It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
President Obama's friend and nominee for "regulatory czar" is a "raving animal rights nut" who has a secret agenda, according to one consumer group.
David Martosko, director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, told Fox News' Glenn Beck that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard Law professor nominated by the president to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is a "raving animal rights nut" and devout disciple of Peter Singer.
Martosko told Beck, "When you embrace this whole utilitarian idea, guess what else comes in the back door? Some animals, according to Singer, are worth more than some humans. A smart border collie, he says, is worth more, inherently, than a retarded child. Cass Sunstein has embraced the whole enchilada. He believes that animals should have some of the same rights as humans, in fact, greater rights than some people including the right to follow lawsuits."
Sunstein has also supported outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.
The center quotes Sunstein's 2007 speech at Harvard University, where he argued in favor of "eliminating current practices such as meat eating" and proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."
Sunstein has argued in favor of outlawing sport hunting and meat-eating, and written that animals should be allowed to file lawsuits "with human beings as their representatives."
Originally posted by Egyptia
reply to post by jsobecky
The abuse we are perpetrating against these sentient creatures is utterly unacceptable. What we do to them for the benefit of our consumption is unacceptable. The amount of suffering we are causing them is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable to cause any living thing that much terror and agony in a world where we have other options. And it is utterly unacceptable to hunt them for sport and fun unless you are in need of their flesh to stay alive.
In short one needs to be accountable for their actions and no being has the right to inflict so much pain and suffering on other beings for their own benefit.
So yeah, it is about time and perhaps even far too late.
Animals are not there for us to exploit, abuse, dissect and inflict the horrors we do just for our own amoral uses.
This is criminal and utterly corrupt. Who do we think we are that we think we are exempt from the moral consequences of such atrocities. What we do to and with animals is no different than what Hitler did to humans.
Yes many species of animals kill in order to survive. But they are killing within their nature and it's for their survival. Not like us. If you saw what we do to cows, chickens, baby cows, rabits, pigs and every other animal we use up it would utterly destroy your faith in humanity.
We are no longer living within the balance of nature and have not been for a very long time now. We rape the only earth we have to exist on for every possible resource and every possible lifeforce. We are exploiters, consumers and abusers. We are a bereft society and it's time that things change and we took some responsibility for the atrocities we keep causing just for our own lazy consumption.
Animals should have protection from exploitation and suffering. And we should be their care takers and not their destroyers.
Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can someone tell me what the heck a Regulatory Czar would do or is responsible for? What I'm trying to find out is if this guy's opinions on animal rights (which I strongly disagree with) would affect his job as Regulatory Czar...
I don't understand people who go this far for animal rights. I'm all for animal welfare, but in my experience, when someone says that they're "animal rights", I get nervous...