.jpg)
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
Just when you thought America and her citizens had suffered enough abuse from federal fraudsters demanding that We The People must give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, an ominous doom-cloud looms to further cheat Americans of those sunny rays that are freedom in America - the cloud's name? Cass Sunstein. In this post we will examine his paper "Conspiracy Theories" and contrast some snippets from the paper with videos demonstrating the misrepresentations the paper portrays regarding the 911 Truth Movement and what it stands for.
Wikipedia has a bio on Sunstein:
" Cass R. Sunstein (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School,[1] where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration."
So we have another Constitutional Scholar working for We The People in addition to President Obama. Perhaps this "Constitutional Scholar" will go a step further and actually work to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Just the opposite.
Sunstein co-wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories" with Adrian Vermeule. The paper can be downloaded HERE. The co-author is identified in the paper as a Professor of Law at Harvard and will be referred to as "the other guy" since he deserves no respect. That isn't to say Sunstein does but since he will be working for the Constitutional Scholar in the White House I focus on him.
To get started please listen to the founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) , Richard Gage AIA, at the 5:41 mark respond when he is asked for a theory as to who he thinks is behind the attacks of 911 if the official story is false. This follows his discussion of evidence from the crime scene that does not support the official hypothesis - in fact - it supports a hypothesis the 911 commission refused to consider - controlled demolition. Pay special attention to the fact that he doesn't start with a conspiracy theory - he starts with a discussion of evidence and resists the urge to jump to conclusions or "conspiracy theories."
Now that you've had a chance to see one member of the 911 Truth movement speak for himself let's examine some excerpts from Sunstein's paper paying special attention to the disconnect between the picture Sunstein paints of "Conspiracy Theorists" and the reality that is the 911 Truth movement he so desperately, and in vain tries to vilify.
Page 2: "Among sober-minded Canadians, a September 2006 poll found that 22 percent believe that "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans. In a poll conducted in seven Muslim countries, 78 percent of respondents said that they do not believe the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the U.S. or Israeli governments. What causes such theories to arise and spread?"
Has it ever dawned on Sunstein that discrepancies between the evidence and the explanation given for events would cause such theories to arise and spread? Apparently he's thought of everything under the sun except for this possibility.
Page 3: "Our main ...focus...involves conspiracy theories relating to terrorism, especially theories that arise from and post-date the 9/11 attacks. These theories exist within the United States and, even more virulently, in foreign countries, especially Muslim countries."
May I point out the authors forgot to mention Denmark and Australia as countries where 911 Truth has blossomed? Note that Muslims this and Muslims that. Don't leave out the Muslims. It's crazy people and Muslims - that's all you need to know. Let me know when you see the crazy fanatical conspiratorial-Muslim people Sunstein needs to rob of their rights as you watch the videos below.
DENMARK
Professor in chemistry Niels Harrit and Jakob Hede Madsen interviewed on TV2 - Denmarks largest TV channel:
AUSTRALIA
Richard Gage AIA and Jan Utzon of Sydney Opera House discuss 9/11 truth:
The authors wonder what gives rise to such "Conspiracy Theories." Notice so far that there is no "conspiracy theory" posited by the 911 Truth movement - although after examining the evidence they point out that it contradicts the 911 Commission official conspiracy theory conclusions, and lend support to an alternative hypothesis - controlled demolition. Below is a video you may be familiar with. Another person Sunstein needs to silence?
I can understand why our Harvard Law Professors, guardians of the Bill of Rights and Constitution want to silence citizen-researchers like Richard Gage AIA of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. In the following video from Canadian television Gage discusses specifics and hard facts (none of which appear in Sunstein's sciolistic scarefest white paper) like "fuel air ratios" "hydrocarbon" and "iron-rich microspheres" - incantations too fantastic for our Harvard Professors to grasp. Is this why they view members of the 911 Truth movement as witches to be preemptively silenced before they can practice their witchcraft otherwise known as the scientific method?
Other facts discussed in these videos, like the melting point of structural steel, or that no steel-framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to office fires - puzzles demanding investigation escape our Constitutional Scholars from Harvard. As Omniscient Law Professors from the illustrious Harvard University one would think they could grasp the importance of such sober concerns coming from an architect. Nope - they see terrorists they can't debate in public that must be silenced.
Go to time= 8:41 in the video below-listen to what Gage says when pressed to state a conspiracy theory - HE DOESN'T POSIT ONE. So exactly what/which "Conspiracy Theory" are Sunstein (and the other guy) referring to in their paper? Read their paper - it contains only generalizations. Gage does later talk about directions the investigation might take in light of the evidence collected - of course hypotheses will sprout - but the difference between Gage and what our Harvard geniuses misrepresent him and others as - is that Gage considers alternate hypotheses the official 911 Commission and other government investigators chose to ignore. He puts it simply: "Let the chips fall where they may."
"We bring forward the forensic-based science"
And by the way - for a couple of Harvard professors that like throwing the word "Epistemology" around it is ironic that the recommendations proposed in their sanctimonious "Conspiracy Theory" paper would also quash the Socratic method as a means of finding truth. It is no wonder, with American institutions often following the leadership of the great Harvard University; that with philistines like Sunstein and the other guy in prominent positions that our justice system is a travesty.
Later in the paper Sunstein (and the other guy) speciously draw a link between the thought-mechanisms that make people consider "Conspiracy Theories" and "Anger and Hatred." This is the set-up to start calling dissenters terrorists obviously. Translation - critical thinking skills are bad. Blind faith is good.
So lemme guess - that's the reason he needs to send out secret police and internet shills to ridicule, torment and attack with twisted logic those participating in the grass-roots-led investigation that is the 911 Truth movement. He considers all kinds of problems the government faces when faced with the possibility that a "false conspiracy theory" is spreading. Since he and other wise men can intuitively identify a "false conspiracy theory" they will protect us from ourselves by employing agents by night, infiltrators, and shills to disrupt the process by which the rest of us arrive at truth - evidence - science - debate - questioning. Never explained in the paper is how the rest of us can identify "false conspiracy theories" like Sunstein can without examining evidence and applying the scientific method - perhaps the concept is similar to the divine right of kings?
I am a bit surprised that a Harvard Law Professor doesn't leap at the opportunity to publicly debate a bunch of whackos like architect Richard Gage AIA or a plebian like Jack Rabbit. Why can't he use his impenetrable Harvard logic, scientific method, and Harvard debating skills to discredit people who he pretends don't have their facts straight?
Or does he know how to pick his fights - and knows the only way to stop a movement with the truth behind it is by corrupting the very laws that provide the citizens with the checks and balances on their government. The checks and balances that make a free society capable of dispelling myth through open debate - a society that can stop witchhunts because logic and reason rule over fear mongering and emergency measures that rob us of our liberty? Consider this snippet from this autocratically-minded soon-to-be-advisor-to-the-president's paper:
Page 3: "When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple information sources, and they are more likely to accept conspiracy theories.
...later
In a closed society, secrets are not difficult to keep, and distrust of officialaccounts makes a great deal of sense. In such societies, conspiracy theories are both more likely to be true and harder to show to be false in light of available information. But when the press is free, and when checks and balances are in force, government cannot easily keep its conspiracies hidden for long. ...But it does mean that institutional checks make it unlikely, in such societies, that powerful groups can keep dark secrets for extended periods, at least if those secrets involve important events with major social salience."
Thanks professor - for once I agree with you - so why instead of protecting our liberties, the primary function of our Republic, do you propose the opposite?:
Page 14: "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"
Note: The authors from Harvard seem unaware that the 911 Commission Report is itself a conspiracy theory. Completely omitted is that the facts that have been uncovered by scientists, architects, engineers, pilots etc. linked on the left side of this blog question the conclusions of the official 911 report based on an overwhelming body of evidence. Wesley Clark is a member of Patriots Question 911 Truth - do the Harvard Professors intend to 'cognitively infiltrate' Wes Clark's conspiracy group? Which of the following actions they forward would they recommend for a former head of NATO?
Page 14: " We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
1. Government might ban conspiracy theorizing."
Note: OK so although the geniuses from Harvard know an open society is the best protection against misguided government secrecy they make this proposal banning free speech - which is an inalienable right. A Harvard Law Professor? Send this clown back to school - somewhere else!
Page 14:
"2. Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
Note: By "such theories" Sunstein means those that he and others blessed with special DNA can instinctively tell are "false conspiracy theories" - such as the one he imagines is held by the 911 Truth movement. See above videos where Gage distinctly states that he doesn't have a complete theory. Gage uses an analogy describing the 911 Truth movement as that of a detective who after walking into a room, finds a body and several shell casings. The detective doesn't need a complete theory to perform a thorough investigation. The detective, in order to find perpetrator/s must consider ALL hypotheses, not just the hypothesis Harvard Law Pontiffs anoint, and letting the scientific method and good police work lead to the truth.
Page 14:
" 3. Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories."
Note: Methinks Sunstein protests too much. Counterspeech as he describes is already impemented. But the government agents will lose this battle because when one argues against the truth one ultimately must rely on logical fallacies which are self-defeating.
Page 14:
" 4. Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech"
Note: They already are but they are running into the same problems stated in paragraph above. Radio and TV personalities are backing away from these tactics because they backfire when the truth comes out - ratings drop - TV and Radio shills lose credibility.
Page 14:
" 5. Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. ... our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of 3, 4, and 5.
Page 22:
" Government agents (and their allies) 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. "
Note: The Harvard Law Professor's 29 page paper "Conspiracy Theory" defines 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."
So let me get this straight: Harvard Law Professor is proposing government sanctioned conspiratorial acts directed at the 911 Truth Movement while simultaneously proposing that people who know that their government commits conspiratorial acts are "dangerous" and must be pre-emptively silenced.
Page 16:
"According to an anonymous State Department official in charge of anti-disinformation, "a great deal of harm can result 'when people believe these lies and then act on the basis of their mistaken beliefs.' "
Note: This is great information from Sunstein - and I wish to add that I have information from an anonymous State Department official too! I was told by this anonymous top secret source that there are some Harvard Law Professors with absolutely no respect for the United States Constitution committed to the employment of scare tactics to trample on the Bill of Rights.
Page 29:
" Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so."
Note: I wonder how having a debate about a conspiracy or not is a bigger risk to democratic debate than the proposals this goof from Harvard is proposing?
Finally:
Consider this excerpt from John Adams' book "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America against the attack of M. Turgot"
Considering his interpretation of what our Founding Fathers intended for our Republic, and his portrayal of the 911 Truth movement - do you think Sunstein has good judgement? Do you think he will be a champion of your liberties? Do you think he gives good advice? Does it seem like he thinks he is better than you?
---Note: On Feb 17, 2010 I found the clip below deleted from my blog for some mysterious reason - let me try adding it again - It's from the book mentioned above:
"make our comparison with England and the English constitution Our people are undoubtedly sovereign all the landed and other property is in the hands of the citizens not only their representatives but their senators and governors are annually chosen there are no hereditary titles honours offices or distinctions the legislative executive and judicial powers are carefully separated from each other the powers of the one the few and the many are nicely balanced in their legislatures trials by jury are preserved in all their glory and there is no standing army the habeas corpus is in full force the press is the most free in the world and where all these circumstances take place it is unnecessary to addt that the laws alone ean govern "
----let me try adding the dangerous words of John Adams one more time - Feb 17, 2010
-------
-------------
BONUS VIDEO-Sunstein wants to kill the 2nd Amendment too!
George Washington said:
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. " -what part of that doesn't Sunstein understand?
-----------------
Bonus Video 2
---------------
Update Jan 18, 2010 Alex Jones discusses Sunstein's radical views in this audio
UPDATE Jan 19, 2010 The 911Truth-Blind U.S. Corporate Media: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE
UPDATE JAN 27, 2010 Hey Cass you stupid Ass put Oliver Stone on your list
--------------
UPDATE FEB 2, 2010 Wesley Snipes acquitted of federal tax fraud
Actor also not guilty of conspiracy but convicted for failing to file returns
NOTE: FALSE CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT - WARNING WILL ROBINSON - Quick - somebody call Harvard Law Professor and Constitutional Scholar and Obama advisor CASS SUNSTEIN (am I supposed to address this 1st Amendment denier as "Doctor?-apologies in advance ...
...find out who the law enforcement people are who came up with this "false conspiracy theory" - infiltrate their "conspiracy group" and tax them.
------------
This article relinked because somebody deleted the John Adams quote originally inserted.
ReplyDelete