Image via WikipediaOur most daunting task to date is going to be giving you all the information when it comes to Mr. Cass Sunstein, one of the few "Czars" who has been confirmed by the senate. From proposing a 2nd bill of rights to advocating that our pets are entitled to representation, Mr. Sunstein offers us a look of what it means to truly be out of touch with reality.
Mr. Sunstein is a "constitutional" (I use the term loosely) lawyer. He is on record for the following statements made either in print or in the media:
On terminal patients: "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission.... Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend.... In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life."
My question is since when does anything having to do with my body belong to the state? If I want to be a donor that is all fine and good, after I am dead take what you need. If I am still breathing hands off the scalpel and keep trying to save my life.
Sunstein is also on record for saying things like:
"(the) socialist movement (never took hold because of the)...."smaller and weaker political left or lack of enthusiasm for redistributive programs."
No kidding this is America.
"If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives."
Again this is America we don't believe in this type of thinking. Any charity we give comes from donations to non-profits or volunteering our time.
Sunstein also believes:
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)...."
So every white man or woman out there is a racist and that is why we do not want socialism? Are you serious? He also lends support to communism by stating:
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.... I think this debate was unhelpful; it is most plausible to see the two sets of rights as mutually reinforcing, not antagonistic."
Really, so how do we pay enough taxes to ensure everyone has a home, a job, health care, a decent wage? Also the Soviets weren't big on free speech nor religion because they wanted to replace religion that involves the soul with a religion that involves the state, and to accomplish that they could not afford to have people professing their beliefs freely so they also heavily suppressed freedom of speech.
Sunstein has also proposed a 2nd Bill of rights which entitles the following:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation" -- Ok. What if I don't have the proper skill set or intelligence to be of use?
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation." -- Define adequate are we talking Latrell Sprewell ( the Minnesota Timberwolves offered Sprewell a 3-year, $21 million contract extension, substantially less than what his then-current contract paid him. Insulted, he publicly vented his outrage, declaring, "I have a family to feed.") adequate? Or are we talking Jed Clampett before he discovered oil?
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living." -- Again please define "decent living" are we talking barely surviving or living in style? Who do we fund it?
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad." -- In the free market business rise and fall based on the decisions of that leadership. We have no business leveling the playing field. If a person can corner the market by supplying a better product at a cheaper price, more power to him.
"The right of every family to a decent home." -- Aren't we in trouble from this right now? Isn't the federal government in charge of making loans through Freddie and Fannie? --Wasn't that part of Barney Frank's progressive agenda?
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." -- Heath care is a service, it is not a right. If you can't afford it, consider changing your life style or by getting a better job.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment." -- What does this entail? Don't we already have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Does it mean that I have the right to protection from defecating on myself when I am 100 years old?
"The right to a good education." -- This one is a tough one to argue but in this day and age there are already several programs that help people go to university and get a degree. Does it really need to be legislated?
So after taking all of that in it is fairly clear that government is supposed to control and decide all the issues of your life. Do you trust them to do a good job if the 2nd Bill of Rights gets implemented? I don't.
Cass also has interesting views on abortion like:
"I have argued that the Constitution ... forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases.... There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections."
So, not only does he espouse federal funding of murdering unborn children but he expects the average citizen to be forced to help pay for it.
He is also a fan of dismantling free speech:
"purely commercial (television) stations (should) provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.... worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
"compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.... It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'
Really, so Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and other would be forced to present "both" sides of the issue or be forced off the air. If they chose to comply and couldn't find an "opposing" viewpoint then they would be unable to air the story or segment. How do you like that for freedom of speech?
Last and possibly the most interesting is his views on animals and their "interest:"
"If we focus on suffering, as I believe that we should, it is not necessarily impermissible to kill animals and use them for food; but it is entirely impermissible to be indifferent to their interests while they are alive. So too for other animals in farms, even or perhaps especially if they are being used for the benefit of human beings."
While I have never advocated the mistreatment of animals do they deserve legal representation? Sunstein thinks so:
“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are
persons, or that they are not property. A state could certainly confer rights on a pristine area, or a painting, and allow people to bring suit on its behalf, without therefore saying that that area and that painting may not be owned. It might, in these circumstances, seem puzzling that so many people are focusing on the question of whether animals are property. We could retain the idea of property but also give animals far more protection against injury or neglect of their interests.”
Wow, I mean wow, really? So how would my dog, if she became distraught because I only give her a cup of dry dog food instead of a can of "wet" dog food retain that lawyer?
If your interested in finding out more on Cass Sunstein here is a PDF file full of quotes.