Rotating Header Image


300wde_crazy-o-sign Something is decidedly irregular in Chicago, otherwise, where are all these fringe individuals coming from who are percolating through Chicago’s academia and therein, political environs?

How does an individual even get as psychologically ill as Cass Sunstein certainly appears to be? I’ve encountered disturbed people before in my life while in the normal course of daily living — among attorneys, among store clerks, among academia, a some delivery drivers, even among physicians, you name it, psychological aberration knows no trade or professional restrictions — but it’s difficult to assume that this Mr. Sunstein could even be considered for such a profound position as “Internet Czar” by any Presidential Administration, much less nominated for one as Mr. Sunstein now is so nominated by Barack Obama.

Mr. Sunstein, described as a “leading Constitutional scholar” (and as “a very good friend” by Barack Obama) displays no heroic scholarship in his positions that I read as he efforts to perpetuate a disturbed emotionalism about our Constitution; I’d say he exemplifies an archetype of a mind that seeks to exploit the Constitution for purposes of disabling the intent of that document and the Rights of the individual defined in that document: use of the document’s principles and positions inorder to deny the document’s principles and positions, which I describe as “disturbed emotionalism” in principle and practice (concept and expression) because there’s, well, aberration inherent in the concepts he formulates based upon a skewered interpretation of the Constitution that results in a non-Constitutional course of conclusions.

His “reasoning,” if it can even be called that, reads like arch-criminality rather than reliable understanding and direction, a corrupt use of complex information for purposes of deconstructing that information for maximum and counter-purpose exploitation. Like a scammer, in other words, someone dedicated to acquiring a great deal of academic knowledge but whose incentives are gratuitously corrupt.

320wde_cuckooforobamapuffs He thinks the internet is not democratic because individuals can make their own content choices for use of the internet (a counter-intuitive conclusion as to the entire concept of what “Rights” are under our Constitution) but he at least recognizes that his desire — to moreorless “force feed content” to users against their preferences and in opposition to their socio-political views — would be “unconstitutional.” Well, yeah, yeah, it would be.

He thinks that Barack Obama should control the actual life of the internet, be able to flip it on or off as Obama interprets the political climate needs be. Well, yeah, that’s essentially a horrible, profoundly dictatorial idea as would be such a plan if ever horribly implemented. But anyone who would pursue such an idea calls to mind the wretched low point of humanity where politics and abuse of power have crossed purposes. And that from a politician: truly awful an idea or plan; but, from a “leading Constitutional scholar” as Sunstein is alleged to be (which I strongly doubt based upon even this small amount of his opinion I’ve read and reprinted here, below), it suggests moral aberration, amorality, a discarding of common and certainly humane sense.

And now more of his dreadful presence: Mr. Sunstein has been nominated by the Obama Administration for such a position, which speaks very, very badly about he who has nominated Sunstein.

Cass Sunstein: U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net ‘Fairness Doctrine’

From that article:

…Sunstein’s nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views:

* In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.

* In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.”

* In his 2004 book, “Animal Rights,” he wrote: “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”

* In “Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer,” he wrote “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”

“As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics,” said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. “He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”

O’Leary disagrees.

“It’s hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein,” he says. “Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that ‘limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.’ If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government.”

Read the article in full…

Needless to add, I’m suggesting everyone protest the appointment of Cass Sunstein to this “Czar” job. But, woe, the people of Chicago who are pitiably subjected to such a disturbed mind as his.

2 C O M M E N T S

  1. MAS1916 says:

    Slippery Slope here?

    Unbelievable.. a net fairness doctrine of anything masquerading as one would be the end of the First Amendment. We all know what that would mean for our children’s future.

  2. -S- says:

    It’s not just a Slippery Slope, it’s a shaft straight down with a very unwelcoming and unseen bottom.

    All of these “doctrines” and bills the Left is attempting are aimed at allowing their special interests to skirt our Constitution if not to deem criminal those who exercise Constitutional Rights (“hate crimes bill” that just passed the House by a margin is proof of that, as is the outrageously mistitled “Fairness Doctrine”).

    The Left is not only maligning our Constitution, it’s attempting to essentially push it “under the bus” while saying it’s a lovely old rag or such, like patting the head of someone too aged to speak who has been confined to a resthome while their estate is pilfered.

    The ridiculously misnamed Fairness Doctrine would, if enabled, just remove Constitutional Rights, liberties and also apply criminality with penalties to those who exercise them.