The Scariest Man in the Obama Administration
Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:
1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;
2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;
3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;
4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.
I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!
This is a Reblogged from http://www.freedom outpost.com.
How could anyone make such a statement about a person so few people have ever heard about, much less knew? It is because this individual has a name that seems very innocent until one begins reading his older materials and if they make the connection between President Obama and the his statement, “I have this thing called the Constitution that keeps getting in the way of what I want to do.” We must wonder why no other sitting President has ever made such a statement. Why should any President even consider making such a statement if they truly believe in the United States and the Constitution? Well here is where the name of the man that has influenced President Obama with his. This man is none other than Cass Sunstein, a man with a long history of making comments about the Constitution that most would consider would be coming from either a Marxist, Socialist, or maybe a Communist, but never coming from a man with direct ties to the President of the United States!
We don’t have to go far back to see that Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s “Regulatory Czar,” is a man appointed to a position that was never there before Obama. Let us set the time machine back to 1992 and see just what Cass Sunstein had stated about what a sitting President could and could not do.
In 1992 Sunstein expressed his view that the office of the U.S. Presidency should be elevated to a position higher than that of the president’s administration generally, and that the Constitution should be viewed as a “living,” evolving document:
“Now, it is alarming to people who want to believe in the unitary executive, like me, that the 19th-century writers thought this was self-evident. [The unitary executive theory holds that a powerful president controls the entire executive branch.] That’s the policy recommendation and the conclusion that the Constitution is largely, not entirely, but largely irrelevant. Now, I say what I’ve said about the Constitutional matter with considerable regret. I wish it weren’t so. The executive department’s vision of the Constitution, with the president on top and the administration below, has elegance and simplicity and tremendous appeal. It would make much more sense, I submit, given our current situation; to have a Constitution in which the president is on top of administration is below. But that was not the founder’s original conception. The Constitution does not speak in those terms…. Because the conclusion that I’ve reached seems to me so unfortunate, I’m trying hard to figure out what can be done about it…. One thing that perhaps can be done about it is to say, well, we shouldn’t really be originalists about the meaning of the Constitution. Maybe Judge Bork had wrong. Maybe we should think that the Constitution has a high degree of flexibility. Maybe it’s a changing and living document. Now, under that conception of Constitutional interpretation, maybe we can have the ingredients of a new unitary executive idea.”
Now this by itself is very troubling since here Cass Sunstein has turned the meaning of the Constitution into an unknown source that many citizens of the United States would not recognize. Surely the founding fathers would quickly dispute this mad man’s interpretation of the Constitution that they had sat down to write in order that people like Cass Sunstein would not be able to tear apart, as he shows he would like to do. Here is a man that Obama likes very much and the deep connection will be shown a little later on after the other sides of this man are shown. What should trouble everyone is the fact that Cass Sunstein had not been “vetted” by Congress since, as a czar, he does not have to. He may not have had this position due to his ideology of the Constitution and other matters.
In 1993 Sunstein published the book The Partial Constitution, which contains a chapter titled “It’s the Government’s Money,” wherein Sunstein writes that,
“the Constitution … forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases.”
By Sunstein’s reckoning, a system whereby the government funds childbirth but not abortion “has the precise consequence of turning women into involuntary incubators” and “breeders” whose bodies are sacrificed “in the service of third parties” (i.e., fetuses).
“There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections.”
It seems very clear as to where President Obama had obtained his ideas for the abortion question being Forced upon the religions that did not wish to abide by a law that was contrary to the teachings of their consciences and churches. It is also clear that Cass Sunstein has used the power of the President to “nudge” his ideology forward (The “nudge” will also be explained a little later.) We should really see what we as a people can do to keep this type of action from happening and the effects this has upon our nation and our Constitution. Should we as a people allow just one man to make choices for us even when we disagree? Should we allow a sitting President to ignore the very Constitution he has sworn under oath to uphold?
Also, in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a “First Amendment New Deal” in the form of a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would authorize a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure that a “diversity of view[s]” is presented on the airwaves.
According to Sunstein, private broadcasting companies do a disservice to the American public by airing programs only if their ratings are high enough, or airing commercials only if advertisers can afford to pay the cost of a 30- to 60-second spot:
“In a market system, this goal [of airing diverse views] 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.”
Here we see that Cass Sunstein wishes to have a system where just the speech that government wants should be heard and this falls under what he likes to call the “Fairness Doctrine.” But why even consider such an idea? Why should we have the very idea to have a “First Amendment New Deal?” The First Amendment we now have is good enough unless of course some socialist wishes for that to be taken away, and if that is done, they would have no limit as to what they could tell writers to write, speakers to speak, and commentators to comment on! This would not be a very free society under the idea of Cass Sunstein. But wait, he is Obama’s close friend and what he says Obama agrees to!
But Cass Sunstein is not finished with his approach to a “New Constitution,” a Constitution that would not look anything like the one our founding fathers wrote. Cass Sunstein states that government has a “moral obligation” to force broadcast media into diversity. Here is where Cass Sunstein shows the Socialistic/Communistic ideology of his mind.
“If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters,” Sunstein writes, “a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access [to the airwaves] will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome.” Government, he says, has a moral obligation to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that represent a “diversity” of views:
“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.”
In 1998 Sunstein said that “a progressive consumption tax would be a really good thing” that “hardly anyone would be hurt by.”
Also in 1998, Sunstein said the following about socialism:
“I don’t have anything good to say about socialism in the abstract. If what’s understood by socialism is efforts to insure that people don’t live under desperate conditions, well, you know, Roosevelt and Madison and Jefferson were all socialists. I think that … these abstractions often can just create holy wars where people might really be able to be in agreement….”
“If what socialism means is public ownership of the means of production, I think that is a recipe for economic disaster and democratic failure of the worst kind. The socialist ideal, which [dates] back to Aristotle, of human flourishing, is, that’s great. That’s Roosevelt’s ideal. And Johnson’s too, and Dewey’s….”
“Economic equality is a dangerous ideal and something that people should be frightened of, and not happy about. But …. if what you mean by economic equality is floors for everybody and ceilings for everybody, well, floors, absolutely. Ceilings? Probably. A consumption tax. Certainly a consumption ceiling. Great.”
In the beginning, Sunstein says Socialism would be bad for the nation but he goes on to say what is shown above; a statement that shows that while he does not like the ideas of Socialism, he does like the outcome of it.
On April 14, 1999, Sunstein published an opinion piece in The Chicago Tribune titled “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes.” He wrote:
“In what sense is 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.”
Does this kind of sound familiar? Let us place it in another format and then you may recall why it sounds familiar. “President Obama stated,
“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”
Look at what Cass Sunstein said then look at what Obama said, it is eerie that Obama made nearly the same statement. Was Obama coached by Cass Sun stein, or do both men have the same ideas?
Also in 2004, Sunstein published The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever. Arguing that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that they are granted by the government, the book drew its inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a new Bill of Rights. Among the mandates laid out in the book are the following:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
- The right to a good education.
In The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights [such as the foregoing], they may migrate into the Constitution itself.” He adds that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.” Another notable quote from the book is the following:
“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.” (p. 3)
Cass Sunstein goes on, Sunstein has argued in favor of expanding welfare benefits and redistributing wealth in the United States, but contends that the country’s “white majority” opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:
“The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics).”
Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:
“During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.”
Look at this very closely since it also reflects the ideas of Obama himself with the welfare and “redistribution” of wealth. How can two men think so closely? Why do two men have nearly the very same ideas? Is it possible that Obama does not have any ideas and is using Cass Sunstein’s ideas?
There is a lot more on Cass Sunstein and we will show the connection to President Obama and why Sunstein is an integral part of the Obama administration. This one man has so much he wants to do, but it is not up to him to do it. Obama can do it for him so maybe Obama is Cass Sunstein’s puppet? We will look at this and more in the next installment.