Cass Sunstein Nudged Obama Into the Ideology Of “Nudging”

by Leon Puissegur

The latest scandal concerning the Obama administration’s seeking a way to control the people of the United States, using the Cass Sunstein approach of “nudge,” is being talked about all over the internet. This is an almost Nazi-style way of getting people to do what you wish them to do without them even thinking you controlling them.

It is a bit complicated, but it is now coming to light and this may well be the most frightening aspect of the Obama regime. Barack Obama is now claiming that all the scandals piling up behind him, especially Benghazi, are nothing more than a bunch of “phony” scandals pushed out by Republicans. Of Course, in many ways Obama is just a puppet who is controlled by the Socialists and Communists behind the scenes that are, as of now, working their little nudge program into the United States and walking the people away from the Constitution and into a slavery-style of control.

Take a look at what Cass Sunstein stated about the Constitution of the United States.

“In 1992 Sunstein expressed his view that the office of the U.S. presidency should be elevated to a position higher than that of the president’s administration generally, and that the Constitution should be viewed as a “living,” evolving document:

Now, it is alarming to people who want to believe in the unitary executive, like me, that the 19th-century writers thought this was self-evident. [The unitary executive theory holds that a powerful president controls the entire executive branch.] That’s the policy recommendation and the conclusion that the Constitution is largely, not entirely, but largely irrelevant. Now, I say what I’ve said about the Constitutional matter with considerable regret. I wish it weren’t so. The executive department’s vision of the Constitution, with the president on top and the administration below, has elegance and simplicity and tremendous appeal. It would make much more sense, I submit, given our current situation, to have a Constitution in which the president is on top of administration is below. But that was not the founder’s original conception. The Constitution does not speak in those terms…. Because the conclusion that I’ve reached seems to me so unfortunate, I’m trying hard to figure out what can be done about it…. One thing that perhaps can be done about it is to say, well, we shouldn’t really be originalists about the meaning of the Constitution. Maybe Judge Bork had wrong. Maybe we should think that the Constitution has a high degree of flexibility. Maybe it’s a changing and living document. Now, under that conception of Constitutional interpretation, maybe we can have the ingredients of a new unitary executive idea.”

Barack Obama echoes Sunstein’s comments in many of his own and once you see the larger picture of what may well be an evolving ideology, you will understand just where this is all headed.

Now let us continue with the description of this man known as Cass Sunstein. It seems that he had free control over all the new regulations that have hurt many businesses and brought about a higher price of oil. Some would pander to Obama and say that the high price of oil is due to the market. However, if we go back to the influence of Cass Sunstein and what he stated, it becomes rather interesting to see the connection to Obama and how much he is working to destroy not just the coal companies, but the oil companies as well.

Below is just an example of the way that Cass Sunstein has actually nudge people to do what may well otherwise be un-Constitutional!

“In their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler brainstorm about ways to increase the number of organ donations that Americans make each year. They theorize that the main reason why more people do not arrange to donate their organs posthumously is because in order to do so, they are required to actively give “explicit consent” for such procedures, which few people ever take the time to do. To remedy this, Sunstein and Thaler advocate a policy of “presumed consent” — the opposite of explicit consent — whereby the government would “presume” that someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation unless that person has explicitly indicated his or her wish to prevent such an action.

Sunstein and Thaler realize, however, that such a proposal “is a hard sell politically” because “[m]ore than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter.” Thus the authors propose an alternate solution — “mandated choice” — where the government forces all people to make a decision on the matter:

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences. Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

Under such a system, government “ incentives and nudges” would replace “requirements and bans.”

When we look deeply into Cass Sunstein’s ideology and writings, we see a very close resemblance to a couple of current Obama speeches. Could this finally show a direct connection to Obama actually using other people’s ideas and calling them his own? Check this out from Cass Sunstein and then go back to what Obama said just a few days ago.

“In 2004, Sunstein published The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever. Arguing that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that they are granted by the government, the book drew its inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a new Bill of Rights. WorldNetDaily reports that among the mandates laid out in the book are the following:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

In The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights [such as the foregoing], they may migrate into the Constitution itself.” He adds that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.” Another notable quote from the book is the following:

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”(p.3)”

Does the sound of the “New Bill of Rights” outlined by Cass Sunstein echo what Obama has been stating on his most recent speech tour? Look at them, each dot represents a statement of the way the Socialists/Communists wish for the United States to move and it is not in the direction of where the Founders intended it to go.

Under Cass Sunstein’s ideology, it becomes a “right” to work in industries, shops, farms, or mines. It also becomes a right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation for the family. Go on down this list and it sounds very similar to the way Obama has been explaining his idea of “equality” of employment and money by “redistributing” what the top 1 percent makes to those who do not make it!

Does Obama have any ideas of his own? It seems to be a question that no one or no news media wishes to ask. That may be due to the fact that they are not Obama’s ideas, but are Cass Sunstein’s.

“If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters,” Sunstein writes, “a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access [to the airwaves] will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome.” Government, he says, has a moral obligation to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that represent a “diversity” of views:

“The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

Wait! Hold on! Does this sound very familiar? Is this the smoking gun that proves Obama has used Cass Sunstein’s ideas to control the media and now is out to “nudge” the rest of the people to follow? Does this show that Obama has in fact done just what Cass Sunstein desired early on? The questions loom on the horizon like a bad storm about to come upon us. By a little nudge here and a little nudge there until you see things the king’s way or the highway to the re-adjustment camps where you will be nudged by much harder methods.