Vrwc

Is it a conspiracy to advocate banning conspiracy theories? If the answer is yes Hussein czar Cass Sunstein is guilty. Unfortunately, nobody in the media is going to move Sunstein’s comments to a Conspiracy Theory forum.

Conspiracy theories used to mean finding a conspiracy in a past event when none existed. Sunstein re-labeled criticism of global warming crapola; it is now an intellectual conspiracy theory. Every criticism of government, and government officials, will be outlawed as conspiracy theories if people like Sunstein get their way. How is that any different than the way totalitarian governments treat criticism?

The enclosed article does not say it, but Hussein & Company will put a conspiracy theory label on interpretations in order to control political speech —— note that message boards are included:

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”​

The term “cognitive infiltration” cracked me up. Message board liberals already know how to infiltrate threads with talking points.

I doubt if Sunstein reads message boards? Had he checked with message board liberals before calling for a ban on conspiracy theorizing he would have seen they are way ahead of him. To liberals, every conservative opinion, every interpretation, every prediction, amounts to conspiracy theorizing which is another way of saying dangerous thinking. Old-fashioned censorship is not good enough to silence dangerous thinking. An outright ban is called for.

Also note that the VRWC (vast right-wing conspiracy) was invented to defend Bubba, but it may turn out to be Hillary Clinton’s greatest contribution to Socialism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI_SqqJIU14

Look how far the VRWC has come since 1998. In 14 short years every objection to Socialist policies became a conspiracy theory!

One friendly bit of advice for Democrats. Drop the word “vast” from VRWC. Vast is too close to the truth —— a vast majority of Americans are part of the conspiracy against Socialism. Right-wing conspiracy is the better lie because that slogan implies a small handful of conspirators are conspiring against the majority. Of course, in order to make sense Democrats will have to argue that there are more Socialists in America than there are liberty-lovin’ conservatives.

Predicting where Socialists/Communists are trying to go comes under the heading of protected political speech —— not conspiracy theories. Hussein & Company are running scared because Americans are interpreting the words and actions of government officials simply to determine where they are heading. Such recalcitrance has to stop because the global government crowd dare not defend, cannot defend, their treasonous agenda under the harsh light of free speech. Bottom line: When a position is indefensible all opposition must be silenced.

Sunstein’s positions were taken from:

“. . . 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?’.”​

That paper included this:

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.”​

In 2008 Sunstein got away with defending the global warming fraud by mixing it in with real conspiracy theories. Those glory days are gone along with the liberal media’s monopoly on disseminating information. The global warming fraud has been exposed, and guess what? it was a conspiracy engineered by the United Nations. Just about every piece of global warming designer-science has been discredited by reputable scientists. Question: Will Sunstein remove a known deliberate fraud from future conspiracy theory examples?

Finally, champions of totalitarian government deliberately circumvent those clauses in the Constitution they find distasteful. Does that qualify as a conspiracy? I guess not because only the government does it.

The article I quoted is in two parts.

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
by Aaron Klein

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein classified as a “conspiracy theory” is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

The find comes after a report of a government document indicating that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news sites such as the Huffington Post and Drudge Report.

Reuters reported that a “privacy compliance review” issued by DHS last November confirms that since at least June 2010, the department’s national operations center has been operating a “Social Networking/Media Capability” which involves regular monitoring of “publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites and message boards.”

The government document states that such monitoring is meant to “collect information used in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture” to help manage national or international emergency events.

While the DHS may be monitoring websites for security reasons, Sunstein advocated such actions with another goal in mind.

Sunstein’s official title is administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

As WND was first to report, 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.”

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.”

 

PART TWO:

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 the November 2009 climate scandal in which emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicated 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.

In his 2009 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 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weather Underground 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’ home.

‘New Deal Fairness Doctrine’

WND also previously reportedSunstein 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.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-czar-proposed-government-infiltrate-social-network-sites/

 

Libs are still getting milage out of the vast right-wing conspiracy. More importantly, labeling every criticism a conspiracy is wearing thin; so Hillary Clinton’s most famous remark has to be re-energized lest she be written-off as a flash in the pan who never said anything worth remembering. If you think I’m being too harsh tell me one other thing she said after 20 years in the spotlight that will be remembered five seconds after she is history?

Andrea Mitchell: Hillary Was Right--There Really Was A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
By Mark Finkelstein | February 21, 2012 | 09:20

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-f...here-really-was-vast-right-wing#ixzz1n81ZWvIy

 

How can ANYONE advocate the banning of conspiracy theories when we have a little thing called the first amendment? It has always been a right in this country to be able to say what you want about anything and with very few exceptions. We, as a people, can be offended by what others say, and that is our right, but their right to be able to say it should not be removed or constrained.

The holocaust is a good example. Many nations have banned people from talking about the holocaust being a conspiracy. I don't believe it for a second, I find it very offensive, and I find those that spew that kind of nonsense to be among the lowest of the low in society. That being said, I would never dream of taking away their right to speak their mind.

 

To Patriot911: Advocating is also protected by the First Amendment. Advocating is easy, and necessary, in order to stop criticism. Implementing is only slightly more difficult but not impossible. Even if criticism can’t be stopped altogether it can pooh-poohed by calling it a conspiracy theory.

NOTE: Freedom of the press is not threatened. Before the INTERNET politically correct speech and the mainstream media monopoly banned everything Socialists objected to. Also note that the media hates free speech as much as does the government. Bottom line: Banning free speech on the INTERNET is the goal.

 

It is not the act of advocating I find disgusting but the goal of what they are advocating. I am no more prone to tell them to shut up than I am anyone else. Let them advocate. We will still be here to shout them down.

 

Card-carrying member here...



Bring it on.

 

SHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

you're not suppose to flaunt it!

 

Maybe nobody will notice.

*whistles*

 

To Smartmouthwoman: Put me up for membership.

 

Membership in what, dear?

*blonde head tilt*

 

To Smartmouthwoman: The organization that issued your card!

 

Will do...

you passed...

here's your uniform.



Welcome to the club, Patriot!!!

​

(oh yeah, I forgot, shhhhhhhh. we're not supposed to talk about it.)

 

The details in the enclosed article take labeling every criticism a conspiracy one step further.

Remember when Hillary Clinton called for an INTERNET gatekeeper? Guess what? The mother of the vast right-wing conspiracy is attacking free speech again:

That is why it was a “diplomatic coup,” according to Kern, when Obama held the three-day conference in Washington, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed to the key principal Muslims have been seeking for years: holding people responsible when “free speech” … “results in sectarian clashes.”​

The loss of socialism’s media monopoly because of the INTERNET is intensifying the attack on free speech; so it is a waste of time talking to Hussein & Company about free speech. Socialists have been working for decades to abolish free speech.

Even International law gets pressed into service in this latest assault on the First Amendment:

The 57-member OIC has been proposing a special international law that would make it criminal to speak ill of Muhammad or his followers for years, but it never was successful under its earlier plans that were portrayed as a ban on the “defamation of religions.” Actually, support for the idea had started waning.​

It’s no secret that Democrats love non-existent International law. As a bonus Ginsberg and the other International-minded judges must be jumping for joy. (I use International as a noun where applicable.)

NOTE: International law is UN law is Socialist law.

Planning for Islamic caliphate to begin
Goals given boost when Obama administration legitimizes ban on criticism
Published: 4 hours ago
by Bob Unruh

A senior fellow for a Madrid-based think tank is alerting freedom-loving people about a caliphate-planning conference being held by Muslims soon, a move he said was given a boost of support by the Obama administration recently when it allowed a three-day “Istanbul Process” conference in Washington.

That event, writes Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for European Politics at Madrid’s Grupo de Estudio, “gave the [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.”

The coming event, Caliphate Conference 2012, is being organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Kern describes as a “pan-Islamic extremist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic state, or caliphate, ruled by Islamic Shariah law.”

The 57-member OIC has been proposing a special international law that would make it criminal to speak ill of Muhammad or his followers for years, but it never was successful under its earlier plans that were portrayed as a ban on the “defamation of religions.” Actually, support for the idea had started waning.

But then it proposed Resolution 16/18, a plan for countries to “combat” things like “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The idea was adopted in the U.N. General Assembly just a few weeks ago and Kern’s analysis notes that it would be largely ineffectual as long as the West doesn’t jump behind it.

That is why it was a “diplomatic coup,” according to Kern, when Obama held the three-day conference in Washington, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed to the key principal Muslims have been seeking for years: holding people responsible when “free speech” … “results in sectarian clashes.”

The critical question that has been among the reasons the so-called “anti-defamation” plans previously have failed is that such limits suggest, even require, that the blame be placed on the person making a statement if the situation is that someone else reacts to it violently.

Free speech advocates are worried over her comment that, “It’s one thing if people are just disagreeing. That is fair game. That’s free speech. But if it results in sectarian clashes, if it results in the destruction or the defacement or the vandalization of religious sites, if it even results in imprisonment or death, then government must held those – hold those who are responsible accountable.”

In Western civilization, the standard for responsibility would be to hold those accountable who do violence, not those who make statements that those who do violence blame for their actions.

The U.N. strategy, proposed by Pakistan “on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,” again creates an open door to blame someone for making a statement about Islam to which Muslims would react violently, by raising concerns about “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Further, it “condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Repeated concerns have been raised by such statements, as they open the door for attacks on people making statements about their own beliefs, which someone else would choose to decry as “hatred.”

In fact, the resolution calls for “measures to criminalize” some related behaviors.

Sharona Schwartz at at the Blaze noted that the German-language promotion video for the conference starts: “The relentless decline of capitalism has begun. The time has come to fight against poverty. Time to obliterate the injustices. Time for the correct system.”

Which is identified as Islam.

In a report published by the Stonegate Institute, Kern said the “explicit aim” of the Istanbul Process is to make it a crime to criticize Islam.

He writes, “According to Steven Emerson, a leading authority on Islamic extremist networks, Hizb ut-Tahrir is emulating the three-stage process by which Muslims established the first Islamic caliphate after the death of the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed, in the year 632.

“During the first stage, Hizb ut-Tahrir builds a party by cultivating a small number of supporters to engage in recruitment and propaganda. In the second stage (which Hizb ut-Tahrir is now entering in Europe and the United States), the group educates Muslims in order to recruit a larger group of people to join Hizb ut-Tahrir and support its revolution. Finally, having won the support of Muslims, Hizb ut-Tahrir moves to establish a Shariah-ruled Islamic government.”

He notes the OIC just two weeks ago sponsored a symposium in Brussels to talk about “anti-Islamophobia.”

“Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam,” he reports.

He cited the report from the International Islamic News Agency, which stated, “The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular, in a manner different from that in the U.S., which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from its previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter ‘defamation of religions’ in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.”

WND previously has written about the Islamic-led Defamation of Religions proposal in the United Nations. It was “nothing more than an effort to achieve special protections for Islam – a move to stifle religious speech,” according to an analysis by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.

According to the Human Rights First organization, the plan simply violates fundamental freedom of expression norms.

Tad Stahnke, of Human Rights First said the concept is “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression.”

The issue also has been addressed by Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA, in an interview with WND at the time, because of the pending threat to the freedoms in America.

“This is a battle for our basic freedoms,” he warned.

“This [U.N. idea] is Orwellian in its deviousness,” he said. “To use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak worthy of Orwell’s 1984 because of what it really does.”

He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.

Worse would be the “chilling” effect on language that the U.N. plan would create worldwide, he said.

“This would be a huge blessing to those who would silence dissidents in their countries, Islamic regimes,” he said. “This stands as a monument to the gullibility of the masses in the United States and other places who don’t see this for what it is.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/planning-for-islamic-caliphate-to-begin/