It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's "Regulatory Czar" a Radical Animal Rights Activist?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
OIRA is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office within the White House Office of Management and Budget, responsible for managing the federal regulatory process.

This is just bizarre. Everyone from ranchers, agricultural workers, to "meat eaters" should watch this closely.

Obama "Regulatory Czar" has Secret Animal Rights Agenda, Says Consumer Group


The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom said today that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.



Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions that "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf."



"Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of his animal rights agenda as America’s top regulator. Americans don’t realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe. Think about every outrageous idea PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have ever had, and imagine them all having the force of federal law. This doesn’t look good for hunters, ranchers, restaurateurs, biomedical researchers, or ordinary pet owners."


[edit on 26/1/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Sorry about the title... I don't know what happened to it.


Edit: Wow.. the title appeared again, so disregard this reply.

[edit on 26/1/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The whole thing is ridiculous.

I have no doubt some of this garbage may try to be snuck through, but I don't see it happening.

There is no way the American public would stand by and have their meat taken away. Or put up with a lawsuit filed by an animal.

No way.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   


Yea I'd like to see them try to do any of that crap. They will get shut down so fast it isn't even funny.

Crazy stuff. Ban 'sport' hunting along with trying to ban meat so trying to ban hunting all together.

Almost makes we want to send him some youtube video's of people hunting deer and other animals. There are also a few on there of people shooting ground hogs and the like and when they get hit they explode. Aught to do this just to spite him.

edit to add -

I wonder if this also means we can sue deer when they hit peoples cars?

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
The non-profit Center for Consumer Freedom- I would like to know more about who is behind them. I went to their website: Center for Consumer Freedom and quickly drew a conclusion that they are a biased corporate shill. Visit the site and draw your own conclusions.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Probably not going to happen.

Sport hunting and the meat industry in general are bigger business than you might think.

The fact that this might even be considered is a little unsettling though..



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by HERACAT
Probably not going to happen.

Sport hunting and the meat industry in general are bigger business than you might think.

The fact that this might even be considered is a little unsettling though..


It's not being considered it's being speculated about by the Center for Consumer Freedom. They are just fear mongering. How in the world would they outlaw hunting? We don't have an Army big enough to patrol every square mile of the great outdoors. I won't loose any sleep over this fear mongering.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The day animals get the right to file lawsuits should be the same day we get to claim them on our taxes.



I don't think there is enough power in the world to take our meat away.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


My cat would sue me for leaving the house for longer than two hours and not having fresh fish and foul for dinner every night. The birds and squirrels would sue me for birdseed that was sub standard.

If it sounds ridiculous it probably is.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I think this is a very interesting find so star and flag for you.

I did just a quick little search on this guy, and came across an article from the Wall Street Journal.


Mr. Sunstein, a prolific academic with wide-ranging interests, may be best known for advancing a field known as "law and behavioral economics" that seeks to shape law and policy around the way research shows people actually behave. The theory builds on earlier approaches developed at the University of Chicago law school that sought to harmonize regulatory law with free-market economics. Although widely embraced by conservatives, critics said it failed to account for the sometimes less-than-rational aspects of human behavior.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last year, Mr. Sunstein said Mr. Obama was intrigued by "law and behavioral economics" as an approach to regulation that would avoid ideological extremes.

Mr. Obama believes in "doing law in a way that's realistically based on human behavior," Mr. Sunstein said.
Article

I also found a youtube video where he was talking to a reporter (I presume) where he goes on to talk about how Obama taught constitutional law, and goes on to say "it's been 200 years I believe, since we've had someone who was as specialized, in the working of our constitutional system" and how the Bush administration failed to understand the constitution, and this will be a "valuable change for the United States, and the World".



Does this now mean, that because all Presidents before Obama, have not understood the Constitution fully (according to Sunstein), that he can make changes for you all in the US, because he is the ONLY one who fully understands it? (I hope I made sense)..lol

This sounds afwul spooky to me.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki

Originally posted by HERACAT
Probably not going to happen.

Sport hunting and the meat industry in general are bigger business than you might think.

The fact that this might even be considered is a little unsettling though..


It's not being considered it's being speculated about by the Center for Consumer Freedom. They are just fear mongering. How in the world would they outlaw hunting? We don't have an Army big enough to patrol every square mile of the great outdoors. I won't loose any sleep over this fear mongering.


You shouldn't loose sleep over it, but it would be prudent to be aware of it. Additionally, this guy just sounds like a wacko to me... why would Obama ever decide he's the right one for the job? Seriously?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Well, this stuff sounds true to me, even considering the source.

It's all written down on his paper, in his own words. Here is just a snippet from that paper:


We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is
human recreation. (Should animals be hunted and killed simply because people enjoy
hunting and killing them? The issue might be different if hunting and killing could be
justified as having important functions, such as control of populations or protection of
human beings against animal violence.)



Of course the largest issue involves eating meat. I
believe that that meat-eating would be acceptable if decent treatment is given to the
animals used for food. Killing animals, whether or not troublesome, is far less
troublesome than suffering. But if, as a practical matter, animals used for food are almost
inevitably going to endure terrible suffering, then there is a good argument that people
should not eat meat to the extent that a refusal to eat meat will reduce that suffering. Of
course a legal ban on meat-eating would be extremely radical, and like prohibition, it
would undoubtedly create black markets and have a set of bad, and huge, side-effects.
But the principle seems clear: People should be much less inclined to eat meat if their
refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.


Source



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
That link didn't work for me. Could you link it again or perhaps type it out?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
That link didn't work for me. Could you link it again or perhaps type it out?


For sure.



www.law.uchicago.edu...



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
It looks like I'm the only one so far that thinks some good could come of this. Human beings are no longer part of a food chain, we are ravenous and uncontrollable and only think of an animal's welfare when it comes to how it can benefit us. If we are the sentient and wise ones we should have had severe legislation to prevent torturous atrocities of not only animals but humans as well a long time ago...globally.

I am also afraid that this will end up in more government self interest bull#:

"animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join