May 19, 2010

"The word voluntary is a little complicated...." and it actually somehow includes forcing you to do what we think you should do.

Cass Sunstein in full Orwellian mode (back in 2001):



Text:
Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you're reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word "voluntary" is a little complicated, and sometimes people don't do what's best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it's as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.
I got to the link from Jonah Goldberg, and I also heard the audio on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday, and I took the text from Media Matters, which critiques Rush (for associating Elena Kagan with the idea and for botching the meaning of "net neutrality") and refers us to a 2008 Bloggingheads diavlog in which Sunstein calls his own idea "bad." Here's the Bloggingheads segment (with Eugene Volokh!). I have not listened through it to figure out how far Sunstein may have walked back from his idea (and why).

128 comments:

Pogo said...

That's full fascist mode.

And it will be accomplished, should the Democrats retain power.

Joaquin said...

A while back this would have been right out of The Onion. Today it is staring us in the face.
100% fascist!!!

Fen said...

Hey Mr. Diversity Hire,

How about every time you give a speech, you must provide equal time at your mic for the opposition?

Obama/Chavez in 2012!

traditionalguy said...

The votes taken every 2 and 4 years can be very dangerous to the Leader if uncensored information is to have Free Speech protection. So we have a choice: do we want a dictatorship that takes care of us, or do we want to live in a system of chaos that allows private persons to express opinions that only confuse us? And what about that emergency of hot weather that is cooking the world until we return "voluntarily" to a pre-industrial subsistence mode of living just in time? Only Leader has the answer.

Original Mike said...

Socialist, hell, these people are facists. Sunstein may be disavowing his proposal now (haven't gone to the Bloggingheads link, yet) but nonetheless, to have ever entertained the notion is appalling. What part of free speech do these people not get????

This stuff scares me.

AJ Lynch said...

Someone please ask the President when he last listened to Rush and was persuaded by one of Rush's points of view! Someone please ask the President what right wing magazines, websites, TV shows he consumes on a egular basis.

wv= houticat = a cat who loves hootenany

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Cass Sunstein knows something Ann Althouse won't tell you:

It takes about 10 years for the Supreme Court to overrule even the most egregiously unconstitutional law.

And if they do rule your law unconstitutional, you can craft a new unconstitutional law and it will take another 10 years or thereabouts for the Supreme Court to eliminate that law.

Ad infinitum.

(If you don't believe this, just take a look at what they're doing in DC after the gun ruling.)

The Supreme Court has no power to sanction the passage of patently offensively grossly unconstitutional laws and our political elite know this. They know the Supreme Court is a fucking joke.

They know in advance these laws will never be upheld. They don't care. They have devised a way around the Supreme Court.

This is how freedom is stolen from the people ... a little at a time, by inches, over years and years and years.

Cass Sunstein - and the party he represents - is a cancer on our nation that we must excise.

T J Sawyer said...

What part of free speech do these people not get????

They understand free speech only too well. It's the "Congress shall pass no law" part that they have problems with.

Richard Dolan said...

Listening to someone thinking out loud, as Sunstein was doing here, is often entertaining and occasionally illuminating. Sunstein's ideas aren't attractive or persuasive, but at the time he was just an academic blabbing on, probably enjoying the frisson of pushing ideas he knew would be unpopular.

Many folks will also enjoy going ballistic about Sunstein's policy noodling. But before you do, think how you reacted to Larry Summers' exercise in thinking out loud, when he talked about gender-imbalance in the sciences and the reasons for it. He was pilloried (and worse) for thinking out loud, but he was just engaging in the same kind of adademic noodling about controversial matters on display here.

The argument for going ballistic in both cases is that the offhand thought reveals the depths of the evil lurking just below the polished academic surface. Sunstein (and Summers) may have been wrong; and their comments may have been ill-considered (Sunstein probably thinks so, while Summers only says so). But if academics can't have a little fun now and then pushing ideas like this, it would a duller, greyer world. It's really all a lot of noise about very little.

Owen said...

I read (audiobooked, actually) "Nudge" and was alternately intrigued and repelled by the concept and practice of "libertarian paternalism" which it develops. The more I see of Sunstein's ideas, the less I like them. The concept of "lib paternalism" is by the authors' admission an oxymoron like "guided freedom" which, in their conceit, they think can break us through to a Third Way of a better society. I don't think there is a third way. And I think their approach is just a kinder, gentler form of fascism. Plus very inefficient from the Hayekian point of view. If it were kept in the faculty lounge or the scholarly journals, OK. But they really want to run the country this way. No thanks.

dsmith said...

Everything inside the State, nothing outside the State.

rhhardin said...

Rush always gets net neutrality wrong. You'd think the staff would inform him after the first time.

He thinks it means something like equal time did; whereas it means each commercial carrier agrees to carry other carriers' traffic with equal priority.

Assuming I have it right myself.

It's on the list of things Rush takes an early wrong turn on, which screws up the following five minutes of analysis.

pst314 said...

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."
--Michelle Obama, at UCLA on Feb 15, 2008, in full fascist mode

kathleen said...

Tell me again why this guy is considered such a fabulous legal mind? He says outrageous things using appropriate legal terminology. That just makes him a jerk who's good with words.

Not to mention the guy's persona screams"bitter from one too many playground ass whuppings".

Comrade X said...

because everyone would link to the strongest argument of their opponents.

GMay said...

"But if academics can't have a little fun now and then pushing ideas like this, it would a duller, greyer world. It's really all a lot of noise about very little."

When people defend the indefensible, you usually get stuff like this.

kathleen said...

"But if academics can't have a little fun now and then pushing ideas like this, it would a duller, greyer world."

Richard Dolan, not all ideas are created equal. A jargon-filled ploy for societal control is hardly the equivalent of Copernicus.

pst314 said...

"Not to mention the guy's persona screams 'bitter from one too many playground ass whuppings'."

Or maybe not enough. ;-P

Mick said...

Well, You voted for him Prof. Althouse. Even though you SHOULD know that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, since his father's Kenyan citizenship caused him to be born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain.
So what are you saying? That you fucked up?

Oligonicella said...

Like Woody Allen wishing Obama could be dictator for a little while, he thinks it's OK because it would be 'his side' and they'll not abuse it. What they never realize is the *idea* is friggin' stupid and dangerous to begin with and even promoting it half-seriously shows a definite lack of judgment and/or a disconnect with reality.

Skyler said...

This is just more evidence that there is little to recommend for someone who claims to be a Constitutional Scholar. Here is a man who is paid a lot of money at a prestigious university to be an expert in something he clearly has no understanding of.

Law has become a mystical art now. It is like a religion where the bible can be made to say anything a believer wants it to say, even the exact opposite of the original meaning.

He should be free to advocate for government controlled speech, but no one who is a Constitutional Scholar who says such things should ever be taken seriously in that regard again. Maybe he should retain his tenure, but they should change his job title to Professor of Fascist Studies.

PatCA said...

Truly frightening.

He's not even smart enough to disguise his fascist plan.

AllenS said...

I need three volunteers. You, you and you.

Kirk Parker said...

Richard Dolan,

I hardly see the parallel: Summers was musing about possible explanations for phenomena we actually observe in the real world; Sunstein was musing possible extensions of the coercive power of the state.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Tell me again why this guy is considered such a fabulous legal mind?"

He's studied the Supreme Court and figured out a way to make the court irrelevant.

That is brilliant. He's the first lawyer who has actually succeeded in doing it.

He's determined that the court takes so long to overrule outrageously unconstitutional laws that they can be made irrelevant.

He's figured out that by the time the stupid court gets around to overruling his laws that limit speech the damage he seeks to inflict on our society has already been done.

And that even if they overrule his law, he can have in his back pocket a new slightly different law that limits free speech in much the same way.

And that by the time the court gets around to overruling that new law he's too busy passing the next unconstitutional law to give a rats ass what the morons on the Supreme Court are doing.

Brilliant!

The Supreme Court is too caught up overruling laws that stopped mattering a decade ago to have any effect on what goes on in today's society. The Court is irrelevant.

Sunstein has deduced this and thus figured a way for mere men to take away the God-given rights of individuals that are codified in the United States Constitution. Not even God can stop Cass Sunstein. He spits in the face of God and laughs.

His is the most brilliant fucking legal mind our Colleges and Universities is able to produce today.

How could you possibly question this fact?

Fen said...

for someone who claims to be a Constitutional Scholar.

"The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an ‘instructor’ at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.

In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.

In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.

According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building."


http://www.killingjanefonda.com/blog/wordpress/?p=17

Quayle said...

What part of free speech do these people not get????

What part of democracy do these people not get?

If the people want to read only Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto and nothing else, they damn well have that right, and who is Cass Sustein or anyone else to say that isn't "good for society?"

It is a long known fact that if a democracy wants to completely dumb down to mere circuses and bread, no Chicago-to-Harvard sellout is going to stop it.

Comrade X said...

not only a fascist, but a huge asshole. the dude was advocating for pop-ups.

Lem said...

Volokh crushes the idea that blogs are eco chambers and thought "cocoons".

Its like that professor has never been on a blog.

If a blogger doesn't link to what he/she is posting about (sourcing) that blogger will not do well.

If anything good blogs are already doing what he perceives as lacking.

Richard Dolan said...

It's odd to hear the complaint that Sunstein was pushing a "fascist plan". A fascist plan would involve censorship, an attempt to forbid the expression of disfavored views. Sunstein was talking about the opposite -- a kind of "fairness doctrine" on steriods, where the expression of a partisan opinion (over an internet-based platform which seems to have been his paradigm), would require the site to provide an automatic link to an opposing view. The principle would apply regardless of the lefty/righty nature of the original expression, and thus would skewer all views indiscriminately (although it may impact one side more than the other, depending on the medium). That's not censorship, but instead a form of indirect forced speech.

Nothing about that idea is attractive. But it is very far from fascism, totalitarian thought control or any of that.

Fen said...

I would be curious to hear what Professor Althouse thinks about Obama's claim of being a "constitutional scholar".

Mick said...

New Hussein Ham said,

"He's studied the Supreme Court and figured out a way to make the court irrelevant."

He also figured out a way to Usurp the office of POTUS, and to use the political question doctrine, and "standing". To fend off the will of the people to challenge his Natural Born Citizen eligibility. Of course he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and has only admitted to being a "Native born" citizen. He knows he can not be a Natural Born Citizen, since he was born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain, due to Obama Sr's Kenyan citizenship. So called Constitutional scholars are to cowardly or ignorant (Volohk and Althouse) of the meaning of the term to challenge him.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... the dude was advocating for pop-ups."

And that right there's a hangin' offense.

Where's my rope?

Fen said...

where the expression of a partisan opinion (over an internet-based platform which seems to have been his paradigm), would require the site to provide an automatic link to an opposing view.

Do it now. Provide an opposing link for the pov you just expressed. Now do it everytime you express an opinion. You'll arrive at self-censorship via Futility.

The principle would apply regardless of the lefty/righty nature of the original expression, and thus would skewer all views indiscriminately

Riiiight. Just like West Wing and CNN do...

But it is very far from fascism, totalitarian thought control or any of that.

Actually, its closer to fascism than mere censorship. How about we just pipe Pravda into your bedroom while you sleep?

Original Mike said...

...would require the site to provide an automatic link to an opposing view. The principle would apply regardless of the lefty/righty nature of the original expression, and thus would skewer all views indiscriminately (although it may impact one side more than the other, depending on the medium). That's not censorship, but instead a form of indirect forced speech."

And the enforcer would be, presumably, an agency in the Executive branch of government. I'm still going with facist.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you're reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views.

See, we Althousians are ahead of the game, since we already allow Alpha Liberal to provide links giving all of the possible competing views. How many minds here has he expanded again?
- Lyssa

Original Mike said...

@Lyssa - There you go! Just require all sites to have a comments section. That was easy.

Next problem!

paul a'barge said...

MediaMatters are Lib-tard gangster thugs.

rhhardin said...

Glenn Gould William Byrd Voluntary.

Lem said...

It goes to show.. no bad idea is ever dead.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

John Stodder:

I was going to say something like what Fen said, that this requirement would be onerous enough to create a chilling effect that would essentially serve as a back door censorship.

Also, forced speech does violate freedom of speech:

The Supreme Court said in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943): "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

So, yeah, I'm going to have to agree with the above comments. Perhaps it's not exactly something that has traditionally been used by facists, but it would be used to the same ends.

- Lyssa

viktor silo said...

Obama "now introduces a weekly event called the Spontaneous Demonstration".

Animal Farm

Francis W. Porretto said...

"...the word "voluntary" is a little complicated..."

Why is it that, when a left-liberal wants to invade individuals' rights, he always starts out by telling us that words with perfectly clear meanings really mean something else?

AllenS said...

Let me get this correct, Mr. Dolan. If somebody had something to say, whether on the radio, print or on the internet. That they wouldn't be able to say it unless they provided someplace or someone to express the opposing view?

Video said...

@Fen -- Obama was an "adjunct instructor," which is a ceremonial title. My friends who are "adjunct professors" never teach, the title merely connotes honorable association with the institution. "Adjunct instructor" is tantamount to "honorary janitor." Meaningless. But it's interesting to see how that honorarium has been spun into a much bigger lie...that's now accepted as fact.

edutcher said...

Mr. Orwell had a word for it - doubleplusungood. And nobody speaks Newspeak better than the Haavahd types.

Original Mike said...

Socialist, hell, these people are facists.

Mom's heroes, Joe Stalin, Mao, and Ho, would have liked it, too.

T J Sawyer said...

What part of free speech do these people not get????

Any part that obstructs their agenda.

kathleen said...

Tell me again why this guy is considered such a fabulous legal mind? He says outrageous things using appropriate legal terminology. That just makes him a jerk who's good with words

By George, mum, I think you've got it. Actually, he'd be nothing without TOTUS.

WV "fulloda" What this administration and Congress are dumping on us.

veni vidi vici said...

That "C" in his name is a typo.

At a minimum, there should be an apostrophe after it.

Joe said...


a kind of "fairness doctrine" on steriods, where the expression of a partisan opinion (over an internet-based platform which seems to have been his paradigm), would require the site to provide an automatic link to an opposing view. The principle would apply regardless of the lefty/righty nature of the original expression, and thus would skewer all views indiscriminately


So I’m a Leftie, and I need to link to rightwing site in order to “provide balance.” So, I link to Lonewacko, alternatively I’m a rightie and I link to “Jeremy”-assuming he’s capable of creating a website. Have I created balance, and if David Horowitz or Markos Moulitsas come to these sites, can they not complain that I have not obeyed the “spirit” of the law. Sure, they’re nominally left or right sites, but they’re written by loons. And wouldn’t Cass agree? Who will measure how well I’ve “balanced?” Messr. Sunstein, Horowitz or Moulitsas? And what if it’s the “wrong” left or right site, and does “Reason.com” count as Left or Right? What if my right site is NRO’s “The Corner” is that the correct kind of rightwing site, not if you’re David Brookes or Frum, can they complain? Do I have link to several rightwing/leftwing sites? Isn’t this rapidly becoming a burden on me as a blogger or website owner? Isn’t this “Chilling Effect?” What if I just say “Sod, off Sunstein?” Can Sunstein take me off the Interwebz? And that ISN’T censorship? When speaking freely becomes a burden, subject to government regulation yes, you are veering dangerously towards authoritarianism or Fascism.

AllenS said...

Obama then wouldn't be able to give any more speeches, unless he provided an opposing teleprompter?

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Nothing about that idea is attractive. But it is very far from fascism, totalitarian thought control or any of that."

It's not very far from it at all.

If a person can force you to link to ideas you abhor, they control you absolutely. Sunstein's entire purpose is gaming Google rankings for ideas that otherwise cannot gain traction. Pretty transparent really.

He knows full well most people will refuse, and can then be sanctioned and their ideas shut down completely legally.

It's a wonderfully fascist idea; it is not so abhorrent that people will die to protest it, but it pushes America just a little further down the road to complete Democrat Party thought control.

That's the key to the really good fascist ideas. The really good ideas can't push society so far that society rebels. The best fascist ideas merely inch us down the road to serfdom. Death, by a thousand tiny cuts.

Throw a frog into a boiling pot of water and he'll jump out. But place him in cool water and bring it ever so slowly warmer and warmer and he'll just sit there slowly cooking to perfection.

Sunstein is brilliant!

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Mr. Orwell had a word for it - doubleplusungood. And nobody speaks Newspeak better than the Haavahd types."

Some people were tasked to read 1984 and saw it as an ugly dystopian vision of our future.

Other people saw it as a user manual for how they'd like to run society once they take over.

Original Mike said...

"Who will measure how well I’ve “balanced?”"

The government. They're the only ones with the power to make you comply.

laurablanchard said...

I listened to the relevant part of the vlog. Sunstein appears to be walking back that "voluntary is a bit complicated" remark and instead suggesting that leading blogs and thoughtful readers can model appropriate behavior by linking and reading out of their comfort zones and not hyperventilating in the comments. Volokh commented that he was completely in agreement with Sunstein's remarks in that segment.

veni vidi vici said...

In my experience, people who enjoy "frissons" are almost to a man complete douchebags or flat-out scabbed grundles specked with colostomy bag splashover.

That's my take on "frissons" and the people who enjoy them.

Carry on.

Scott M said...

I think everyone is missing the point. There are more than just two sides on most issues. So...if you legislate this back-door fascism, you would have to provide for moderate links/pop-ups, radical left links/pop-ups, anarchist links/pop, Klingon links/pop-ups.

That's the biggest problem with the whole fairness doctrine thing. The heavy hand of government gets to pick who the sides are. That's a very short step from padding one side or the other in favor of those in control.

Given everything that's happened since the beginning of the year, geopolitically and otherwise, one gets the sense that the wheels are starting to come off the progressive-boomer wagon, but they're not going to go down without a fight.

Joe said...


instead suggesting that leading blogs and thoughtful readers can model appropriate behavior by linking and reading out of their comfort zones and not hyperventilating in the comments.


And what about hose benighted Heathens who won't see the light and link?

If you're not doing the right things, shouldn't we make you?

After all, it's not about YOU, it's about your readers! They might not be getting the whole picture!

turtle said...

No one has ever provided sufficient evidence Barry 0-Bambi either stupid or impotent... a Marxist, Statist, Anti-Constitutional Usurper; that's another story. But stupid and ineffectual, no.

What we have here is an on-going threat to liberty, freedom and the Republic, just as our forefathers predicted would happen. However, in their infinite wisdom they provided guidance: tear it all down and start over, we'll get our next opportunity 11/2/2010.

Joe said...


Klingon links/pop-ups


And is there something WRONG with a Klingon pop-up?

What do you have desire: you, your womon, your children and dog and over all flying the Federation Flag?

Or are you some greedy, dishonourable Romulan lover?

Original Mike said...

"There are more than just two sides on most issues. So...if you legislate this back-door fascism, you would have to provide for moderate links/pop-ups, radical left links/pop-ups, anarchist links/pop, Klingon links/pop-ups."

Ahh, but I'm sure the Dems and the Repubs could come to agreement on a law where the only required points of view reflect the positions of the Dems and the Repubs. In fact, I'm sure that's what would happen.

Seerak said...

So, is Glenn Reynolds no longer so sanguine about Sunstein, now that you've posted this on his own blog?

Or are you in for it when he gets back?

Just curious, as I was quite annoyed at Reynolds' frequent attempts for a while to deflect what were accurate criticisms of Sunstein from the right.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

Every day there is another small step taken towards complete societal control. Your car, your doctor, your food, the internet, ....on an on, inexorably.

Should the Democrats retain power, this is the direction we'll follow, losing one liberty after another, with coerced egalitarianism for all except the ruling elite.

The moderates that voted Obama and the Democrats into power are going to have to decide if this is what they want.

But they must recognize that with each poke in liberty's eye, they risk revolution. I very much doubt resistance will be minor.

Beth said...


He thinks it means something like equal time did; whereas it means each commercial carrier agrees to carry other carriers' traffic with equal priority.


rhhardin is correct. Net neutrality is about broadband access, not content.

Original Mike said...

@Seerak - Yeah, color me surprised. I didn't know much about Sunstein except for Reynolds mildly reassuring words that he wasn't as bad as some people think. I think Glenn has some splainin' to do.

Jared Rhoads said...

So since I run the Lucidicus Project, which helps med students learn about free markets, I suppose that under this scenario I would have to start an "Obfuscaticus Project" that praises socialized medicine and hands out Kant.

http://lucidicus.org

Gabriel Hanna said...

I got tired of eight years of "outrageous outrage of the day" from the Left and I don't like it much from the Right either.

It is good to know what people like Cass Sunstein really think. It's ggod focus attention on it. It's not good to call it the coming of fascism or whatever. How often did we hear that about everything Bush did or wanted to do or said? Or have we forgotten Diebold ("we're going to do what it takes" to deliver the election to Bush, when he was talk about fundraising, not voter fraud)?

The man was just talking. When people in the government start trying to implement this, then the outrageous outrage will be justified, but you might find, if you gin it up on petty bullshit, that when the time comes you don't have any left.

virgil xenophon said...

The bottom line is, as commentator PersonFromPorlock once put it, Cass wants to "march us all to virtue at bayonet point." These schemes ALWAYS boil down to the highly authoritarian/totalitarian.

SH said...

It gets more complicated considering this administration just lies in every debate... and since the media won't call them on it... the lie becomes truth Winston. Anyway, I think a lot of democrats don't realise what is going on because no MSM sources call the administration on their bs.... It started in the first few weeks with the BS about guns in Mexico being stolen ones from the US... and from there it continued on and on...

Joe said...


The man was just talking. When people in the government start trying to implement this, then the outrageous outrage will be justified,


I agree absolutely, I mean Mein Kampf just words... What is to be done? just words....

AllenS said...

Gabriel Hanna said...
I got tired of eight years of "outrageous outrage of the day" from the Left and I don't like it much from the Right either.

Isn't that the point Sunstein was trying to make? You are now getting the opposing side view point.

michaele said...

Many people like to discount him as a conspiracy obsessed clown but Glenn Beck has been playing these alarming quotes from Obama and his appointees for quite a while. On his TV show, Beck has played the Sunstein quote numerous times. Frankly, Beck has been way ahead of Rush and other conservative radio "stars" in this approach of using the libs' own words to reveal their play book.

Pogo said...

"When people in the government start trying to implement this, then the outrageous outrage will be justified, but you might find, if you gin it up on petty bullshit, that when the time comes you don't have any left."

Yeah, just let the party in power talk about the details of control over the US populace without comment. Don't complain until there's an actual bill in place.

Great plan.
Though that didn't work out so well for preventing the takeover of GM and the banks and the entire healthcare industry.

laurablanchard said...

Joe quotes me:

instead suggesting that leading blogs and thoughtful readers can model appropriate behavior by linking and reading out of their comfort zones and not hyperventilating in the comments.

And then comments:

And what about hose benighted Heathens who won't see the light and link?

If you're not doing the right things, shouldn't we make you?

After all, it's not about YOU, it's about your readers! They might not be getting the whole picture!


Joe (and others) -- Ann Althouse mentioned that she hadn't listened to the vloggingheads segment. I did and reported back on it. That's all. It's possible that over the course of nine years the man has changed his mind about the benefits of coerced fairness. On the other hand, the recent remarks may be so much camouflage. I am not attempting to decide.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

I agree absolutely, I mean Mein Kampf just words... What is to be done? just words...

Abolishing the First Amemndment would have stopped Hitler? Smart thinking, Godwin. Thanks for proving my point.

I don't believe you've read Mein Kampf. There's no master plan in there, just a lot of crazy talk. Mein Kampf was embarrassing to Hitler when he was in power because people expected him to have the same opinions he had then.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Pogo:

Though that didn't work out so well for preventing the takeover of GM and the banks and the entire healthcare industry.

They were going to pass TARP nine years ago? I'm WAY behind.

SH said...

"He thinks it means something like equal time did; whereas it means each commercial carrier agrees to carry other carriers' traffic with equal priority."

I think you are a little off. I think it means they will not throttle bandwidth sucking sites like torrents. Conservatives don't like this because it is putting the state in the middle of a private contract... and there are 'unforeseen consequences' (well, conservatives see them but lefties choose not to). Like, if bandwidth on your block is finite, one two jokers can hog it all if ISPs can limit bandwith based on use/s. The lefties refuse (like normal) to understand the downsides to their meddling.

SH said...

Gabriel Hanna said...

"The man was just talking. When people in the government start trying to implement this, then the outrageous outrage will be justified"

I'll take a middle ground. This is more substantial than many lefty outrages of the day (which, usually on inspection fell apart). Rather than outrage, we just better get organized now for the next election before they can do these things. Even the fairness doctrine is an outrage and the left has convinced themselves it is a good thing.

Joe said...

Mein Kampf was embarrassing to Hitler when he was in power because people expected him to have the same opinions he had then.

Really the book that made him a MILLIONAIRE embarrassed him? Want to cite any proof? And so, the whole need for lebensraum and hatred of the Jews, that wasn’t REALLY Hitler? Or in the book? Or an integral part of German Public Policy post-1933? News to me….

And “What is to be done” is not only a Russian novel…written by Lenin it lays out the basis for the CPSU, or did you forget that little bit of history? You know, according to Solzhenitsyn, Lenin used the word “Kill” many more times than Stalin? Had people READ and got outraged by Lenin or Hitler then there’d have been a lot less chance they’d have ever been in a position to act. 60 million folks later, we might have learned a small lesson.

GMay said...

"The man was just talking. When people in the government start trying to implement this, then the outrageous outrage will be justified, but you might find, if you gin it up on petty bullshit, that when the time comes you don't have any left."

True.

The idea of holding politicians accountable for "just talking" during their campaigns, or vetting political appointees by examining the things they've said and written about is just petty bullshit too.

Looks like having to react to people in government putting leftist policies in place against the will of the majority is really working out grand isn't it? But ya know, despite the fact that these people "talked" about the virtues of leftist philosophy before they were in place, it's just talk right?

Reaction is so much more effective in so many walks of life.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Gabriel, I see your point, but at the same time, I'd note that we are just talking, too. I don't think there's any problem with complaining and raising awareness of something that Sunstein's words indicate could become a problem. No one's trying to say he shouldn't be allowed to speak or anything like that.

- Lyssa

Alex said...

I think people should be compelled to volunteer!

Joe said...


I think people should be compelled to volunteer!



You and Colin Powell and my Catholic High School...

After all if you don't volunteer, we have to "nudge" you, via graduation requirements to colunteer.

Barry said...

Richard Dolan said:

'It's odd to hear the complaint that Sunstein was pushing a "fascist plan".'

Maybe it would help if you heard it like this (in a generic Nazi accent): "We have ways of making you consider both sides."

It's the leftist equivalent of forcing a woman considering an abortion view an ultrasound. You may be right that censorship is restricting a point of view, and this is just the opposite. So you may be right that censorship is not a proper word to use. And I don't know of an analog word for forcing someone to review information. But I'm damned if both sides of the coin don't look like InfoFascism to me.

Real American said...

how about every time Obama gives a speech, he has to inform his listeners that he's making straw man arguments, citing misleading statistics and/or otherwise lying through his teeth.

edutcher said...

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Mr. Orwell had a word for it - doubleplusungood. And nobody speaks Newspeak better than the Haavahd types."

Some people were tasked to read 1984 and saw it as an ugly dystopian vision of our future.

Other people saw it as a user manual for how they'd like to run society once they take over.


Hate to say it, but I think you've got something there.

WV "renest" What Mom and Dad do after the kids finally move out after moving back in. Preferably, to another country.

Joe said...

Maybe it would help if you heard it like this (in a generic Nazi accent): "We have ways of making you consider both sides."

That should read, “Vee haff vayz off making you zee both sidez.” Also, picture the Nazi Goon from “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” the one in the leather trench coat and glasses, with a cigarette cupped within his palm.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But before you do, think how you reacted to Larry Summers' exercise in thinking out loud, when he talked about gender-imbalance in the sciences and the reasons for it. He was pilloried (and worse) for thinking out loud, but he was just engaging in the same kind of adademic noodling about controversial matters on display here.

Um..nice try there but that's not even a close analogy unless of course I missed the part where Larry Summers thought Congress should hold hearings and mandate some kind of gender imbalance legislation that hit his academic noodling.

wv: micki - as in you're oh so fine you blow my mind

AJ Lynch said...

Sunstein has also recommended govt agencies plant stories and letters in newspapers to push back against non-govt opinion.

AJ Lynch said...

Of course, Sunstein's proposal could help the newspaper industry. Everytime a lib bought a NY Times, he'd be forced to buy a NY Post too.

And it would help MSNBC ratings as well. If you turn on the Fox News channel, they'd have to show Rachel Maddow in a split screen.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

Serenity, 2005

Richard Dolan said...

Hoosier Dad/Kirk Parker: There are lots of statutes (and more regulations) that take aim at gender imbalance in many contexts, including education. You are kidding yourselves if you don't think that Summers' ideas had legal or policy implications.

But neither Sunstein nor Summers was trying to impose anything on anyone. They were just two academics thinking out loud. The idea that Sunstein is a fascist is as ridiculous as the idea that Summers favored discriminating against women.

Some people need to learn to relax. As Gabriel H said above, all the outrageous outrage stuff is way over the top. It's enough to say that Sunstein's idea isn't any good, a conclusion with which he would probably agree.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe, getting off topic:

Really the book that made him a MILLIONAIRE embarrassed him? Want to cite any proof?

See Inside the Third Reich or Michael Burleigh's The Third Reich. Hitler expressed this view privately to his friends and confidantes. My copies of these books are at home and I'm not, so I can't give you chapter and verse.

The book made Hitler a millionaire because everyone had to buy it. Very few people actually read it, but most people knew generally what was in it.

The book was a farrago of crazy talk and Jew hate. You'd know it if you read it. There's no smoking gun or master plan in it. Just pages and pages of Hitler rambling (he dictated it). Mussolini described it as boring and full of cliches.

In Chapter 13 he declared a goal of alliance with Britain. How'd that work out?

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch13.html

Let's leave the topic. You want to know what's in the book, read it instead of reading about it.

Joe said...


a conclusion with which he would probably agree.


Really, would he? Care to find a recent quote where he repudiates it? Or where he says "The Nudge" was a silly idea, not worthy of America?

Joe said...


Let's leave the topic. You want to know what's in the book, read it instead of reading about it.


Yeah let's leave this topic because if we stay on it you're going to start looking silly, because the book may not have a master plan in it, it certainly lays bare Hitlers hatreds and desire for war and a Greater Germany. But of course, no one REALLY believed he meant it, he just wrote about it, but never meant to implement it.

Btw, Hitler is never on record, before or after 1933 discussing the Holocaust, either. He mentioned, in passing, to his firends and confidantes that they were merely shipping the Jews off to sandy wastelands. So what Hitler said to his confidantes isn't exactly going to be something I'd take to the bank as truth.

And after he wrote it, and then began to implement it, had did the smart people react? Did they THEN get outrageously outraged, or didn't a large set of the intelligentsia become enthralled with it?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Dad/Kirk Parker: There are lots of statutes (and more regulations) that take aim at gender imbalance in many contexts, including education.

Such as?

You are kidding yourselves if you don't think that Summers' ideas had legal or policy implications.

Could you point to the part where Summers thought it would be nifty for Congress to hold hearings to see about having a legal mandate to ensure those gender imbalances are maintained?

But neither Sunstein nor Summers was trying to impose anything on anyone.

...but the word "voluntary" is a little complicated, and sometimes people don't do what's best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it.

Dunno but Sunstein seems quite amenable to having Congress impose since voluntary is a complicated thing.

Some people need to learn to relax.

Well you'll have to forgive those of us who still cling to the outdated belief that we don't need the State or some 'academic' dictating what alternative viewpoints we need to be aware of.

cluepundit said...

Sunstein may have back-tracked, but he only did so for strategic purposes. He takes a different tack now, proposing "cognitive infiltration" by government agents of groups that espouse politically incorrect conspiracy theories, like global warming is a fraud, so they can be re-educated. See his 2008 White Paper Conspiracy Theories and his 2010 book On Rumors.

More here:

http://cluepundit.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/casssunstein/

cluepundit said...

Sorry, link got trimmed. Trying again.

http://cluepundit.wordpress.com
2010/05/17/casssunstein/

TellerIP said...

Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because ALL US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens, and Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows.

The citizenship of parents has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status if the child was born in the USA. Every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen. That is why Obama was confirmed unanimously by the US Congress, and that is why he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

And after he wrote it, and then began to implement it, had did the smart people react? Did they THEN get outrageously outraged, or didn't a large set of the intelligentsia become enthralled with it?

Hitler didn't begin to implement anything in the book until he had MILLIONS OF VOTES for doing so. Just like the Dems couldn't pass the health care bill until they got millions of votes.

Hitler didn't fall out of the sky into dictatorship. His party got elected to Parliament, the President appointed him Chancellor, and when millions of people began to agree with him and the President died he was able to do stuff like change the constitution by decree.

How does any of this compare with Cass Sunstein? It doesn't. That's why I think you should tone down the rhetoric.

When the Left did this outrageous outrage thing to Bush, reasonable people tuned them out.

Something dumb Sunstein said nine years ago and you rave about fascism. It makes you look paranoid and stupid, just like it would for a Leftist in 2008 raving about something Dick Cheney had said nine years before that was going to lead to fascism.

Stop and listen to yourself.

Or crank it up to eleven and prove my point for me by nattering about Hitler.

Joe said...


Or crank it up to eleven and prove my point for me by nattering about Hitler.


By suggesting we examine what a man says to be representative of what he MEANS TO DO?

And mayhap if people had read what Hitler or Lenin wrote the would might have been a somewhat better place.

Prolly not, of course, because so many liked what they read or approved of it....


So back to Cass, so Sunstein has REPUDIATED this speech?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

By suggesting we examine what a man says to be representative of what he MEANS TO DO?

Obama clearly intends to create seven more states. After all, he clearly said "fifty-seven" states, and he's never repudiated it!

Prolly not, of course, because so many liked what they read or approved of it....

Exactly. Words are words. Deeds are deeds. Thoughts are thoughts. Off-the-cuff remarks are not equivalent to the coming of fascism, repudiated or not.

When fascism comes, it will be because a plurality of Americans want it and can intimidate the rest, not because a lawyer said something nine years ago.

Stephen said...

Professor Althouse:

Why post this without bothering to sort it out? Sunstein published the proposal and later took it back, going so far as to write a new book to correct the error. It appears that Limbaugh cited the interview as showing Sunstein's current view (false on the available evidence, unless Sunstein is engaged in an elaborate hoax); (b) as showing Kagan's view (there is zero evidence for this and it is inconsistent with her first amendment scholarship; (c) as an example of net neutrality (false and betraying an astonishing ignorance). So why play it the way you did? Feels as though you are moving too fast...

Pogo said...

"Off-the-cuff remarks are not equivalent to the coming of fascism, repudiated or not."

This has been a pattern with Sunstein. His book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution--And Why We Need It More Than Ever is filled with the same sort of socialist FDR crap.

He's not making some one-off remark; this is classic Sunstein paternalism.

SH said...

TellerIP said...

"and Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows."

That is fine and dandy... but point of fact, none of us (you included) has seen the birth certificate. :)

I think he probably (as in 90%) was born in Hawaii and is just with holding the certificate so his opponents act like they're insane over the issue... but the fact is none of us has seen the birth certificate. Read between the lines on the fact checking sites... he released the short form 'certificate of live birth'... which is not a birth certificate.

c3 said...

Quietly terrifying.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@SH:

he released the short form 'certificate of live birth'... which is not a birth certificate.

It fulfills all the legal requirements of a birth certificate and the State that issues it attests that it is a legal abstract of the birth certificate. When you apply for a passport, or a green card for your wife, or get a marriage license, or enlist in the military, or fill out a W-4, they accept your certificate of live birth.

Birthers make much of the distinction because they want to confuse the issue.

Mick said...

TellerIP said,
"Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because ALL US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens, and Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows."

Ah, There's the Obama licking Obfuscator crowd! Trotting out the Constitutional wisdom of Hatch and Graham, like it really means anything (but it was spoken by "Republicans!") Since When is any child born in the US a Natural Born Citizen?
Here I'll give you the list of places that say that a Natural Born Citizen is born in a country of parents who are it's citizens, and you give me your list that says simple birth in the US makes one eligible to be POTUS. OK here goes.
1) Vattel's "Law of Nations"
2)John Bingham (who wrote the 14th Amendment) definition from 1866.
3)The Venus (1814) SCOTUS
4)Dred Scott (1854) SCOTUS
5) Minor v. Happersett (1874) SCOTUS
6)Wong Kim Ark (1898) SCOTUS
7)Perkins v. Elg (1934) SCOTUS

And that's just getting started. THERE ARE NO SCOTUS cases that define it as any less.

I know that you will trot out the usual Obama Bridgetender nonsense, since you already sound exactly like smrstrauss, and whatever one may learn here is certainly not for your benefit. If Obama were caught tag teaming a goat with Osama Bin Laden in a cave, and the picture was on the cover of the NYT, you would still lick his balls.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html

Fen said...

It fulfills all the legal requirements of a birth certificate

Agreed. But its not a birth certifiate. When asked by the media to provide a birth certificate, why did he give them a "certificate of live birth" instead?

I don't care about the issue, I'm more interested in the rest of Obama's background thats been covered up.

And I can understand that a candidate merely has to provide a "certificate of live birth" to meet the legal requirement. I'm just curious why Obama refuses to show his birth cerificate. Did he lose it?

Mick said...

Gabriel Hanna said,
"Birthers make much of the distinction because they want to confuse the issue."

I matters not WHERE Obama was born (although it may, since a pic on a biased website is proof of nothing).
He admited that he wasn't a Natural Born Citizen on Fight the Smears when he admitted that, at birth, his citizenship was "governed" by Britain (he was a dual citizen, since his father was Kenyan). Natural Born Citizens are born fully within the jurisdiction of the US. Britain had a claim of jurisdiction, so there is NO WAY he can be a Natural Born Citizen.

He wouldn't be natural Born if he were born in JFK's lap in the oval office.

Just so you know, either is McCain (born in Colon, Panama, and subject to that country's jurisdiction as a dual citizen from birth until age 18.)

Fen said...

Something dumb Sunstein said nine years ago and you rave about fascism.

9 years ago means nothing for an adult. If it was something he said as an undergrad, you would have a point.

But that argument wont work for a 56 year-old who said "something dumb" at age 47.

Mick said...

Fen said...
"It fulfills all the legal requirements of a birth certificate

Agreed. But its not a birth certifiate. When asked by the media to provide a birth certificate, why did he give them a "certificate of live birth" instead?"

It's beside the point, since it doesn't matter WHERE birth occured, by Obama's own admission. But at the bottom of the COLB it says it serves as "Prima Fascia evidence", so it is certainly not the final word. And since when is a pic on a biased website evidence of anything? If that were my COLB, and I wanted a Passport based on it, I couldn't just whip out my laptop and a letter from the Hi. DOH, and say there it is! It's utter nonsense, and I'm surprised that Prof. Althouse doesn't make ammends for voting for him by helping to throw him out.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Fen:

When asked by the media to provide a birth certificate, why did he give them a "certificate of live birth" instead?

If I asked you for a "birth certificate" or you asked me for one, the "certificate of live birth" is all I could give you.

That one the hospital gave your mom with your feet on it? That's not it.

I know something about this because I was adopted by my father when I was two. My "birth certificate" has his name on it even though my mother hadn't met him yet. Glenn Hanna is my LEGAL father, the courts said so in 1978. And my birth certificate says so. I have never seen the "original"; if it exists it's in an archive in Olympia. Nobody has ever asked to see it and I have no idea how I would access it.

Obama may or may not have the power to "release" his "birth certificate", but by not doing so, he allows his opponents to discredit themselves. They won't be satisfied with any level of proof any more than Troofers would be, anyway.

Same reason Bush didn't try to refute anything in Farenheit 9/11--nothing to be gained by engaging, best let your opponents froth at the mouth and sound obviously crazy like our resident birthers.

@Mick:

"Prima Fascia evidence", so it is certainly not the final word.

Get a goddamned dictionary.

a case that is supported by sufficient evidence for it to be taken as proved in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

In other words, unless you can prove to a court that Obama was born somewhere else, no court will listen to you after having seen his certificate of live birth.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Fen:

A bit more on my situation. The law in Washington State says that when you are adopted, the state gives you a new birth certificate with your adoptive parents on it. (I think you can opt out of this now.) My "original" birth certificate is actually invalid under state law.

See what controversies would come up if I ran for President (besides the things I'd say and do)?

Now do you see why the COLB thing is so bogus? It has no legal relevance.

Fen said...

Now do you see why the COLB thing is so bogus? It has no legal relevance.

I don't care abour the legal relevance. What is anyone going to do now if its discovered Obama is wasn't born in the US? Impeach? Unlikely.

I think its a distraction from all the other background info on Obama thats been hidden from us.

Fen said...

My "original" birth certificate is actually invalid under state law.

But if CNN needed it for a story vetting you for POTUS, you would give them permission to track it down, yes?

If not, why not?

Mick said...

Gabriel Hanna said,

"Prima Fascia evidence", so it is certainly not the final word.

Get a goddamned dictionary.

a case that is supported by sufficient evidence for it to be taken as proved in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

In other words, unless you can prove to a court that Obama was born somewhere else, no court will listen to you after having seen his certificate of live birth."


As usual, as with all of your ilk , you ignore the crux of the argument, which is that no matter WHERE birth occured he is ineligible because his alien father bestowed British citizenship upon him at birth. Yet you throw around the "i'm smarter than you" argument, which is really funny. The fact that it is Prima Fascia evidence means that it is not conclusive in the face of other evidence which MAY be available (we don't know what that is). Regardless, he has alresdy admitted his ineligibility.

Mick said...

Gabriel Hanna said,

"Obama may or may not have the power to "release" his "birth certificate", but by not doing so, he allows his opponents to discredit themselves. They won't be satisfied with any level of proof any more than Troofers would be, anyway."


No what it does is shield the fact of his ineligibility that is hiding in plain sight, That is that he was born with dual allegiances (dual citizen of Britain). Natural Born Citizens are born "naturally" the citizen of their birth country because both their parents are citizens of that country. There are no competing allegiances. Obama possessed British Citizenship until 1983 (by the British Naturalization Act of 1981, which replaced the BNA 1948). He traveled to Pakistan (a Brit. Commonwealth, in 1981 (at the age of majority then). Did he travel to Pakistan on a British Passport, thereby swearing a citizenship oath to Britain? If so, he may be a British Citizen to this day. It would have certainly made for easier travel to Pakistan than on a US Passport. Why are we not allowed to know?

Mick said...

Gabriel Hanna said...
@Fen:

"A bit more on my situation. The law in Washington State says that when you are adopted, the state gives you a new birth certificate with your adoptive parents on it. (I think you can opt out of this now.) My "original" birth certificate is actually invalid under state law."

So... if you wanted to get a passport you would just whip out your laptop and show them a picture of it? They would be OK w/ that?
The typical argument of your ilk though, trying to make a point or a law by ancedote. Such a mindless little gaggle of Marxists.

Brian said...

From an article in Slate, I understand the only body with standing to remove Obama from office for being ineligible due to a citizenship issue would be congress. It simply won't happen. Obama's been sworn in, and the S.C. can't remove the duly elected POTUS.

Even if Republicans took over both houses of Congress, they won't do it. They'd rather beat him in an election.

A.G. said...

Why has this thread been highjacked by a bunch of birthers? Can we stick to the real issue, please?

Like the fact that our POTUS has 16 different social security numbers...

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Fen:

But if CNN needed it for a story vetting you for POTUS, you would give them permission to track it down, yes?

If not, why not?


1) In a closed adoption, the State cannot reveal my birth parents even to me. That's the law. It protects the privacy of whoever gave the baby up, and in the days of the stigma attached to unwed mothers you can see why. I could certainly ask my natural father if it's okay, and maybe somehow we could find a procedure to release that information, but I do not know if one exists.

If people like Mick are right, adopted people can't legally be President even though neither Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln had birth certificates.

2) There is nothing in the Constitution about birth certificates or a CNN vetting process, so

3) Like Sarah Palin in Trig, I'd tell them to go to hell. Also it would leave them looking stupid.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Mick:

So... if you wanted to get a passport you would just whip out your laptop and show them a picture of it? They would be OK w/ that?

The county courthouse printed a copy of the form, and stamped it, and I mailed it to them.

Are you saying Barack Obama has to mail a copy of it to you? Does he have to show up in person?

Do you see now why you're crazy?

The typical argument of your ilk though, trying to make a point or a law by ancedote. Such a mindless little gaggle of Marxists.

The point of the anecdote is to show that most people don't know much about birth certficates. Adopted people do.

I have only ever voted for Republicans my entire life, but I'm a Marxist because you're crazy?

Have you noticed that every topic, no matter what it is, you can only talk about one thing?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Fen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate

In the United States and Canada, when a person is legally adopted, the government will seal the original birth certificate, and will issue a replacement birth certificate noting the information of the adoptive parents, and the adoptive names of the child. In those cases, adopted individuals are not granted access to their own original birth certificates upon request. Laws vary depending on state or province. Some places allow adopted people unrestricted access to their own original birth certificates, whereas in others the certificate is available only if the biological parents have given their permission. Other places do not allow adopted people access to their own original birth certificates under any circumstances.

Do you see the problem with requiring the "original" birth certificate? Some citizens cannot get it at all, through no fault of their own.

Paul said...

Well Woody Allen did say Obama should have dictatorial powers for a few years.... And Obama believes it. No need for all that confusing free speech. The other side should really shut up and sit down, or else…

Mick said...

Brian said,

" Obama's been sworn in, and the S.C. can't remove the duly elected POTUS."

The SCOTUS doesn't have to REMOVE him, but they can decide if he is eligible. Then Congress and Obama would have to Act I would think. And there is a way to Constitutionally remove him. Only by Quo Warranto in the DC district Court. It is mandatory that he be removed, so as not to set any precedents that will affect the sovereignty and security of this country. If he is removed, anything he signed will be null and void--that's the other beneficial effect

Mick said...

Gabriel Hanna (in full Alinskyan mode),

(First the straw man)
"Are you saying Barack Obama has to mail a copy of it to you? Does he have to show up in person?"


No, but since there is much doubt as to his provenance, he should have to produce it to Congress, just like they made McCain do it. They made John McCain, a war hero, produce his. The Senate declared in Resolution 511 that McCain was a Natural Born Citizen because BOTH PARENTS were US Citizens. The part they got wrong was that The certificate said he was born in Colon, Panama, which gave citizenship at that time by Jus soli. Since McCain was born with 2 allegiances (Panamanian, US) he is NOT A Natural Born Citizen. Obama, the devil spawn of a den of Communists, doesn't have to show anything?

(Then the ridicule)
"Do you see now why you're crazy?"

(Then more of the lie and obfuscation)

"The point of the anecdote is to show that most people don't know much about birth certficates. Adopted people do."


There is no point to the ancedote. I'm not talking about GH (Lefties have a highly inflated sense of ego, bordering on Delusians of Grandeur), I'm talking about the President. The BC would be necessary (with all records therein that Hi. posseses, such as changes) to verify that Barack Obama Sr. indeed was his father. If that fact is verified, then he is already ineligible, since his father was Kenyan, and by jus sanguines and the British Nationalization Act of 1948 (replaced by the BNA 1981), he was born a dual citizen, with dual allegiances and is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Why do you not want to counter this argument and focus on the BC? Because you know that is the real issue. The BC is only for verification.

"Have you noticed that every topic, no matter what it is, you can only talk about one thing?"


Mostly. Because it is the ONLY THING. Everything that Obama has done, including Usurping the office can be viewed through the lens of allegiance. His lack of allegiance to this country and it's Constitution are horrifyingly apparent. Allegiance to country and prevention of foreign influence were the reason for the NBC requirement. The founders fears are "coming home to roost". This is the most important Constitutional issue of our lifetimes.

Mick said...

Gabriel Hanna said,

"If people like Mick are right, adopted people can't legally be President even though neither Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln had birth certificates."



Still trying to obfuscate with the BC issue. We could just rely on the story Obama has told, and the admissions he has made, like this one at "Fight the Smears":
http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”


If we rely soley on that story, then he is INELIGIBLE, NOT a Natural Born citizen. We the people will give him the benefit of the doubt (especially since, in reading carefully, that statement above NEVER directly admits that BO Sr. is his biological father). If BO Sr. is indeed his father then he is not a Natural Born Citizen (not an indigenous citizen).

Mick said...

Gabriel Hanna said,

"2) There is nothing in the Constitution about birth certificates or a CNN vetting process, so"


(Of course, more Obfuscation)

Maybe, but there is a little requirement in A2S1C4,5 that the POTUS be a Natural Born Citizen. The understanding of that term by the founders and the SCOTUS over time is Born in the US of US Citizen Parentsssss.

Dear readers do you notice how GH totally avoids the citizenship via parentage issue. it is because they know that this is Obama's achilles heal. NOWhere in the MSM will they allow the dual citizenship at birth issue to come forward. Continually they will shield it with the Alinskyan ridicule tactic, saying the "birthers" are crazy. If this issue were talked about suscinctly on National TV all heads within this administration and it's sychophants would explode.

If that happens, where will Althouse and Volokh (the Constitutional wonderboy) have been? Cowardly not talking about the dual citizenship at birth issue for fear of the "Birther" ridicule? Can they be Constitutional Law professors if they don't know the meaning and significance of A2S1C4,5? Will they come out with the "I knew it al along?"