Exclusive: Consensus is the New Word for Censorship

Supreme Court. Photo by Nathan Laurell.

Editor’s Note: The following is guest opinion piece written by Jeffrey Cutler, the tax collector of East Lampeter Township in Pennsylvania and the plaintiff in a case before the D.C. Court of Appeals challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. His opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the editors of New Revere Daily Press.

Since the founding of our country, there have been many instances where the government has tried to limit free speech and the “right to know.” The newest version of this is use of the word CONSENSUS. They have previously used words like CLASSIFIED and PUBLIC SAFETY to establish CENSORSHIP. Edward Snowden sits in Russia, because he revealed something that a New York appeals court has since ruled to be illegal. A New Jersey county wants to establish a set of rules that limits demonstrations to once every two weeks, and for one hour only. Even in Russia the limit is four hours, before the protest is considered illegal! I call that “Viagra free speech.”

The use of the word has allowed those in control to delete material they dictate that fails to meet the so-called “consensus.” This is the 2015 form of book burning!

Consensus is used throughout the media, but most notably on Wikipedia, where “consensus” is how the validity of information is determined instead of those pesky things called “facts.” This control, which is especially prominent on the Internet, is now the newest form of burning books. Material, whether truthful or not, is swept away because the “consensus” says it ought to be.

The mainstream media is not interested in supporting this story or explaining why information on websites all over the Internet is disappearing each day because moderators and editors don’t like the statements being made, even when true. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; the media questions almost nothing. The media willingly chooses to ignore many scandals and absurdities purportrated by those politicians and media pundits it agrees with, even allowing statements like “You Have to Pass The Bill, to know what is in it” to be accepted as if it’s a reasonable statement for a legislator to make!

Another example is the recent trade bill fiasco. Right now there is NO DEMAND for transparency of any kind from ANYONE regarding this crashed-and-burned bill.

One of the biggest stories the media continues to ignore is that legal challenges made against the Affordable Care Act, and there still are many pending, including my own, are hidden from view on official government sites that allegedly report those challenges (see the website here for the ones they do report: http://www.justice.gov/healthcare).

On Wikipedia, the editors limit the history of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act everywhere and make sure people do not really know the true challenges to the law. Below is just part of the text banned on Wikipedia. It’s understandable if the editors there would like some changes to be made or even omit some material, but should they really be keeping all of the following information out?:

Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation The information below tries to describe the legal challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge [Y/N] All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.

On April 28, 2015, (3:15-cv-00193-RS-CJK) United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Constitutional Challenge [N] Rick Scott and the State of Florida. et al v. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Burwell et al. The case challenges if the federal government can coerce States into dramatically expanding their Medicaid programs in violation of the Supreme Court ruling held just three years ago that the Constitution prohibits it from doing. The government is threatening to cut off federal funding for unrelated programs unless they “agree” to do so by expanding Medicaid programs via Obamacare.

On January 26, 2015, (2:15-cv-00321-ALM-NMK) United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Constitutional Challenge [Y]The State of Ohio. et al v. United States of America. Attorney General Mike DeWine on behalf of the state of Ohio et al challenges the “Transitional Reinsurance Program” of the ACA of 2010 to collect mandatory monetary “contributions” from State and local governments.

On November 21, 2014, (1:14-cv-01967-RMC)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The United States House of Representatives v. Burwell,et al was filed by the House of Representatives which challenges the “Payment of Funds to insurance companies” and other constitutional violations of the law. Jonathan Turley acted as the lawyer for this lawsuit and was paid by a contract with the House of Representatives . He is the third lawyer hired to do the lawsuit, since the first 2 lawyers dropped out due to political or other conflicts. As of May 29, 2015 the question of valid “standing” still had not been determined.

On July 29, 2014, (1:14-cv-01287-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al was filed by the office of Attorney General Patrick Morrisey which challenges the “Administrative Fix” and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. In April the AG office of Patrick Morrisey filed a motion for a ruling on SummaryJudgment.

On January 6, 2014(1:14-cv-00009-WCG/14-2723), United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin, Constitutional Challenge [N] Senator Ron Johnson & Brooke Ericson v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, et al. challenged that the government violates Section 1312(d)(3)(D), which was passed so Members of Congress and their staffs would be subject to the ACA in the same way as constituents and not get extra subsidies. 38 lawmakers joined the lawsuit by the senator. The court ruled the Senator did not have standing and dismissed the case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said Johnson also lacked legal standing by a unanimous three-judge panel in April 2015.

On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183) United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision, “1947 Everson v Board of Education”, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to “rollback” the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees[16]). Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal.

On October 16, 2014 an injunction pending appeal was filed based on “unequal treatment under the law”. Oral argumentss by Robert Muise May 12, 2015. Robert Muise also represents Pamela Geller. The event sponsored by Pamela Geller was attacked by 2 terrorists on May 4, 2015 in Garland Texas. On May 28, 2015, a free speech rally outside the Phoenix mosque allegedly attended by Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, the two gunmen who were killed at the Garland, Texas, event hosted by Pamela Geller.

Jeffrey Cutler is the tax collector of East Lampeter Township in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and the plaintiff in a lawsuit before U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging Obamacare.

Photo of Supreme Court. Photo by Nathan Laurell.

The New Revere

The New Revere is an all-encompassing, no-holds-barred media platform that delivers news and commentary for conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, and anyone else who supports the pro-liberty movement (yes, even you liberty-loving Democrats hiding from the rest of your party).
The New Revere