Getting Nudged, Real Hard

In a 57-40 vote, President Obama's nominee, Cass Sunstein, was confirmed as Director to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Don't let the humble title of the position fool you. This is a very powerful position, with a very power hungry man in the position. Any thought you had remaining, that this country in the future will be anything like your grandfather's country, will surely be destroyed after you learn what Sunstein is all about.

He believes that "A system of limitless individual choices with respect to communications is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government."

Question: How does Cass Sunstein determine WHAT a dog (or even a chimpanzee) is thinking? Is there some way he “channels” these creatures? Maybe the dog doesn’t WANT to sue, he just wants a little more consideration from his owner to whom the dog has given a most slavish devotion, and would readily forgive if given the opportunity.

Why must everything be tried before a court of law?

Didn’t this Cass Sunstein ever hear of “arbitration”?

The "Republicans" who voted for this maniac's confirmation need to be tarred and feathered: Bennett, Collins, Hatch, Lugar, Snowe, and Voinovich.

What is happening to the United States of America? Even socialist Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer voted against this freako. The world is upside-down.

One possible result of Sunstein's confirmation: Return of the bubonic plague, which is spread by rats. He has written, for public consumption, that animals such as rats should be able to attack us through the court system, and I suppose we would have to foot the bill for their court-appointed attorneys, as well. Writing in the University of Chicago’s Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 30, Sunstein advocated the right of animals to bring private suits in court by way of legal representatives:

He wrote, "If the suffering of animals matters—and every reasonable person seems to think that it does—we should be greatly troubled by these limitations. The least controversial response would be to narrow the “enforcement gap,” by allowing private suits to be brought in cases of cruelty and neglect. Reforms might be adopted with the limited purpose of stopping conduct that is already against the law, so that the law actually means, in practice, what it says on paper. Here, then, we can find a slightly less minimal understanding of animal rights. On this view, representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced…"

So if Cass Sunstein were to have it his way, a rat could sue us, yet we still don’t have standing to force a president to prove that he’s a citizen.

A dem congress can tear our country apart and steal our treasure, while a Sundays chicken dinner can sue us for wrongful death.

We live in a sick cartoon.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.