Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech - No More Opinions on Current?

First of all, if the govt. is so worried about "conspiracy theories" then they should open up all of the "time sensitive/not to be opened until this generation is well in their graves" National Archives sensitive material bull-shit policy. This is what propogates conspiracy "theories...And by the way, I believe anyone that is in possession of A "BRAIN" and with even 10% of the facts of the case full well knows that the JFK tragedy was A full conspiracy and the word "Theory" attached to this coup-d-etat is laughable at best. Our government and "Big Vietnam War Business" along with the Federal Reserve Elitist Industrialists orchestrated the murder of this fine man and this Nation has been going to shit every since. People should have been rioting and revolting for the truth. If this would have happened 6 to ten years later my generation of the sixties would may have forced the governments hand for full disclosure and the Viet Nam War may well have been stopped in its tracks....
As far as Obama and this minion goes, I didn't expect much change from the strart. Presidents are hand picked by the big power brokers. Our Democracy was exchanged for A Plutocracy long ago. Even if the people come close to getting the President they think they want, all it takes is for those 5 supreme court corporate stooges to step in and trash our Constitution and "Appoint" their chosen man...Ralph Nader, Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich were not even allowed to debate in the two party picks run off. What A joke.
With America all dumbed down by the corporate owned media and Universities and people so busy working extra hours just to survive I don't see much hope for the future of this country. These wall street fucks and their bought and paid for politicians have the common man and woman just where they have planned for us to be. Nothing short of A REVOLUTION will change this.....

monkey_films and wearechangeky keep up the good work because they sure as hell aint gonna stop tryna discredit that good data that yall are droppin.....i just wish more people were as brave as you 2 and would speak up
thx

Conniepae said: WeAreChangeKy, you have changed 'who he is caring for'. Now you say he is still taking care of his mother? Here is his 'original' comment about who he was caring for: **bking I would love to fill you in, and will either on this post or directly. However, been up all night with a sick little brother and he's asleep now so I will be too soon, lol.** He was up all night with a sick 'little brother', not his 'mother'. We have been bantering with a child. I stopped responding, because I realized he was a child wanting attention. It's bad enough when adults act like children, ignoring facts. But, children can't remember a time in America before 'Republicans and media' were able to say anything, regardless of facts. Some children think facts don't matter. All they have to do is say it, then get all 'Rovian' when people try to answer their spin. Karl Rove would be proud of his little 'brown shirt'.

Thank you for showing how insensitive, inconsiderate and uncaring you are. Your biased opinion, deflection of the facts, fraternity 'gang' politics and blatant liberal bias gives journalism a bad name. This site is geared towards younger, liberal audiences but blatant CoIntel by Democrats on any subject that sheds Obama in a bad light, even if it is true, makes the credibility no better than Fox News. This is why nobody in my organization, nor myself, believe in partisan politics so you can keep you right wing name calling to yourself. You are the ones guilty of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity style debate techniques. This may be fun, to you, and creative, but it is in no way a viable way to seek truth and knowledge.

For you information, not that it's any of your business, I am 44 years old, my brother has Downs Syndrome and has a flu, he gave it to my mother which went into pneumonia and then into a heart attack. I have a lot to deal with but don't you worry, I will work together with WeAreChangeKY to put your nonsense to an end. Thanks for 'caring'.

V said:If Obama is violating the constitution in your opinion, ok, state your case- but it's certainly not in the way of "banning the free speech" of conspiracy theorists or anyone else since nothing in that paper has been put into legislation or policy. /// So, you admit that this man talks of these issues just that they have not been put into legislation yet. The whole point of the article is that if this man has these beliefs, should he be allowed to be put in that position? We are the United States of America and we should not have someone who believes in using illegal subversion techniques to infiltrate web groups, chat groups, newsrooms and to 'possibly' to censor opinions the government doesn't agree with. If this ever happens, a large portion of the populace is going to revolt.

Well, before I could prepare to put up my information I found this post on Current which completely agrees with the Headline and Body of Monkey's story. This is enough to settle the situation here and put your disinformation and lies to rest, but, I plan to post the rest of our investigation later on anyhow. Good day.

http://current.com/12mt44c

slarabee said: Wow WeAreDeludedArentWe Good luck with your mission. Let me know when you have found the data that backs up your rhetoric and propaganda//// Your incessant rambling on this post should have been silenced by the other posts I have put up in the last few days. However, if I must silence your childish rantings and denial of fact on this post, so be it. I will confer with Monkey today and we will finish putting the muzzle on your nonsense.

slarabee : Monkey_Films is still attending to his mother but I already have the documentation to make you eat your words and hide your head in the sand where it belongs. I would nail you now but I think I'll work on it tonight even more and then send it to Monkey so he can put your comments in the toilet and flush them into the sewage where crap information feels right at home. Are you obsessed with Monkey_Films, you follow him around and make unfounded comments on issues he's completely correct about and has posted Scientific Journal documentation for or writings directly from the person at issue. Either you refuse to read the links he provided, you are a shill for the Democratic Party or you are just passionately jealous of him or in love. I can't figure out which but it's creepy.

That's the dumbest response I have every heard on here,V. Sounds like CointelPro but that's just me. The links were videos of the man talking and documents and books written by the man. Quit deflecting and admit this man does not like the Constitution. I'm done with your childish, off topic responses on this post and refuse to read anything with your name attached to a response. I would swear this man's plans area already a reality and you get a paycheck.

Again incorrect Argon, the law of 5's is used in Discordianism, but it also can refer to the Law of Five Elements in Taoism. Or, maybe the Five Laws of Library Science, or even the Law of Fives of Omar's Sect., or we could be talking about the Law of Fives for Traditional Acupuncture or my favorite; The Five Immutable Laws of Persuasive Blogging. Why do you assume your choice is right?

I take information from all sources and weigh it all to find the truth. That's actually what real intellectuals do, Vierotchka. You don't? Dumb question you already stated that you ignore some sources of information and prefer to choose specific places for your information. How unfortunate, you would surely have not disagreed about this man had you looked more into him. Thus saving you from the embarassment of the information flowing now, even with other people's posts popping up all over the place. That's okay, I forgive you.

I am getting sent recordings from all over the world of this guy and two others on Obama's staff saying exactly this and worse. I feel a triumph coming on...Are you ready?

Prison Planet has zero credibility among the intelligent, educated and informed, and justly so.

Right, and then the man is hired as Obama's Information Czar after writing Hitlerian ideas in a white paper. That should be offensive to any journalist of any form.

You keep saying "good deflection" to everyone but I think you are mistaking deflection for clarification. If someone asks you to provide more information on a certain point you've made, I don't think that is a deflection technique but simply discussion.

It's not enough to make outrageous claims about what someone believes based on a small piece of something they said when talking about theoretical circumstances. In this case, the author (and poster) assumed the position that our government may ban free speech based on a few sentences in a 30 page paper that gave multiple options in dealing with conspiracy theories.

Ah, creative, twisting my statement, good deflection, touche'. I'll be more specific, he wrote that he would think about banning certain ideas, ideas chosen by the government, and thus certain opinions and types of speech would be dangerous or banned by the government, essentially giving Current no choice in the matter as most would flee and the rest would be kind of boring if they had to fit their thoughts into government condoned directions. This man is for thought, belief, opinion crime, if only in his writings, for now, isn't that enough?

What part of my statement is political bias? The only thing anyone is doing here is asking you for sources and specific information about your opinion.

"And arguing headline titles is kind of silly, 20 different people may have chosen 20 different headlines, And, nothing in the title is not true."

I'm not talking about 20 different people who may or may have not chosen what, I'm talking about this particular headline which reads

"Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech - No More Opinions on Current?"

And ... neither of those things are true. Obama's info czar is not calling for a ban on free speech nor is this paper going to stop people from posting opinions on Current.

Not sure I would necessarily call it a challenge...but I understand what you mean...take your time.

You defend with political bias.' If Obama is violating the constitution in your opinion, ok, but it's certainly not in the way of "banning the free speech" of conspiracy theorists or anyone else since nothing in that paper has been put into legislation or policy' // That last part is the point, I have pointed out that it is dangerous to put this person into that particular position because of his written beliefs, never that is was law yet. And arguing headline titles is kind of silly, 20 different people may have chosen 20 different headlines, And, nothing in the title is not true. Additionally, if you want people to read and educate themselves on the subject would you, if working for a newspaper or magazine, use a boring headline and one that draws attention? Any journalism class would agree to make it creative without changing it's meaning. It seems Monkey did pretty good at following those rules. I really think this offense you take so seriously is party affiliation motivated.

Ah, challenge accepted and I will keep it brief and concise, but, may have to wait until tomorrow afternoon, got some pressing issues to handle.

WeAre, I have read a fair number of your posts. I am afraid I simply do not concur with your view of whether Obama is "violating" the Constitution. I know what it is like to run a large organization with issues pulling one in different directions constantly.

My experience, however, pales into near insignificance compared to Obama's...and yet his fiercest critics in the pubiic at large have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the nature of his actual day-to-day job, nor apparently any interest in learning what it is. For heaven's sake, many actually blame him for not repealing the Patriot Act, as though the President has the power to repeal acts of Congress.

Before you tee off presenting your brief against him please do understand that I have no interest in debating mere speculation and wild, unsubtantiated or patently unreasonable allegations based on emotion and not on fact.

If you are going to cite a "violation" I will look at something presented as a clear breach of a specific clause of the constitution backed up with credible evidence. I have neither the time nor the inclination to sift through allegations based on emotion or distortion. That is MY exercise of freedom of speech.

WeAre, I read the paper that is referenced here and I posted a few pieces of it. It does not call for the "banning of free speech" anywhere. Saying that this sensational headline is pointing out a slippery slope is a pretty weak reason to utilize scare tactics to get a message across- in my opinion if that was the true motivation behind the post, it would be more effective to ask a question; "Does Obama's info czar want to ban free speech?" or something like that. The added piece about "no more opinions on current!" is just ridiculous, a way to appeal to an emotional knee jerk reaction from the community. If Obama is violating the constitution in your opinion, ok, state your case- but it's certainly not in the way of "banning the free speech" of conspiracy theorists or anyone else since nothing in that paper has been put into legislation or policy.

czetheday, then you tell me why he is not behaving like someone anal about the Constitution? I could write all day about violations of the Constitution and I truly don't think you would have to try very hard to find instances either. Actions speak louder than words, or education, and his actions don't seem to concur with your contention.

Cult of cult control.

For 12 years, Barack Obama was a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW professor at the University of Chicago Law School; as a lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a senior lecturer from 1996 to 2004. This was, of course, after he graduated from Harvard Law School, serving as the Editor of the Harvard Law Review -- a position usually reserved for the most accomplished students in most competitive law program in the country, if not the world.

In the 2009 U.S. News and World Report ranking of U.S. Graduate schools, the University of Chicago Law School was ranked number 6 out of some 500+ law schools in the country. Constitutional law professors are a pretty cerebral bunch to begin with and tend to believe rather passionately in the singular importance of that remarkable document. Most would also give their left arm to teach at the U of Chi Law School because the scholarship there is nearly unparalleled.

The idea that Barack Obama would support the suppression of freedom of speech guaranteed in the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is among the most moronic and distasteful allegations I have heard on Current (and I doubt I am surprising anyone by saying I have seen some real doosies here...)

The proof, again, is in the white papers this man has written, one posted here as an attachment by monkey, I read it, I understand it, it fits the claim, whtat's the issue, just read the attachment, it's too long to put in a comment.

Why the heck can't anyone respond to other people by clicking the "reply" button underneath their comment? This thread is so messy it's hard to read and hard to know who monkey and wearechange are talking to...just a suggestion.

This post's title is misleading and plain out wrong - no one has called to "ban free speech". This is exactly what happened when people were screaming about "death panels" and "forced abortions"- people take past writings, isolate pieces of it, take it out of context and spin it into a scary message of fascism.

I really loathe this type of "journalism." This link says "That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of." As everyone else said, where's the proof? Just because he said "Here's an option among many options" does not mean he called for it or wants it. That same paper also says

"under certain conditions government may do best to ignore conspiracy theories and theorists even if it justifiably fears that they will have harmful effects, because government action may make things worse."

Could I isolate that sentence and claim "Obama Czar wants to ignore conspiracy theories"? Would that be accurate?

Here is how that paper ends:

"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. One problem is that its efforts might be
counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy minded groups and informationally isolated social networks."

No one is coming after your opinion on Current, give me a break with these sensationalist headlines!

Argon, either you can't understand the white paper attached to this, or you are a disinformation agent. I can't think of any other reason why you keep avoiding the truth.

I heartily agree to stay on target since you haven't done that yet. first you have to prove that it was a mistake and why it sidetracked the article.

From the evidence that slarabee provided it showed that the article was edited to fit the theory so how does that sidetrack it? Let's see some evidence that shows that.

It can't be unbiased until that obstacle is overcome because ignoring that would just prove that evidence is being overlooked.

So show why slarabee's argument is false first with evidence to back it up before you can continue

Ah, and we bring up the Law of Fives, another nice deflection. I would swear you have read this book:
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation

(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

by H. Michael Sweeney

The point is, Argon, that she picked on a small mistake by the author of the article to sidetrack from the issue which is what this guy believes and has written down in several theses. The document in question is linked to the article. It is written in lawyer speak but with patience it can be understood, why do you always take the argument away from this issue? Let's stay on target and when you finish deciphering the document feel free to discuss your unbiased findings.

What might seem to you might be just a projection, an observation yes, but is it an accurate one?

Psychologists, I'm not? How do you know? Additionally, one can acquire information and knowledge without the added bonus of the degree. Are you a political analyst?

It seems to me that Monkey really frustrates some disinformation agents. Just an observation.

Now how was that for a specific example of sidetracking and deferring? Not much on practicing what you preach are you?

At least slarabee provided some evidence to support his argument, that was learning something new.

All you did was make a bunch of accusations with not a shred of any facts to back them up, so that only shows laziness not any kind learning.

You can make Godwin's Law fit anything if you try hard enough, just like the you can with the Law of 5's

I think Godwin's law only comes into play if the similarities don't fit. If they do, well, then there's Monkey's law, (See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) Don't be that type of monkey, not very productive or smart to be that type of Monkey. Are you following Monkey's law?

Argon18 said: What are the specific examples of sidetracking and deferring? Where is the evidence that proves them false and the specific parts of the articles and examples that proves it to be accurate? // If Monkey has to do all of the work for you, you won't learn much will you?

I'm glad connie cleared up that politicians aren't scientists and a lie is a lie. Now, we can both agree that a lie is a lie whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican or anyone else. I'd bet Monkey agrees with that, too.

I figured Godwin's Law would be reached fairly soon, especially considering the icon but only in 5 comments, that might be some kind of record!

Maybe we should check with the Guiness Book Staff?

zHellas said: Oooh, scary! *scarcasm* Yes, scarcasm is scary, whatever that is.

Welcome to the face of the 21st century S.S. and the people say, ya, go ahead, spy on him over there, just don't do it to me. It's all good and well until they decide one of your opinions is suspect. But, hey, those are just showers over there, now everyone take off your clothes and step inside the big steel door.

This very same pattern has emerged in any country that was being prepared for fascism. Deny all you want but Monkey is right, party affiliation is blinding and some people are so affiliated on here they can't see a thing.

What are the specific examples of sidetracking and deferring?

Where is the evidence that proves them false and the specific parts of the articles and examples that proves it to be accurate?

All presidents de-classify information, and I, too, want Obama to be honest but people in those positions can no longer be....honest. If he came out and said the Federal Reserve runs the country, I was picked for the presidency, not elected, and I am just a face and a good speaker playing out the script that has been written for me, most would still not believe it. Some would claim he was forced to say it by some kind of Republican drug slipped in his drink. Others would say that wasn't really him or you got that VIDEO of him saying that from a source I don't trust. All this even after seeing the speech with their own eyes. Yes, it would be great for him to have been different, I voted for him, but come on, nothing from his election speeches has been done and most of his actions have gone in reverse of his speeches. What does that tell you, he's already been dishonest. It's a disorder of some kind to keep believing a dishonest person on HOPE. Not meant as a slight to you at all, I'm just pointing out our hypocrisy in this country and party affiliation is a big part of why people stay blind to facts.

slarabee, you sidetracked and deferred, like Sean Hannity does. You picked on a little point so that you could justify dismissing all of the information thus turning the focus off of the real point. Nice debate trick but not a reliable way to judge information. Monkey has a sick family member so, he's not ignoring you he's tending to them.

Monkey didn't write the article, he posted it. The facts are in this guys writings which he provided a link to. Jeesh that was easy.

Oooh, scary! *scarcasm*

It's sad that when a subject on here puts one's party affiliation in a bad light, no matter the party, loyalists come out to attack the information. Party affiliation is meant to blind you from the truth and a psychological evaluation of the posts on this site proves that point.

STUPID AROUND ME, EVERYWHERE

So where are the facts that prove your theory?

Since you already admit "A good scientist uses the facts from all sources not just the ones they want to use" then where are the full facts not the edited ones?

slarabee already provided evidence that what you showed was edited to have the "facts fit your opinion" as you said so where is the evidence to counter his more comprehensive facts?

If there aren't any then isn't your whole theory just as much a projection as "The Stockholm Syndrome" that you accused others as having?

As they say "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one" but for theories to be proven then they have to have evidence to back them up.

Conniepae 'Facts, not 'opinions' should lead to truth!' Facts, lead to theories (opinions) which lead to the truth. A good scientist uses the facts from all sources not just the ones they want to use. It seems you wants the facts to fit your opinion and sometimes that's just not possible.

Not a martyr, he didn't die, just someone willing to take the heat to get through to the people. It took only one man to stand in front of the tanks and stop the killing, if only for a while. I have no problem if anyone else wants to walk out there with me but I don't currently see any hands up in the air. Will you join me, Conniepae? Stick your neck out for the sake of the common man and woman? Sadly, most will sit in their comfort zones and coach from the sidelines.

Unless it happens in front of your face, all truth starts out as theory. If we censor it while it is still theory, it never has the chance to proven as truth. It's like the man in the cave, if you keep him from seeing behind him and knowing that you are shining a light on figures, then he believes the shadows in front of him are the reality. Censorship works best when the information is stopped before it sees the light of day keeping those censored in the dark so they start to believe truth is fiction and fiction is truth. Many on Obama's staff have a history of writings stating their belief that the truth is what they make it.

That's true nobody decides what truth is, and the scary thing is that's exactly what this guy wants to do.

Sure, sure, Unimatrix, it's easy to make slanderous statements but hard to provide evidence. I am always prepared for that, are you?

A white paper where issues and ideas are explored. Hmmm, I don't know about you but I don't want censorship and communism discussed or explored in this country even in a non-official, yet, white paper. What if he decides he doesn't like your opinion? He claims sunlight is bad for you and anyone who say it isn't is a conspircay theorist. I'm sorry, but his story is the conspiracy. Anyone want to tackle the sunlight is bad for you theme of this guy? I just contradicted him, if you don't see me post you know I'm in Guantanamo. .

That's twisted, how can Obama's administration making this move be a part of a Republican plan?

Monkey_Films, I in no way want 'someone', 'anyone' to be censored. You are wrong to think 'someone' decides what truth is. Are we that goofy, that there really is no longer 'truth'? Truth is left to 'opinion'? That's just crazy!

Believe it, or not, people were able to prove the earth was not flat. Believe it, or not, 'spin' (distorted facts) and truth are not equal. We may be too dizzy to judge fact from fiction, but facts are facts and fiction is fiction.

I in no way want Democrats to have the luxury of 'spinning' distortion either. Truth should not depend on party affiliation. Those who choose to spin distortion, shouldn't be censored. They should be shamed!

This same guy says that if you tell people sunlight is good for them, that doesn't fit the governments ideology so you may be fined. Without sunlight the immune system becomes very weak and the lack of Vitamin D opens you up to all kinds of illness.

Sorry, but that's exactly what he means, the legal speak is just meant for some to get frustrated like you.

It's very sad that Americans are now starting to think like 1940 Germans. If I don't like the truth, let's ask Mr.Obama to filter what 'truth' gets out. This is extremely scary stuff here that people are even suggesting that they wouldn't mind filtering anything that doesn't agree with their world view. Very Very Scary. I'm glad this post brought that out of some, it gives some of us a better view at what exactly we are dealing with. This is classic Stockholm syndrome.

In psychology, the Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims. [1][2] While uncommon, the FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast. [4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations. [5]

Who decides if it's spin or the truth, Conniepae, the left, the right, you, me? That's crazy talk.

I don't know where to start conniepae, it seems you are saying that censorship is good but only for subjects I don't agree with?

Bombastinator, you seem to call anything a conspiracy that you don't understand or haven't researched. It's not called a theory if it's real, and if it's real and it is a conspiracy, then, it's legitimate news. Feel free to close your eyes and pretend it's not true, but, no reason to ask that your belief system be considered before the facts are presented.

This has got to be a part of the Republican plan to undermine Obama and the Democrats. What a bunch of hogwash!!!!!!!!! Disregard this crap!

Prison Planet is not a credible source. It is as bad as World Nut Daily. This is nothing but red meat for the knuckle dragging Neanderthals who feel a need to hate all things Obama.

Time to take off those tin foil hats; wake up and smell the coffee sunshine. the sky is not falling.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that President Obama wants to silence free speech. I do think people should be held accountable when they spin disinformation. If one thinks about the political discourse, which has run rampant in American political campaigns for the past few years, something has to change. People should not be free to 'spin' bull shit, to instill fear in ordinary Americans. Somewhere there has to be accountability, for what one says.

I don't know if an 'Information Czar' is the place to start. I personally don't like the use of 'Czar' in America. I'm old school and 'Czar' leads me to believe the title in it's self stifles conversation.

The title 'Drug Czar' is the first I remember of 'Czar' being used to stifle rational conversation in America. I used to reference the use of 'Drug Czar' as 'Silenced in America, by an American Czar'. Our own government was spinning 'madness', while silencing decent. It's no wonder we have more people in prison than any other country in the world. They were using 'madness' as their guide.

I do not feel that way with President Obama. I don't feel he is trying to stifle conversations. He may not be 'changing' things the way I had hoped he would, but I am waiting a little longer to pass judgement.

I think he is trying to state that conspiracy theories are actually libelous are not free speech.

The problem is that in the absence of internet copy editing all kinds of ridiculous BS is passing itself off as fact these days. Or as has become almost a reverse definition lately "truth" Which on Current at least seems to have become a code word for propaganda.

I Think his ideas on control attempts are foolish, but I see the problem he is having. The lie and crap factors have been going through the roof lately.