As we look at whom Obama surrounds himself with, another problematic individual comes to light as our Regulatory Czar – Cass Sunstein. Sunstein has a very radical stance with a broad series of issues from taxes to animal rights. Is it probable for a man who perhaps has the second most influential position in government intelligent enough to seize our liberties with a stroke of a pen?
Currently, Sunstein has made the assertion that his thinking would not obstruct with his job as Regulatory Czar. However, scores of his observations transpired less than 5 years ago. It is hard to phantom that he can just put his recent ideologies behind while he fine-tune laws pending.
“Although obscure,” reported the Wall Street Journal, “the post [Regulatory Czar] wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.”
Let’s take a glance at some of his progressive principles and let you decide.
We are all familiar with the need to pay taxes to keep government going. What government should be doing is finding ways to reduce the burden of paying these taxes. How Sunstein believed that there is no liberty without dependency is beyond my cognitive way of thinking. And to say we should have a good time in paying taxes is right down ludicrous:
“Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without any burden whatsoever on public fisc . . . There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate Tax Day.”
In Sunstein’s latest book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done (2009), Sunstein does not hide any pessimistic attitudes toward bloggers. He has called upon legislators in Washington to execute a “notice and taken down” law where bloggers and service providers are required to “take down falsehoods upon notice.” This is of course an infringement of our First Amendment. If passed, the government will enforce control over all facets of the Internet, dictating what is acceptable to THEIR preference. Bottom line – its censorship, plain and simple:
“We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet. We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?”
GUN CONTROL AND HUNTING
Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control. In 2005, Sunstein published a book titled, Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America. In this book, Sunstein writes about how fundamentalists should not be overwhelmed with confidence that the Constitution gives them the right to possess a gun:
“Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. . . [O]n the Constitution’s text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.”
Although Sunstein professed at his confirmation hearing that he was all for the Second Amendment, but he tells a much different tale during a 2007 lecture at the University of Chicago:
“My coming view is that the individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than [it] appears.”
This is Sunstein’s most prevalent quest. Sunstein has a PETA frame of mind when it comes to animal rights. His extreme views believe that animals should have a legal right to file lawsuits. This is not a tall story according to his book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004):
“. . . animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law . . . 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.”
He supports the above assertion by saying that before animals can come into the court system, laws must be passed that ALL animals are not considered as possessions:
“. . . representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. Of course, any animals would be represented by human beings, just like any other litigant who lacks ordinary (human) competence; for example, the interests of children are protected by prosecutors, and also by trustees and guardians in private litigation brought on children’s behalf. … If getting rid of the idea that animals are property is helpful in reducing suffering, then we should get rid of the idea that animals are property.” (Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, 2004)
Sunstein also believes that killing animals for food is merciless. This ideology includes farm animals. Envision his position as Regulatory Czar. He decides to place stringent regulatory guidelines on farmers and meat processors. Imagine when you go to your local grocery store to buy a steak that once cost you $10 but now is $25 because of these regulatory restrictions. In his paper, The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer, there is a section titled, “Increased Regulation of Hunting, Science, Farming, and More” where he talks about endorsing tougher guidelines:
“We should focus attention not only on the ‘enforcement gap,’ but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering.
. . .
If farms are regulated, the price of meat will increase, and people will be able to eat less meat. Hence it is necessary to weigh the gain to animal welfare against the harms to human beings.”
He also insinuates that federal law should be enacted since the customs of processing farm animals for food are unfettered at the state level:
“The cruel and abusive practices generally involved in contemporary farming are largely unregulated at the state level.”
Another point of view by Sunstein is the guilt people would feel if they knew how an animal died. Since people would have this regrettable feeling, and it is inevitable that animals suffer terribly, these people should not eat meat:
“Of course the largest issue involves eating meat . . . 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.” (Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, 2004)
Sunstein also expands by suggesting that abolishing the eating of meat may be wise for the American people. During a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein makes that perfectly clear:
“. . . eliminating current practices such as … meat eating.”
At the same lecture, Sunstein added:
“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.”
America is on the threshold of Constitutional collapse. And now that we have this wacko running side-by-side with the other czars and circling themselves around the President of the United States, our independence are at stake. Sunstein’s values are far too current for him to come out and say that it will not impede with his job as Regulatory Czar.
Gun purchases have skyrocketed soon after Obama’s appointment to the presidency. Its no secret what Obama and Sunstein will endeavor to do in our upcoming years. Bear in mind Obama’s comments during a clandestine recording in San Francisco when he indicated that rural America wanting to “cling to their guns and their religion.”
So Sunstein is unquestionably a left-wing extremist. Yet our government is far too busy keeping a close eye on him when they continuously bicker with each other. What should we do? How do we save our republic from the grips of tyranny?
Democrat and Republican, liberal or conservative, it doesn’t matter. We must stand united if we are to keep our liberties. As a group, we can differ on many issues. But also as a group, we can be of the same mind when it comes to keeping our liberties. One person should never run a collective. And it appears that is what Washington wants – to control our every day lives.
Fight back! Let your representatives and senators know that you are keeping them under a microscope. Let them know that they are on a fine line of losing a vote.
Don’t know who to write? Well, here is a starting point:
Write to Congress https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Write to the Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Sunstein was confrimed by the Senate on September 10, 2009. Here is the list of senators who voted and how they voted for Sunstein’s confirmation as Regulatory czar. Remember these elected officials when elections come around:
Grouped By Vote Position
Not Voting – 2
|Boxer (D-CA)||Byrd (D-WV)|