Friday, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two "favorite political philosophers," including Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.
Video of Dunn's speech, broadcast during a segment of Glenn Beck's evening show on the Fox News Channel, can be seen below:

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
Note: News media wishing to interview Aaron Klein, please contact WND.

[vector7]

White House Escalates War on Fox News

Senior Obama administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to accuse Fox News of pushing a particular point of view and not being a real news network.

FOXNews.com
Monday, October 19, 2009

The White House escalated its offensive against Fox News on Sunday by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."
"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama aides officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month, when White House communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news."

On Sunday, Fox's Chris Wallace retorted: "We wanted to ask Dunn about her criticism, but, as they've done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to 'FOX News Sunday' to talk about this or anything else."

The White House stopped providing guests to 'Fox News Sunday' after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do."

"She criticized 'FOX News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

"Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong."

~snip~

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Tse-tung, the founder of communist China, was one of "my favorite political philosophers."

"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."

~snip~

He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."

[vector7]

Glenn covers freedom of speech all this week. Get your DVR scheduled. Good stuff on D and E about what the WH is doing to the Media.

Glenn Beck-10-19-09-A

Glenn Beck-10-19-09-B

Glenn Beck-10-19-09-C

Glenn Beck-10-19-09-D

Glenn Beck-10-19-09-E

[vector7]

Buckle up, Glenn is on a roll!

Glenn Beck-10-20-09-A

Glenn Beck-10-20-09-B

Glenn Beck-10-20-09-C

Glenn Beck-10-20-09-D

Glenn Beck-10-20-09-E

[vector7]

Progressive Argument Strategy:
1. Wrong thinking
2. Danger
3. Profit

Glenn Beck-10-21-09-A

Glenn Beck-10-21-09-B

Glenn Beck-10-21-09-C

Glenn Beck-10-21-09-D

Glenn Beck-10-21-09-E

[vector7]

Thursday, October 22, 2009
Unprecedented: White House Tries to Ban Fox; from Press Pool

The Obama Administration compares FOX to Talk Radio:



Today the White House stepped up its attack on Fox News, announcing that the network would no longer be able to conduct interviews with officials as a member of the Press Pool. The Pool is a five-member group consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC organized by the White House Correspondents Association. Its membership is not subject to oversight by the government.

Before an interview with "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg, the administration announced that Fox News would be banned from the press pool. This marks the first time in history that an administration had attempted to ban an entire network from the press pool.

To their credit, the other networks objected. They told the White House that if Fox were banned, none of the other networks would participate. The White House relented, but in an apparent act of petulant retaliation, it restricted each network to a two-minute interview instead of the standard five.

Interestingly, this behavior completely contradicts an opinion rendered Tuesday by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs when questioned by ABC's Jake Tapper.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: We render opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.



Tapper: That's a pretty sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from, say another, say ABC, MSNBC, Univision?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight or five this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programs. Or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That is our opinion.

Carol E. Lee, Politico: Does that mean the White House doesn't believe they should be part of the press pool?

Gibbs: The press pool is decide by the White House Correspondents Association.

Lee: So you have no opinion on whether they should be ...

Gibbs: I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job.

So the administration contradicted itself within 48 hours. That's about twice as long as normal.

Perhaps the White House will next try to pull Fox News' press pass.

That would be entirely consistent with the Hugo Chavez-style of government that President Axelrod and his advisers are trying to install.

I'm patiently waiting for the ACLU to stand up for freedom of the press and complain to President Obama about quashing Fox's First Amendment rights.



Update: Dan Riehl: "For the first time in my life I'm actually uncomfortable knowing that this guy has control of our military and Federal police forces. If he thinks he can simply shut down a member of the press on a whim, how long before he goes full Chavez?"

Update II: Hope for America has the video report.

Update III: Memeorandum, Jules Crittenden, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Washington Monthly, Pundit & Pundette and Sister Toldjah link. Thanks!

[vector7]

In the Shadow of Leviathan: Americas' Arising Fear-Based Society

Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 5:05 PM EDT, 5:05 PM EDT from Linda Kimball

"Thought crime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for awhile...but sooner or later they were bound to get you." George Orwell, 1984

"The fact is we are witnessing an all-out drive to impose thought control that seeks to ban the ability---the right---to think or speak for one's self. Thinking is becoming a crime." (Globally Acceptable Truth and the Crime of Thinking, Tom DeWeese, Address to the 10th Annual Freedom 21 Conference, 10/16/09)

In an article entitled “Dems Undermine Free Speech in Hate Crimes Ploy,” the Washington Examiner exposes the insidious machinations of House statists in their determination to impose totalitarian hate crime laws upon the American people. Hate crime laws do much more than undermine free speech however, for in that what one says is the result of what first takes place in the mind, hate crime laws are mind-control devices.
( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2361178/posts)

Hate crime laws are not just alien to America’s traditional Christian-based worldview, but in violent opposition to it. They are part of a program of psycho political terrorism utilized by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and the Bolsheviks after they seized control of Orthodox Christian Russia and put into practice long-term plans to abolish on a vast cultural scale every vestige of belief in the Biblical God, family, morality, private property, and other signs of "the capitalist petite Bourgeoisie." By way of various sadistically brutal forms of behavior modification, torture, psychotropic drug experimentation, re-education, and psychological terror tactics, Russians were terrorized into submission while Bolsheviks systematically stole their property, confiscated and perverted their children, desecrated and blasphemed churches, crucified thousands of nuns and priests, and in general, committed monstrous crimes against humanity which took the lives of sixty-million men, women, and children. For example:
“About 200,000 clergy, many crucified, scalped and otherwise tortured, were killed during the approximately 60 years of communist rule in the former Soviet Union, a Russian commission reported this week. In addition, another 500,000 religious figures were persecuted and 40,000 churches destroyed in the period from 1922 to 1980, the report said. Half the country’s mosques and more than half the synagogues were also destroyed. “Clergymen were crucified on churches’ holy gates, shot, scalped [and] strangled,” said Alexander Yakovlev, head of the Commission for the Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression. The commission prepared the report for Russian President Boris Yeltsin. “I was especially shocked by accounts of priests turned into columns of ice in winter,” Yakovlev said. “It was total cruelty.” (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left.html)

Former red-diaper baby David Horowitz observes that it is,
"not for nothing that George Orwell had to invent terms like 'double-think' and 'double- speak' to describe the universe totalitarians created."
Though publicly they describe themselves as scientific, forward-thinking, enlightened, and progressive, they are in reality, notes Horowitz,
"...religious fanatics who regard their opponents as sinners and miscreants and agents of civil darkness...when they engage an opponent it is rarely to examine and refute his argument but rather to destroy the bearer of the argument and remove him from the plan of battle." (The Surreal World of the Progressive Left, David Horowitz, FrontPageMagazine.com, 1/25/2008 )

Over the course of the twentieth century, progressive religious fanatics---or in Dostoevsky's words, devilish Gnostic irreligionists---murdered anywhere between 100,000,000-200,000,000 "sinners and miscreants and agents of civil darkness."

Totalitarian Bolshevism can be understood as an umbrella under which shelters Marxist-socialism, Darwinian scientism, progressivism, positivist materialism, sex-positivism, rationalism, idealism, feminism, atheism, occultism, empiricism, relativism, and nihilism. These cancerous ideological 'isms' emerged mainly out of Enlightenment France and Germany, spawning both Marxist-socialism and Hitler’s National Socialism and today, continue to spread and secrete yet more toxic cells: heterosexism, normativism, sexism, and ageism, among others.

Whereas twentieth century's Big Brother touted himself as positivist, materialist, atheist, and 'red,' today's Big Brother is decidedly 'green,' says Steve Milloy in his book, "Green Hell." Yesterdays' ‘isms' have reshaped themselves into yet another apocalyptic, messianic, utopian- globalism, one that is blatantly spiritual and occult, pantheistic, politically correct, and in exclusive globalist salons, brazenly Luciferian.

"Without a doubt, President Obama is a true believer in the green cause. Viewing our current living standards as excessive and immoral, he's determined to downsize our lifestyles---for the good of the planet...If the greens succeed, we will see their vision for our future implemented with staggering speed. By the time you finish this book you may well be appalled by that vision, but you may also find yourself in awe of the sheer totality of the green's agenda and their single-minded determination to achieve it." (Green Hell, Steve Milloy, pp. 6-7)

As Fyodor Dostoevsky astutely observed, Progressive religious fanaticism is at bottom, the creature in rebellion against the Creator, His creation, immutable truths, and moral absolutes. Hence it is rebellion against the very idea of normal, says David Horowitz:
"the enemy is no longer a ruling class, a hegemonic race or even a dominant gender. Instead it is the sexual order of nature itself. Oppression lies in the very idea of the “normal,” the order that divides humanity into two sexes. Instead of a classless society as the redemptive future, 'gay' theorists envisage a gender free world." (quote from "Are Evangelical Churches Drifting Left?" Barbara Sowell, http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/)

In sum, it is little 'g' godmen, their pride swollen to satanic proportions, usurping the throne of the Creator in order to correct His ‘mistakes.’

From Karl Marx, who declared that he would “walk triumphantly like a god” through the ruins of the old Christian-based order to today’s ‘elite’ insider transnational Progressive green-spiritual globalists, all have or are proclaiming their godhood, like Barbara Marx Hubbard for example:
“We are immortal…We can create new life forms and new worlds. We are gods!” a revelation channeled from her spirit guide ‘Christ’ to Barbara Marx Hubbard, influential transnational green Progressive, one of the directors of the World Future Society along with Robert McNamara and scholars from Georgetown University, George Washington University, and the University of Maryland. (False Dawn, Lee Penn, pp. 316, 326)

Fueled by satanic pride, Bakunin—one of Karl Marx’s partners in the First International—described the emancipation of man and destruction of the old order in these words:
“The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution. Socialists recognize each other by the words, “In the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done.” Satan (is) the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds (he) emancipates (and) stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty…in urging (man) to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge. In this revolution we will have to awaken the Devil in the people, to stir up the basest passions. Our mission is to destroy, not to edify. The passion of destruction is a creative passion.”

Considered by many to be the 19th century’s greatest apocalyptic prophet, Fyodor Dostoevsky defined the conjoined ‘isms’ and their ultimate program of the “destruction of everything” as the politics of apocalypse—in other words, the politics of catastrophic death and destruction. This is made clear by Karl Marx in his poem, Human Pride:
“With disdain I will throw my gauntlet/ Full in the face of the world/ And see the collapse of this pygmy giant/ Whose fall will not stifle my ardour/ Then will I wander godlike and victorious/ Through the ruins of the world/ And, giving my words an active voice/ I will feel equal to the Creator.”

In another piece Marx made his demonically-fueled hatred of the world and his death-wishing toward its’ people even more clear:
“A silent, unavoidable revolution is taking place in society, a revolution that cares as little about the human lives it destroys as an earthquake cares about the houses it ravages. Classes and races that are too weak to dominate the new conditions of existence will be defeated.” (Marx and Satan, Richard Wurmbrand, p. 42)
During his commencement address at Harvard in the 1970s, Alexander Solzhenitsyn raised the alarm when he warned that America was already tilting towards evil. Americans—specifically the ruling class and intelligentsia— have forgotten God said Solzhenitsyn, and embraced instead, scientistic-socialism….the politics of destruction. America is on the same highway to hell taken previously by the Russians, warned Solzhenitsyn.

Also raising the alarm is Natan Sharansky, a dissident in the former Marxist-socialist Soviet Union. Sharansky describes the Soviet Union as a tyranny where,
“there were no dissidents (because) they were simply killed immediately.” Under the terrorist-tactics of hate crime laws, speech codes, and other mind-control tactics, everyone became double thinkers. To outside observers notes Sharansky, double thinkers appear as true believers: “everybody says the same thing, everybody votes the same way, everybody speaks with passion.” But it is an illusion caused by fear of speaking the truth. These people, he noted, “live with self-censorship throughout their lives. Since the regime demands loyalty right from childhood, many don’t even notice. They just automatically control how they express themselves.” But when a “fear society disappears or becomes weak, people suddenly start saying what they feel,” Sharansky commented, and “It’s such a big relief.”

To determine if a society is fear-based, Sharansky applies what he defines as the “town square test.” In this test, if you,
“can go to the center of town and publicly express your views without being punished, you have a free society” even though that society may not be just. However, if you are “punished for your views you live in a fear society,” said Sharansky. “In such societies there are always three types of population: True believers, who accept the ideology…dissidents, who take risks to speak publicly; and double thinkers, who have doubts or disagreements about the official ideology but are afraid to express them publicly.” In conclusion, Sharansky comments that the level “of dissidence is always a function of how tough the regime is.” (The Power of Freedom, published in The American Enterprise, Apr/May 2005, pp. 38-39)

Measured by Sharanskys' town-square test we can see that America is quickly descending into a fear-based society. As her freedom-producing Christian-based worldview fades while simultaneously replaced by green-progressive totalitarianism, the three types of population described by Sharansky come into focus. In general, Progressive Liberals are the true believers. Rabid zealots, brazen liars, rebels against all authority, they freely destroy, transgress, scoff, demean, blaspheme, demonize, and otherwise psychologically terrorize the large body of fearful double thinkers.

More than fifty years ago, Conservative poet and journalist Anthony Harrigan foresaw the rise of this generations' destructive true believers. Observing that a 'process of decay' was being fostered by a modernist orthodoxy fueled by immorality, Harrigan presciently noted that:
"Modernists are determined to force acceptance of pornography as medical science, filth as artistic realism, and abnormality as a mere difference of opinion...Though the life of the country is basically decent, Americans are in the hands of a cultural ruling class, having led to destruction the humane elements in our civilization, is conducting us to ruin." For what cause? To raise up a revolutionary army of "liberal-bred" barbarians "motivated by a destructive impulse" and unchecked by "traditional values and restraints." (The Conservative Intellectual Movement of America, George H. Nash, p. 40)

With the 'cultural ruling class' seen as The Ministry of Truth, Orwell describes the diabolical 'process of decay' fostered by them:
"There was a whole chain of...departments dealing with proletarian literature....Here was produced rubbishy newspapers, containing almost nothing except sport, crime, astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes, and films oozing with sex. The rubbishy entertainment and spurious news...was referred to as prolefeed." (1984)
Protecting and fomenting the destruction of America is a vast matrix of interconnected front groups, activist organizations, and phony civil rights defenders such as the ACLU, the most infamous terroristic enforcer of politically correct ‘true belief.’ (See matrix here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/)

All around the outside edges are the dissidents, for example, the Conservative blog-o-sphere, Tea Partiers, Minutemen, political leaders like Jim DeMint and Randy Forbes, and a variety of Conservative organizations and civil rights defenders such as the Alliance Defense Fund.

Supremely immoral, reeking of perversity, a double-speaking transnational green-progressive leviathan is moving with crushing force across our nation, fostering obscenity and blasphemy, instilling fear and confusion into the hearts of Americans and stifling individual liberty while it perverts Americas' youth, imposes mind-control and relentlessly destroys the spiritual foundations of America’s traditional Christian-based order. Its' devilish tactics come into focus in the following examples:

1. Cultural Marxism: the politics of rebellion, perversity, and nihilism fueled by satanic pride.

2. Multiculturalism: the insidious destruction of America’s traditional culture by way of elevating all other cultures in the name of politically correct tolerance.

3. Political correctness, speech codes, and hate crime laws: a psychic-cage for the soul/mind of traditional-values Americans.

4. ‘Gay rights/’gay’ marriage: rebellion against the idea of normal.

5. Sex education: called ’sex pol’ by Marxist-socialists, it’s purpose is the subversion and perversion of our youth, the awakening of the Devil, as Bakunin said. (Read: The Gay- Straight Alliance and the Quiet Revolution, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/A...20Alliance%20a nd%20the.html)

6. Social justice: the hammering down of everything good, everything excellent, everything normal, everything true into the perversely foul mud of demonic nothingness.

7. Critical theory: the mindless vomiting out of the acid of destructive criticism upon everything good, true, excellent, normal, and traditional.

8. Redistributive Justice: the evisceration of our standard of living and individual liberties in order to 'save the planet'---in other words, death and slavery on behalf of Gaia.

9. Sustainability: Extreme population control and theft of private property to achieve the 'new' communism--communitarianism.

10. Religious Pluralism: the erasure of America's founding Christian-based worldview by way of elevating Wicca, animism, Islam, New Age occult spirituality, Buddhism, shamanism, and atheism in the name of politically correct tolerance and diversity.

Death of Freedom
In an article entitled, "American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper," author Stanislav Mishin notes that, "on and off for the past century," Americans have been stealthily prepared to accept totalitarianism, and with the election of Barack Obama,
"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple..."

"The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia," notes Mishin, "and a bloody test it was."
Who financed the bloody test? "Wall Street," says Mishin.

In his book "The Naked Capitalist," W. Cleon Skousen exposes the unholy alliance of bankers and capitalists collectively defined as "Wall Street" by Mishin. Skousen verifies his findings through the writings of Dr. Carroll Quigley, both a professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University and mentor to Bill Clinton. In his opus, "Tragedy and Hope," Quigley deliberately reveals one of the worlds' best kept secrets: the existence of a gigantic leviathan of political and economic power poised to seize control of the planet.

The gargantuan power complex says Quigley, has been--right from the start---controlling Marxist-Communist-Socialist groups,
"...the power that...Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or communist power but...the power of the international financial coterie." (p. 954, Tragedy and Hope)

Why did Quigley expose the existence of the global financial coterie? Because he says, it is now too late for the little people to turn the tide. He urges them to not fight the noose which is already around their necks, for they will only hang themselves.

"On the other hand, those who go along with the immense pressure which is beginning to be felt by all humanity will eventually find themselves in a man-made millennium of peace and prosperity." (The Naked Capitalist, Skousen, pp. 4-6) See funders here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...sp?type=funder
'Elite' transnational progressive Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and former Chancellor of the UN University for Peace in Costa Rica speaks of the fate that will befall the politically incorrect:
"...all those who hold contrary beliefs" to politically correct thought favored for the "next phase of evolution" will "disappear." A hellish fate awaits all who resist political and spiritual globalization, "..those who criticize the UN are anti-evolutionary, blind, self- serving people. Their souls will be parked in a special corral of the universe for having been retarding forces, true aberrations in the evolution and ascent of humanity." (False Dawn, Lee Penn, p. 133)

In other words, the 'chosen ones' are evolving into gods and hell awaits all 'selfish' ones who stand in the way! "....and you will be like God..." (Genesis 31-7)
The lessons learned from the Russian experiment says Mishin,

"were taken and used properly to prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters."
Among the lessons applied by The Ministry of Truth to Americans,
"First the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education..." then, said Mishin, "their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of (them) were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more than happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the 'winning' side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another."
In conclusion Mishin writes,
"The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker." (American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper, Stanislav Mishin, Pravda.Ru)

Warnings from the Wise and the Valiant....
"... when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." --Samuel Adams, Founding Father

"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." - Patrick Henry, Founding Father
"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them." -- Samuel F.B. Morse, the son of educator Jedediah Morse, known as "Father of American Geography."

"...the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century...What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century...I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God." (Alexander Solzhenitsyn to Amerika: Godlessness, the First Step to the Gulag, from Russia with Love, Joe Clarke, Jul. 8, 2009)

...the Self-Sacrificially Courageous
"Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their liberties..." The men of Marlborough, Massachusetts who took part in the Boston Tea Party

....and regarding the imposition of hate crime laws, the Prophetic
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." ---George Washington

[vector7]

Revealing the revolutionaries in our past and present and what they are planning for our freedoms.

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-A

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-B

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-C

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-D

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-E

[vector7]

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News

'We better not see you on again,' the strategist says he was told by a White House official. Obama aides have taken an aggressive stance against the network and may be seeking to isolate it.

By Peter Nicholas
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer November 6, 2009 | 8:59 a.m.

Reporting from Washington - At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows, analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns or in government.

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, " 'We better not see you on again,' " said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan.

A boycott by Democratic strategists could also help drive the White House narrative that Fox is a fundamentally different creature than the other TV news networks. For their part, White House officials appear on Fox News -- but sporadically and with "eyes wide open," as one aide put it.

David Plouffe, the president's campaign manager and author of a new campaign book, "The Audacity to Win," was scheduled to appear on Fox's "On the Record" with Greta Van Susteren Thursday night as he promotes his book. His appearance, preempted by the breaking news of the shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas, has been rescheduled for Monday.

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Thursday night that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.

But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for President Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.

Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House. "They know better than to tell me anything like that," he said.

Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not-too-subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself."

The White House has taken an aggressive stance toward Fox. When President Obama appeared on five separate talk shows one Sunday in September, he avoided Fox.

"It would be foolish for us to just treat it like it's CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS," said a White House aide. "That doesn't make any sense. That would be like saying we're going to do [interviews] with the newsmagazines and we're going to do Time, Newsweek and the [conservative] National Review."

The aide spoke on condition of anonymity in order to talk more openly about the White House's thinking.

Last month, Dunn told CNN that Fox was, in effect, an "arm" of the Republican Party. Dunn said in an appearance on the rival cable network: "Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

As the dust-up played out, Fox's senior vice president of news, Michael Clemente, countered: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, healthcare and two wars."

Fox's commentators have been sharply critical of the Obama administration. After the president won the Nobel Peace Prize, Sean Hannity, who has a prime-time show on Fox, said he got the award for "trashing America."

The two sides seemed interested in easing tensions. On Oct. 28, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met privately with Clemente.

But White House aides haven't changed their underlying view of Fox.

Fox's audience is by far the largest of the cable networks, with an average of more than 2.1 million viewers in prime-time this year. CNN is second with 932,000 prime-time viewers.

Fox's viewership is not what worries the White House, though. More troubling to White House aides is that other news organizations may uncritically follow stories that Fox has showcased.

The White House aide said: "Where some of the falsehoods become dangerous is when the rest of the media accepts them as fact and reports on them, either out of a desire to tap into Fox's news audience -- which you can understand, given where circulation and viewership rates are -- or as some sort of knee-jerk fear of being considered liberally biased, which is what conservatives have been saying of the mainstream media for years."

The White House's pugnacious approach to the network leaves some Democrats troubled.

Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, said in an interview: "This approach is out of sync with my conception of what the Obama administration stands for and what they're trying to do. I think they'll think better of it and this will be a passing phase."

Peter.nicholas@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

[Beetle]

Hey Vector,

I saw Beck the other day. He had an Englishman on that was talking about the climate change bill they are wanting to sign in Copenhagan that would establish a world guvmint that will have the power to tax CO2 producing Nations 2% of their GNP. Some other stuff too. If this goes through, I could see them attacking free speech to keep folks from putting out scientific data that counters the global warming myth.

Keep your eyes peeled for a 'treaty' signing by Obozo in Copenhagan. BTW: they are not calling it a treaty because it will have to be ratified by Congress.

[vector7]

Hey Vector,

I saw Beck the other day. He had an Englishman on that was talking about the climate change bill they are wanting to sign in Copenhagan that would establish a world guvmint that will have the power to tax CO2 producing Nations 2% of their GNP. Some other stuff too. If this goes through, I could see them attacking free speech to keep folks from putting out scientific data that counters the global warming myth.

Keep your eyes peeled for a 'treaty' signing by Obozo in Copenhagan. BTW: they are not calling it a treaty because it will have to be ratified by Congress.

Yes indeed Beetle, we must to stand watch over our eroding freedoms under this Marxist Coup from the Left.

Here are a few posts I put up on the subject toward the end of October.

[zenbudda]

anita dunn is stepping down as of today. Dan Pfeiffer is taking her spot. i'm not sure which news sources you guys trust/like to see. it's possible that it's already been posted in another thread.

[vector7]

November 10, 2009 12:01 AM
Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us

Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward "promoting social and economic justice" and "social change.")

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

"I didn't think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention," Clair said in a telephone interview with CBSNews.com on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter."

Still unclear is what criminal investigation U.S. Attorney Morrison was pursuing. Last Friday, a spokeswoman initially promised a response, but Morrison sent e-mail on Monday evening saying: "We have no comment." The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. also declined to respond.

Kevin Bankston , a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, replied to the Justice Department on behalf of his client in a February 2009 letter (PDF) outlining what he described as a series of problems with the subpoena, including that it was not personally served, that a judge-issued court order would be required for the full logs, and that Indymedia did not store logs in the first place.

Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison's office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena -- claiming it "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."

Lucy Dalglish , the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn't stand up in court: "If you get a subpoena and you're a journalist, they can't gag you."

Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented. "I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter's privilege says, 'Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general's office'... I'm willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking."

Making this investigation more mysterious is that Indymedia.us is an aggregation site, meaning articles that appear on it were published somewhere else first, and there's no hint about what sparked the criminal probe. Clair, the system administrator, says that no IP (Internet Protocol) addresses are recorded for Indymedia.us, and non-IP address logs are kept for a few weeks and then discarded.

EFF's Bankston wrote a second letter to the government saying that, if it needed to muzzle Indymedia, it should apply for a gag order under the section of federal law that clearly permits such an order to be issued. Bankston's plan: To challenge that law on First Amendment grounds.

But the Justice Department never replied. "This is the first time we've seen them try to get the IP address of everyone who visited a particular site," Bankston said. "That it was a news organization was an additional troubling fact that implicates First Amendment rights."

This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia -- a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism. In 2004, the Justice Department sent a grand jury subpoena asking for information about who posted lists of Republican delegates while urging they be given an unwelcome reception at the party's convention in New York City that year.

A Indymedia hosting service in Texas once received a subpoena asking for server logs in relation to an investigation of an attempted murder in Italy.

Bankston has written a longer description of the exchange of letters with the Justice Department, which he hopes will raise awareness of how others should respond to similar legal demands for Web logs, customer records, and compulsory silence. "Our fear is that this kind of bogus gag order is much more common than one would hope, considering they're legally baseless," Bankston says. "We're telling this story in hopes that more providers will press back and go public when the government demands their silence." Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

[vector7]

U.S. Justice Dept. asks for all IP traffic to your site: How would you respond?

• Date: November 10th, 2009
• Author: Bill Detwiler

CBS News reporter Declan McCullagh has written an interesting article about a the U.S. Department of Justice request sent to Indymedia.us, a news aggregation site, that ordered one of the site’s admins to provide details of all visitors on a specific day. McCullagh wrote:

“Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department’s subpoena. … The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.”

Instead of immediately turning over the requested data (which according to the article, Indymedia.us didn’t actually have), Clair turned to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who agreed to take on her case. After a series of letters, telephone calls, and faxes between EFF and the U.S. Justice Department, the subpoena was withdrawn and the issue appears to have been dropped. For a more detailed description of the event, Kevin Bankston’s, a senior staff attorney with EFF, description of the exchange.

While this article raises a host of legal and privacy issues, I’m most interested in how most IT professionals respond when presented with a similar request. If a government request for traffic or visitor information for one of the site’s you support appeared in your mailbox or in your email inbox, what would you do first?

[Beetle]

Yes indeed Beetle, we must to stand watch over our eroding freedoms under this Marxist Coup from the Left.

Here are a few posts I put up on the subject toward the end of October.

Good stuff. I watch Beck early and often. He has guts. He is saying what the people in the media won't. Including Bill O'Reilly. BOR may have Beck on his show, but BOR aint got the guts to call it the way Beck does. The evidence is there. O'Reilly knows, but he aint got the gots. Beck is a Brave man (with a capital B).

I watched that show with my Dad. It was good that we say that show together.

[vector7]

Leaders in politics, media and business are urging me to leave.

Lou Dobbs Says He's Leaving CNN

[Ryan Ruck]

[URL=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/obama-team-continues-effort-isolate-fox-news/Obama Team Continues Effort to Isolate Fox News[/URL]

October 18, 2009

Senior Obama administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to accuse Fox News of pushing a particular point of view and not being a real news network.

Senior Obama administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to accuse Fox News of pushing a particular point of view, one week after the administration fired its initial salvo to try to isolate the news network by accusing it of being a GOP mouthpiece.

"A lot of their news programming, it's really not news. It's pushing a point of view," senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC's "This Week."

"The way we -- the president looks at it and we look at it, is, it is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel added on CNN's "State of the Union."

The open assault on Fox News began last weekend when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn accused the network of being a "wing of the Republican Party."

"What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," Dunn said on CNN. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

Despite calls to the White House this week, the administration did not offer a guest for this weekend's "Fox News Sunday" to talk about Dunn's comments, although administration officials appeared on all four Sunday morning shows to speak on various issues.

President Obama has had interviews with all of the other Sunday talk shows except "Fox News Sunday," including a whirlwind weekend in late September where he appeared on all other Sunday talk shows.

Michael Clemente, Fox News' senior vice president of news, said the administration's strategy appears to be misdirected.

"Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues," Clemente said in a written statement.

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove said Fox News' commentators have been tough on Obama but the White House appears to be confusing the news and opinion that appears on the network.

"They're conflating the news side and the opinion side in order to -- in order to attack a media outlet. Again, it's undignified for the president of the United States to be doing" Rove said on "Fox News Sunday." He added that it is the administration's practice to attack its critics full-throttle.

"I think this White House is dominated by Chicago- style politics, so if you don't like the questions that are being asked by Major Garrett or Wendell Goler or Chris Wallace, then you try and demonize Fox News," he said.

Though Fox News has won the cable news ratings race consistently for years and is closing in on network news numbers, Axelrod and Emanuel both encouraged other news outlets to not treat Fox News as a news organization.

"The bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way." Axelrod told ABC.

Axelrod was quick to point out that though the White House views Fox News as biased, the administration would continue to interact with Fox News. "We're going to appear on their shows. We're going to participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view."

"President Obama's going to talk to all the networks," said former Clinton adviser and administration confidant Terry McAuliffe, who appeared with Rove on Fox News. "He's going to go out there. He loves competition. He loves being engaged in the battle."

[vector7]

Redefining critical speech as conspiratorial

---

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions

---

Posted: January 14, 2010
12:30 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Cass Sunstein

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 by 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, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

Read more about Cass Sunstein's agenda in "Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech"

Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by 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 by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by 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 by a U.S. military missile."
• "The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."
• "That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by 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 by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by 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 by "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 by 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 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.