printAnd very possibly, a future Supreme-Court justice. Sunstein, bosom buddy and intellectual soul mate to Barack, was confirmed the other day by the Senate. Cusses all around. The tenacious Glenn Beck, who forewarned about Van Jones, has been on the case. But WND’s Ellis Washington makes the clearer case (although he fails to appreciate that America IS already regulated to death):
Cass Sunstein: Regulating America to Death
By Ellis Washington
Animals should be allowed to sue their owners.
~ Cass Sunstein
Because people ascribe a degree of respectability to academics, intellectuals, philosophers and scholars, they can disregard the rights of the people much easier than a naked tyrant. In fact, Rousseau, Darwin and Nietzsche can go places Hitler, Stalin, Chavez and Obama could never dream.
As I have written many times, the Obama administration are the masters of misdirection and chaos theory; therefore, while the America people last week were transfixed on the resignation of “Green Czar” Van Jones, another even more dangerous fascist from the academy quietly slipped through the portals of power.
Last Thursday Cass Sunstein, a former colleague and mentor of Obama’s at the University of Chicago Law School, was confirmed by a Senate vote of 57-40 as the new director of regulatory affairs and information, an obscure but powerful agency within the Office of Management and Budget. Here is what the “regulatory czar” does: He regulates laws – past, present and future.
Sunstein is a friendly fascist who only “nudges” people to bow to his will. TV host Glenn Beck says of Cass Sunstein that he is “the most powerful invisible man you’ll ever see.”
Are we headed for a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss? Find out in “Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America” Judge Richard A. Posner, an intellectual mentor of mine and former colleague with Sunstein and Obama at the University of Chicago Law School, said the following about Peter Singer, a Princeton professor and a leading scholar on animal rights with whom Sunstein is often associated:
Since the publication of “Animal Liberation” [1975], Singer has received a wide range of philosophical challenges to his formulation of animal rights. … Richard Posner challenged that Singer failed to see the “radicalism of the ethical vision that powers [his] view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly retarded child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees.
While Sunstein spent his entire career inventing rights for rats, dogs and pigs that would make the Constitution’s framers spin in their graves, he is even more despicable in casting aspersions against constitutional rights plainly delineated in the Bill of Rights. For example, here is Sunstein views on the Second Amendment right to bear arms:
“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.”
In 2008 Sunstein co-authored “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness” with economist Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago. “Nudge” discusses how public and private organizations can “help people” to make better choices in their daily lives since apparently Sunstein and his busybody socialist colleagues of the academy think that We the People are too stupid to live our own lives our own way and accept the consequences. Thaler and Sunstein argue that: People often make poor choices – and look back at them with bafflement! We do this because as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself. Space will not allow me to adequately detail the utter tyranny and naked assault on our constitutional rights Sunstein plans to launch against American capitalism in his new role as regulatory czar.
Here is a summary of the autocracy Americans can expect from Czar Sunstein: * Sunstein advocates a “Second Bill of Rights” even more totalizing and all-consuming than initially proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in the 1930s. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care and a right to protection against monopolies. * Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it legal standing for suit. * Sunstein has argued that “we should celebrate tax day.” * Rumor has it that Obama is grooming Sunstein as a future Supreme Court justice.
Last week Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said, “[Sunstein] is to the left of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” The leitmotiv of Sunstein’s entire legal philosophy and worldview is encapsulated in two very evil and failed philosophies of the past: 1) Social Darwinism [evolution], and 2) Moral Relativism – a theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
In other words, nothing has more intrinsic value than anything else. Sunstein’s ideas on judicial minimalism and behavioral economics belie the fact that for almost 30 years he has assaulted the Judeo-Christian traditions of Natural Law so venerated by the Constitution’s framers to preserve America’s republic.
To Sunstein ideas like “liberty,” “freedom” and “Natural Law” are irrelevant and counterproductive to his grand, socialist view of law rooted in moral relativism and social Darwinism. That’s how Sunstein can have a scholarship named after his dead dog while concurrently mandating environmental policies that will put tens of thousands of American farmers out of business by fostering ever expanding environmental, land and water regulations that will de facto make farming too cost-prohibitive.
What Mussolini, Stalin and Mao did in the light to harm their citizens and deny them their fundamental human rights, Cass Sunstein, as Obama’s regulatory czar, will do in the night by slowly, irrevocably regulating America to death. Sunstein reminds me of Shakespeare’s “Othello” when the sinister Iago repeatedly whispered his verbal venom into the receptive ear of Othello (Obama), which lead to his demise. Indeed, Sunstein said it best: “There is no liberty without dependency.”
Update I (Sept. 12): I’m not mad about the cheapened Argument From Hitler (in the Comments Section). So far, Barack is continuing the “work” Bush and others before him began. Few Republicans fussed about the breakneck speed at which the Bush Administration concentrated power in the executive, to give but one example. Or the way it expanded the warfare state, to give another. So far, I don’t see a qualitative difference between Bush and Obama; they exist on the same continuum of accreting statism.
Update II: I wonder if crazy Cass would come for me if he read my defense of Michael Vick: In Defense Of Michael Vick I & In Defense of Michael Vick, Part 2.
Update III (Sept. 13): To the imperious reader who is unhappy with my disinterest in the futile, immaterial evolution debate: We are not about to go off-topic and veer into evolution. Take it behind the scenes with Myron. As for the “not good enough” complaint: More so than most columnists and writers, I have applied libertarian thinking to a wide-ranging array of topics, from intellectual property to antitrust, to Just War, to economy, Hollywood, Islam—you name it, I’ve written about it. Far more important than the idiotic evolution debate has been my defense of the unique, privileged, preeminent nature of humanity in the universe. The articulation of that philosophical position is far more significant than the idiotic debates about evolution, engaged in by the Godless neocons/Republicans and their adversaries. Now, if the bitching reader were a major donor toward my generally thankless efforts at shedding light where darkness is the rule—then I might indulge him. But, alas, he isn’t.
Addendum: Here’s fodder for another fit over my unorthodox positions: Even more disinterested am I in whether God exists or not. I conduct my life with morality and ethics. Some would say that’s godly enough. Others would demand communal worship. Frankly, I don’t care. It makes no sense to assert or fight over the irrational and the supernatural; that which cannot be proven. I respect believers and defend the Western, Judeo-Christian tradition–this is the sum of my work. That’s all that matters. To me, at least. (At that’s what counts.)
What is going on in this country? WHat can the real citizens of this country do? The liberal disease is here in full swing.
I have felt for some time that Obama is operating the same way Adolph Hitler did in coming to power, fooling the gullible U.S. citizens, and slowly consolidating his power and grip on the economy and the American people. His suggestion of a civilian force, reminds me of Hitler’s Brownshirts or SA. We are already a fascist state and Obama is tightening his control.
Barack sure can pick ’em! This is one scary dude.
I agree with ilana this Cass cat is one twisted dude
http://www.tsrn.us/blog/2009/09/12/meet-cass-sunstein/
I also agree this consolidation of DC and Executive Branch power has really accelerated from GHWB thru Barry, the People, Money , Power connections are so intertwined , its really hard to believe it is just a coincidence.
Wiki says that Sunstein’s philosophy is “libertarian paternalism” (Oi Vey! – Huh!).
What I find amusing is the concept of “legal scholar” – which, in reality, is someone who takes the clear language of a charter for limited government like the US Constitution and Orwellizes it – e.g. “no animal shall sleep in a bed WITH SHEETS.” Frankly, the Sunsteins and Obamas (remember, our Messianic Schmoozer is another Constitutional Scholar) could do the same with the Articles of Confederation if they tried. Start with some cute malarkey with complex verbiage and turn the document 1 degree at a time until you have completed a 180 degree rotation – add “public education” to bake the American mentality until completely burned to a crisp – and you are a legal scholar.
Ilana, As someone who does political and legal philosophy, I have been following Sunstein for years. You are right about his views — the idea of him as a SC justice is literally horrifying. But he is a much more substantial person than Van Jones, who was never anything more that a rousing activist. It will take a lot of effort and attention to neutralize Sunstein. Keep up the good work!
What does it matter? Obama is going to take the fall for the economy so let’s be glad he’ll take down a lot of losers with him.
Moving on, it is time for a female Hebrew. I recommend Ron Paul for President and Ilana as VP in 2012.
Excuse me, but what is this? Leaving aside Nietzsche (a ferocious anti-Statist, who described the State as “the great conglomeration of the superfluous”), what exactly is Darwin’s name doing on this list? To be sure, he went far further than “Hitler, Stalin, Chavez or Obama”, not difficult for any scientist, let alone the single greatest biologist who has ever lived. Yet, I cannot shake the feeling that, in context, that’s not quite what was meant.
To paraphrase Mencius, Darwin took us to the top of the mountain and showed us how small our world really is – but how vast the world really is. His intellectual achievement has very few parallels.
As long as American rightists think it clever to go in for this kind of intellectual philistinism, they’ll continue to get their asses deservedly handed to them.
An addendum, about the linked post,
There is a wealth of first-rate books explaining the evidence for evolution for the intelligent layman, one of the most recent being Dawkins’s The Greatest Show on Earth. And, unlike relativity or quantum physics, evolution can be addressed directly, without years of specialized learning.
Given this “I just don’t know” is not good enough.
“Given this “I just don’t know” is not good enough.” Hugo
Here we see “atheistic intolerance”.
Ah, Ilana! I see you have put Hugo in his place already. I should have known.
Of which I am aware and have read. However, I do believe you have missed the important point.
I have lost count of the number of times I’ve heard American rightists whine about their loss of the entire cultural arena. What do they expect? By endorsing this flim-flam they hand the mantle of science, reason and progress to the opposition – and then sit slack jawed when they’re cut to ribbons in debate, or dismissed as reactionary cranks. Now one could try to reclaim it for the cause of individualism, liberty and capitalism. Alternatively, one could decide it’s too much trouble, and sit on the sidelines wailing that everything’s going down the tubes.
A decidely Godless non-neocon, John Derbyshire, has very accurately described the squalid innuendo against Darwin as “a blood libel on Western Civilization”. Quite. What kind of “conservatism” wants to throw out the crowning glories of the West?
[Darwin was hardly the best of the West. Bach: now that I can understand. Derb is a paleoconservative—and a Ron Paul supporter. I am hardly in the mold of the rightists against whom you rail (Mark Steyn is), so go debate them.]
“Now, if the bitching reader were a major donor toward my generally thankless efforts at shedding light where darkness is the rule—then I might indulge him.” Ilana
The check, such as it is, is in the mail. You have my thanks but alas, little cash. We love you Ilana.
Vox Day loves to debate Darwinist, and I believe, has challenged Dawkins to a debate. Personally I don’t care what someone else believes, but in regard to the destruction of culture, I blame the ‘Victorian Era’ which contained numerous contradictions, including both evolution and creationism. But my favorite scientist is Sir. Issac Newton, on whom most of our knowledge of the “Vast World” hinges. But back to the subject of this post, which our reader who led us down a rabbit trail did not address. Mr. Cass Sunstein has a soul mate in John Holden, who knows what the two of them can concoct. All of these old doomsday advocating people are being resurrected, long after they have been forgotten by most of the world. Next cabinet post will be granted to the president of the Hemlock Society.
“… – and then sit slack jawed when they’re cut to ribbons in debate, …” Hugo
They have not debated me and I assure you not all the bloody ribbons would be mine. But I am nothing compared to some heavy weights I know of.
Yes, there are many ninnies on my side, just as there are many on your side.
As libertarians, let’s agree to disagree. Rather that fight over what should be taught in the government schools, for instance, let’s just abolish them.
The truth will surely prevail on a level playing field, eh?
I believe that Dawkins’s standard reply is “Would look good on your C.V. Not so good on mine.” You can find a more lengthy discussion of that in A Devil’s Chaplain.
Let me give you another example. Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal fascism does wonders in refuting the canard that fascism is somehow the result of capitalism run amuck. However, he fatally damages his case by going in for this sort of horrible innuendo against Darwin (and also by trying to airbrush the role of Catholicism and Christianity in the Fascist movements of the twentieth century).
So, I wonder again, what’s Darwin doing on this list?
Hugo,
I am beginning to see your point. Darwin made great contributions, no doubt. But the neo-Darwinists, like the neo-Keynesians have gone way too far. Since you keep quoting Dawkins then I surmise you are a neo-Darwinist?
neo-Darwinism: random mutations + natural selection accounts for all the diversity in life. The origin of life itself, however, is left unexplained.
The devil is in the details and probability theory. Your side has been driven to postulating an infinite number of undetectable universes and we just happen to be in one of the incredible lucky ones so that we are able to experience our good fortune.
So now it is faith versus faith.
But what do you have to win? A morally unbounded, meaningless life followed by extinction? Forgive a great many of us if we choose to look a little harder instead.
“what’s Darwin doing on this list?” Original comment in the article- “Rousseau, Darwin and Nietzsche can go places Hitler, Stalin, Chavez and Obama could never dream” The writer clearly stated that Darwin was a “GREATER PERSON” person” than any living or dead would be dictator. ie Darwin was ‘exaulted’ Lifted up, more or less praised. Is it Mr. Schmidt’s contention that no one can be compared to his hero. Then speaks of winning debates followed with a statement that there is no debate it’s all settled science. Talk about a religion; shess. However, Mr. Schmidt has provided four comments and not one has dealt with the subject, namely- Cass Sunstein. Does he agree that the subject matter ie Cass Sunstein is a danger to liberty or not?
The reason I didn’t engage with it was simple and straightforward: I agree with Mrs. Mercer (n.b.: do you prefer being referred to as Mrs. Mercer or Ilana?). My own comments would have amounted to less than gilding the lilly.
I focused on this because it is key to why the right keeps getting gutted in arguments. I also don’t believe for one second that the article above means to praise Darwin. Here’s the context:
Uh-huh.
As I repeat, it matters, because the right’s indulgence in this drivel is key to it getting gutted.
Moon,
Neo-Darwinism is the addition of genetics to explain the source of variation that powers evolution.
Just glancing at the rest of your comment, you clearly don’t understand the first thing about evolution. Break open a few books and read something on it.
Oh, and to this:
Atlas Shrugged has been in print for over fifty years. And before that, you could go back to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. Yet, that’s all secondary. I don’t flinch from conclusions just because they’re upsetting.
Finally: there is no “debate” about evolution. Every single piece of evidence supports evolution, and none is against it.