Obama czar pick: 'Raving animal rights nut'

This is a bit old, but I hadn't seen it discussed here before:

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."

capoliticalnews.com...


What a wacko. Definitely a Friend of Obama. The fact that Obama nominated him is proof of his (Obama's) radicalism.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by jsobecky]

This extremist whacko also thinks animals should have the right to sue.

obama-oversight.blogspot.com...

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."

I'm sure sooner or later he will want to give inanimate objects rights too. For example a Rubic's Cube will be able to sue you for twisting it too many times and for cheating by removing the stickers and putting all of a color on one side. Then cows can sue McDonald's for serving us meat when they strictly forbade it in the Supreme Court.

honestly , from what I know of the ultra left wing , animal rights and hug a tree croud , most are very nice people , more intelegant then most of your common sports bar croud , but not one of them have ever thought out their politics .

frankly speaking , they are easier to talk to than most liberals , because the moment you actualy get them talking , the words being spoken , make them blush and run away...

with this nut case as a public official... running away is not only not an option... but now we can force all the nut cases to hear , just how idiotic what they are saying actualy is.

they do not beleive what they are saying... how can you exspect the rest of us to except it?


point in case .

where do you actualy live .
... just explain where you live as a animal rights person ...

question? are all animals created equal , fairness? standard of living ? redistrabution of wealth ?

lets get these people talking , answering questions , lets get them out of the dark corners where they are hideing .. get a microphone in their face..

I want them to tell us what they want from your children , the unions , the marxist , socialists , and welfare state .
the impact of what they want on corprate govermental culture .

Glen, is that you???

JSO forgot the link.

All of you should get a little $$$ for providing GB synopsis's

My dog is working on a case against you now!

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.

there you have it .

lets start with the care taker of animals .

the real world is brutal .

this is not a deisney movie , and your not living in a cartoon .
your wareing plant fiber , you live among people .

do you for one moment beleive that people are more brutal than other animals .

in point of debate , I submit , the greatest harm is being done by primitive cultures .

that ALL the animal rights organizations are nothing more that shake down artists , who will and do sell their beleifs to the highest bidder...

and they ALL use deisney land , as their point of refreance .

wake up and smell the coffee...
bambi is not real , domestic animals are un-natural , you are alive because of un-natural acts , and you could not live in the world you seek to create .

you have never thought this out .
you have never created a logical end to your thinking that includes the people who will pay your bills .

we have every right , when the animal rights people play their song , remember who is playing the music ...

the people who want money for their silance .

when you can feed the third world , get back to me on fair treatment of animals .

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.

Man...
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law --
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrieked against his creed.
--Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Tennyson's quote comes from a group of cantos entitled, "In Memorium A.H.H." (1850). This quote comes from canto LVI. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 3rd Ed.

Richard Dawkins used this quote in his book, "The Selfish Gene," to summarize the behavior of all living things which arises out of the survival of the fittest doctrine of evolutionary biology. His unsentimental view of behavioral biology was originally unpopular when the book was published in 1976, coming at a time when the prevailing worldview of human behavior was tabula rasa, that all men were created equally, with the same potentialities, who could be brought up in cultures which could bring up children who knew only love and not hate, and who could be taught that competition for mates, material acquisitions, or sports trophies were a thing of the past.

Dawkins used the quote as a corrective, reminding us that we humans are born into a world with pre-existent genetic imperatives that cause us to be competitive despite the best efforts of education and religion to suppress those imperatives. Man... Who trusted God was love indeed And love Creation's final law -- Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw With ravine, shrieked against his creed. --Alfred, Lord Tennyson Tennyson's quote comes from a group of cantos entitled, "In Memorium A.H.H." (1850). This quote comes from canto LVI. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 3rd Ed. Richard Dawkins used this quote in his book, "The Selfish Gene," to summarize the behavior of all living things which arises out of the survival of the fittest doctrine of evolutionary biology. His unsentimental view of behavioral biology was originally unpopular when the book was published in 1976, coming at a time when the prevailing worldview of human behavior was tabula rasa, that all men were created equally, with the same potentialities, who could be brought up in cultures which could bring up children who knew only love and not hate, and who could be taught that competition for mates, material acquisitions, or sports trophies were a thing of the past. Dawkins used the quote as a corrective, reminding us that we humans are born into a world with pre-existent genetic imperatives that cause us to be competitive despite the best efforts of education and religion to suppress those imperatives.

everything2.com...

Have you ever seen a cat torture and kill a mouse? Should we take the cat and lock it away for re-education? Would it not be better to acknowledge that nature is cruel no matter if you are the cat, the mouse, or the man?

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...

I might add ...

the balance angle is lame on the face of it .

the wolves in nature will ( and did ) kill every creature large enought to eat... and then they starved...

when the cougars were killed by cattle companys, the deer over populated eatting everything , and now... this very moment . they will either be feed by humans or die of starvation .

the only real balance on earth is the result of human's , and when bambi and mickey mouse start running things .. you have a fire that is burning down the state of california .

I go into the woods about 5 or 6 times a year to target shoot.
I look forward to the eco freaks and animal rights nut cases to provide me long range feilds of canopy fire burn .

the envirmental movement is successfully burning down every forest in the pacific north west . canopy fires kill every animal , plant and moss ... with the outcome... no one wins .

when you give in , they get what they want... a moon scape that reaches for as far as the eye can see...

the moon is natural , thats what you seek , I like logical manigment of materials for the best out come of human use .

profitable forests do not burn to the ground , because there is no money in it . animals do not fight forest fires .

seek the self intrest of the people you want to bully , and you have a start .

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Apparently he is making sure your avatar has the right to sue you
You need to pay it royalties.

reply to post by Egyptia


In many places, hunting is beneficial to the deer population. With the exception of the wolf, the deer have no natural predators. As a result, many starve to death, become diseased, or encroach further into suburban areas, where they can be killed or injured in traffic accidents. A thinner heard makes a stronger, healthier heard. Without hunting, the deer population can double every 2 years.
Plus, venison is tasty.

I am not sure who or what the regulatory czar is suppose to do, but I do know that they do not want to show up out west where there are farmers and ranchers, cause they may find that the regulations on water usage is hurting more people than it is helping. Let me think, a little bait fish, (fish that is used to catch bigger fish) or food that goes on the table and jobs that put people to work? I wonder what is more important.

I wonder if this guy has ties to PETA?

Side note: I told the dog that if he got a lawyer and sued for being neutered, he would not get any more treats and the cats are not allowed to sue me for getting the dog, or they would not get any catnip and end up with food they do not like.

As much as I am nervous about animal rights activists (I think they can be one form of extremist - and this guy seems to be that) I support his right (as a human) to have his views and speak his mind. And I'm not sure his job will be impacted by his personal beliefs...

I need a little help on this one guys!. I was googling to see if I could find anything about the newest soon to be csar, Ron Bloom, and I find a listing in google but when I tried to click on it my computer just went nuts and started downloading some sort of defender on my computer. I had to do a system restore to even get back online.

Here is the url I clicked be warned:

justplainbillmusic.com/.f65e2/manage.php?.

I did a google search of " ron bloom 2005"

In 2008 the people of Ecuador voted by an overwhelming majority (64%) to approve a new constitution. In the constitution they have voted to approve articles that recognize constitutional rights for nature and ecosystems.

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.

Ecuadorian Assembly Approves Constitutional Rights for Nature

If this guys views are anything like what's in the new Ecuadorian constitution, I don't see any problem whatsoever. I can't wait until we follow Ecuador's footsteps...

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...

This is amazing - opinions on animals are equated with regulatory concerns?

That is an amazing way to put it BH

good thing my employer does not know my opinions on people with big trucks...

Might effect the way I do the books

reply to post by RRconservative

I think animals should have the right to sue.

Why? Because I want to see an animal file a lawsuit. how cool would that be?

I'm not an Obamaite - but I like this.
Animals have been abused much too long.
And killing them for sport is just lower level evolution.

I am disgruntled of the fact that people love throwing the factor of evolution in this equation. Evolution = survival of the fittest. Weak will discentagrate and the strong shall survive. Some people in strict content haven't even the ability to derive a lawsuite. So how can someone even notibly concur a decision that animal can legitimately sue someone. Yes, I am an animal lover, I have a wonderful dog, which I love, but the fact remains the same. You give an inch, and they will take a mile. This is just a small crumb from the block of cheese, so to speak. WAKE UP AMERICA!! Our fore fathers are probably rolling over in their caskets, with the way my fellow countrymen are behaving. I think we have more concerning issues. Animals suing, no guns for protection, knowing your enemy, blah blah blah... Sounds like a wacky book I read as a kid.... Alice through the looking Glass / Alice in Wonderland!!!