• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Czars

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Curious why Czars like Jones did not have to fill out the back ground check from Obama like all of his cabinet members and employees did. Funny that Czars have unchecked power but with Obama they also had unchecked background checks, even though everyone else went through the toughest check ever in political history.

You think maybe he wanted to have the ability to deny knowledge since he knew he was going to appoint some pretty loony people out there with some questionable past? :?
 

Tam

Well-known member
What are ranchers going to do when Cass Sunstein is confirmed by the Senate today as the Reg. Czar. He supports giving animals the right to sue their owners. He wants to eliminate ALL meat from the School lunch programs. He wants to ban hunting and and fishing. This guy is PETA through and through and he is the one that will be writing the regulations you will have to live with.
 

Tam

Well-known member
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?... 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 placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

Indeed, I have not been able to find any federal statute that allows animals to sue in their own names. As a rule, the answer is therefore quite clear: Animals lack standing as such, simply because no relevant statute confers a cause of action on animals. It seems possible, however, that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests.

“[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. ”

Quotes from the new Reg Czar.

Be proud you liberals this guy is one of Obama's best friends.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Tam said:
Indeed, I have not been able to find any federal statute that allows animals to sue in their own names. As a rule, the answer is therefore quite clear: Animals lack standing as such, simply because no relevant statute confers a cause of action on animals. It seems possible, however, that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests.

I've seen this brought up frequently.

I haven't seen any proof that Sunstein proposes that animals be given standing. What it sounds like to me is a legal scholar discussing a topic and providing a hypothetical situation.

But I suppose that in the world of hysterical tinfoil-helmet wearers, such intellectual exercises are damning evidence of thinking.

I don't know a thing about Sunstein.

But Obama better clue in and not cave to a demagogue like Beck again, or he is going to have a real problem on his hands.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Curious why Czars like Jones did not have to fill out the back ground check from Obama like all of his cabinet members and employees did. Funny that Czars have unchecked power but with Obama they also had unchecked background checks, even though everyone else went through the toughest check ever in political history.

You think maybe he wanted to have the ability to deny knowledge since he knew he was going to appoint some pretty loony people out there with some questionable past? :?

barracko got in without background checks...guess he didnt' want them to go thru something he had never been thru.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
I haven't seen any proof that Sunstein proposes that animals be given standing. What it sounds like to me is a legal scholar discussing a topic and providing a hypothetical situation.
That is the PROBLEM they are only scholars they have NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE.
They are trying to pass these "scholar debates" as legislation.

What I learned in college and what I learned in the real work force were 2 totaly different things. What sounds good on paper is NOT the best way to go in most times.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
“…a White House official conceded Sunday that Jones’ past statements weren’t as thoroughly scrubbed…”

and they weren't talking about washing his mouth out with soap.

they were talking about "scrubbing" the internet of any past proof of radicalism
 
Top