I don't need to do the background here again, do I? I guess some degree of repetition is necessary to get some points to sink in; the point being that tyrants always - not sometimes, but always - endeavor to control the flow of news and information to the people.

That brings us to Cass Sunstein, the head of The Community Organizer's White House Office of Communications. When it comes to White House policy on the flow of information Sunstein would be your go-to guy. It would seem that an interview that Sunstein gave on Boston's WBEZ in February of 2001 has made its way to the Internet. You can click on this link to hear the comments for yourself, but being the service-minded kind of guy I am, here is some of what he said:

The subject was government regulation of the Internet. Now I want you to read these comments in light of the fact that Obama's FCC has just decided that the Internet needs to be defined as a telecommunications service rather than an information service? Why? Well, that would be because a federal court recently ruled that the FCC had no authority to control the Internet because it was - you guessed it - an information service rather than a telecommunications service. Now Obama's FCC ObamaZombies certainly wouldn't take that step because of any desire to actually exercise any control over the Internet, would they? Nooooo ... of course not! Obama certainly isn't about control, is he now?

OK ... Mr. Sunstein:

"The sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you are 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. If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction it would be great, and if we can't get voluntary arrangements maybe congress should hold hearings about mandates."

The WBEZ host then asked Sunstein "Why should I, in trying to advance my point of view on my website ... how can you tell me that I have to direct people's attention to other views that I may find .. that I don't like or that I may find repugnant or horrid. And what constitutes an opposing view? If I run a site that says we should all love each other, should I run a link to the KKK?"

"One person has suggested we might take the 25 most popular sites in the last month say .. of any kind .. and require them to have kind of a random draw of links to other sites that are political. And it would be random so that if, let's say, one of the most popular sites is CNN.com then they would have to have a little link to one or more of the randomly selected sites. 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 a last resort, and to make sure it's neutral as possible if we have to get there - but to have that as an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better."

What an absolute treasure trove of nonsense to explore for an inside look at the dark and seamy thoughts of not only Obama, but of the people he puts in positions of responsibility!

The word "voluntary" is a "little complicated?" What the hell does that mean? Do any of you have a difficult time figuring out that word? Well ... I guess that's understandable considering the fact that government hacks continue to push this idea that income taxes are voluntary. I think what Sunstein was trying to say here is that, to government, "voluntary" means you do it on your own or we use force to MAKE you do it.

Pay attention also to this "unless the public demands it" comment. Whisky Tango Foxtrot! Since when does a public demand stand as a reason to interfere with someone's freedom of expression? Sunstein might as well have said "unless the mob demands it."

Being fair ... Sunstein made the comments in 2001. Later, in 2007, he tempered his remarks. Why? Because they met with such derision? Maybe someone had a little sit-down with Sunstein and told him that his wonderful little idea for the Internet might be unconstitutional. Maybe he figured out that it was better to keep such ideas to himself until he is in a position to do more than just discuss them. People do have this nasty little habit of saying one thing while they're seeking a position of power, and then doing something completely different when power is acquired. There is a time, after all, to shut up about your plans ... especially if those plans give the public a gag reflex.