Tag Archives: roe v. wade

Does Dr. Gosnell Deserve Death Penalty for Baby Abortion Murders

gosnell

Dr. Kermit Gosnell willfully murdered innocent babies born alive and faces death penalty

Dr. Kermit Gosnell willfully murdered innocent

babies born alive and faces death penalty

 America witnessed two murder trials during the course of the infamous abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial in Philadelphia. The first murder trial ended on Monday May 13, 2013 with the conviction of Gosnell for brutally murdering three innocent babies with scissors after the babies were born alive. The second murder trial which went largely unnoticed was the unacceptable silence of the mainstream media to acknowledge the butchering of countless babies who were born alive and were murdered in the most grisly fashion.

Dr. Gosnell was an abortionist who not only murdered the innocents with a passion that can only have been replicated during the dark days of Nazi Germany’s practice of eliminating the Jewish people during World War II. Now with Gosnell’s conviction, this dark pathological practice can no longer be ignored by the media and even those who claim to support abortion rights.

Dr. Gosnell, according to the Wall Street Journal, was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of Karnamaya Mongar, who died due to a sedation overdose. Yet, this murder trial which produced dozens of counts by a grand jury against the doctor’s murderous practices also created a media blackout that noted journalist Kirsten Powers noted in her USA Today op-ed, “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.” Kirsten went on to rightly stress, “This should be front page news!”

Now one of the most important chapters in the annuals of American jurisprudence will occur in the coming days. Should Dr. Kermit Gosnell be sentenced to death for his horrifying murders which shock the conscience of his jurors? For these jurors the memories of coming to terms with count after count of Dr. Gosnell’s horrifying misdeeds will surely haunt them past their decision to give him life without parole or death by execution.

This decision by the jurors actually is a turning point for those who support breaking the binding repressive liberal media attacks on those who have stood for supporting a baby’s right to life and to be called a baby and not a “fetus”. It is important that this distinction is heralded across this nation, now and forever more. A baby was murdered, and a man was convicted for each and every murder the jury found Gosnell guilty of.

But the decision in this case does not end the dialogue concerning the murdering of babies who are aborted. Rather it signals a clarion call for each and every man and woman who understands that a baby is born and is viable and has a right to live in this country, not by political decision but by his or her God given right!

If Dr. Gosnell takes the stand to ask for leniency from the jury who can order that he be put to death, he should bear witness to the truth of his guilt and be willing to take the full measure of the punishment. In truth, Dr. Gosnell should be punished with the ultimate sentence, since he committed the ultimate crime in depriving these innocent babies the right to life given to each by their creator, God.

___________________

(Let me know what you think)

Roe at 40: A Discussion with Live Action’s Lila Rose

Screen Shot 2013-01-23 at 4.25.03 PM

Screen Shot 2013-01-23 at 4.25.03 PMOn January 22, the United States celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, which legalized abortion in all fifty states.  In doing so, the Court usurped a developing consensus amongst the state legislatures on the issue, and violated the principle of federalism that should guide how we enact policy in this country.  Nevertheless, Roe, in estimates from The National Right to Life Committee, has been responsible for 54,559,615 abortions since 1973.  As Daniel Halper wrote for The Weekly Standard on January 22,”that…means there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 137 abortions per hour every hour in the United States. Translated another way, an abortion is done about every 30 seconds in the United States.”

I was fortunate to have a discussion with Live Action’s President, Lila Rose, on the future of the pro-life movement, and what activities they intend to aggressively pursue in this vicious front of America’s culture war.  Live Action has been at the forefront of documenting abuses made by Planned Parenthood in various undercover stings across the country.  What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

In the wake of the 2012 elections, pro-life Americans found themselves back in the minority.  What does Live Action plan to do to turn that tide, especially reaching out to the youth, and urban areas where most abortions are performed?

Sure.  Well, first of all – I mean a lot of the latest polling indicates that more Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. And there’s certainly in the last forty years, despite the Supreme Court case  [Roe v. Wade] that vandalized our constitution and made abortion somehow a right – Americans – more and more with the rise of the ultra sound imagery and with the rise of independent media have been seeing the truth about the child in the womb. And the number of pro-lifers is increasing.  Particularly, one of the strongest demographics is young people.

Live Action’s work reaches over a million people every week through social media. We have a news website that’s contributed by over 50 writers; most of them young people, investigating and doing original reporting on the abortion industry – and lobby.   And it’s really been amazing to see this growth from people all over the country – the grassroots – who want the truth about human dignity and who want to expose the violence of abortion  – the injustice of abortion.  And that is a movement that’s only growing.  And Live Action also has a magazine, a leading pro-life magazine, for students on hundreds of high school and colleges, and reaching them every day on campuses, as well as online – and that’s one of the programs we’re going to be aggressively building in the next year because we believe that when you put the truth in front of students – when you put the truth in front of young people. When you put the truth out there, then it changes hearts and minds, and we’ve seen that again and again.

A new NBC/WSJ poll showed that 70% of Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and 24% want it to be overturned.  Thirty-nine percent approve of the decision, 18% disapprove – but 41% don’t have enough information to make an opinion.  In that regard, how successful have you been in educating Americans, who may not know much about Roe v. Wade – or its implications on our society?

Right, it’s a great question. I think that – that study directly reveals the amazing opportunity we have as a movement because there are a lot of people who are unreached in our country with the truth about abortion and human dignity.  And Live Action may be reaching a million people online every week.  But there are over 300+ million more people to reach.  So, this is really just the beginning of – you know, this is – we’re at an amazing point where we have the tools at our disposal, and the truth at our disposal – and now it’s a matter of how many people can we reach.

Is Live Action, as an organization, planning to lobby Congress to resurrect PRENDA (Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act), which punishes doctors for performing sex-selecive abortions?

Sure.  Well, the focus of Live Action Advocate, our 501 (c) (4) that I’m involved with, and the focus of Live Action Advocate, as it has been one of the rallying cry/calls of the pro-life movement is to make sure that the biggest abortion chain in the country, Planned Parenthood, is no longer receiving the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that it get every year from the government – and under President Obama that number has skyrocketed to half a billion of taxpayers dollars goes to the biggest abortion chain.  So, that really is the priority.  We need a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  We need to establish the personhood of the unborn child, and part of the path to make that happen we need to make sure that the abortion industry, in our country, is not being subsidized by the government.

Rose also debunked the claim that abortion represents only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, which was also exposed as false in a op-ed in Life News by the Americans United for Life Legal Team last October.  However, it’s still a tough fight.  As Allahpundit wrote for Hot Air last November, only 38% described themselves as pro-life, compared to 54% who identified themselves as pro-choice.  However, this was fresh off the 2012 elections, and Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock’s unfortunate comments about rape and pregnancy surely didn’t help the cause. However, Life News’ Steve Ertelt has disputed recent polls showing a pro-choice majority.

Furthermore, Allahpundit wrote today that the NBC/WSJ poll could be skewed (NBC! no way!):

because Gallup didn’t specify ‘three months’ in its phrasing of the Roe question, more respondents focused on the entire term of pregnancy and that dropped the numbers. Or there could be some quirk in the methodology, specifically having to do with the number who answer ‘don’t know’ about Roe.

In the NBC poll, just six percent answered “not sure” when asked if the decision should be overturned; in Gallup, by contrast, “no opinion” draws 18 percent, which is more than 10 points higher than that figure used to be circa 2002-03. How come? Gallup has a theory:

Gallup trends indicate that the increase in public uncertainty about overturning Roe v. Wade is largely the result of a growing percentage of young adults aged 18 to 29 expressing no opinion. This suggests that the generation born entirely after Roe became law has had less exposure to information about the decision than those who lived through the original decision…

[…]

Good news and bad news there, obviously. Younger voters who express no opinion are potentially persuadable by pro-lifers, so in theory the anti-Roe numbers could expand in time. (Democratic overreach will help: Gallup notes that support for making abortion legal in all cases dropped after partial-birth abortion became a hot topic in the mid-90s.) Problem is, young adults are famously more liberal than other age groups on a variety of issues. That doesn’t mean they can’t make an exception for abortion.

Although, he did say that engaging Millenials on this issue is “going against the ideological tide.”

Nevertheless, Rose’s outreach initiatives through social media is where pro-lifers can turn the tide.  Case in point,  despite his poor economic record, Barack Obama vastly outspent Mitt Romney in social media last year, and won.  Go to where young people get their information.

This opportunity is accentuated with the resignation of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s President Nancy Keenan, who left since “most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue,  [while] NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters.”

This whole fight is based on public opinion, which is shiftable sand.  However, with the dissemination of the facts, the malfeasance of Planned Parenthood, and the utilization of social media – pro-lifers, like Lila Rose, could easily gain the strategic edge over the long term.

The latest Live Action news, including their recent investigation into Planned Parenthood’s complicity in sex-selective abortion, can be found here.

 

Do Parents who Choose Life over Abortion Deserve Tax Break For Unborn Child

Children in Washington D.C. - protesting against abortion
Women who had abortions - protesting to protect unborn life

Women who had abortions – protesting to protect unborn life

As the year 2012 closes, there are millions of parents across the nation who should be realizing a tax break for their unborn child.  If their state follows Michigan’s lead which is considering granting parents that chose preserving a child’s life in the womb deserves a financial break.  For several weeks Michigan GOP legislators have been seriously contemplating granting a tax credit for parents of fetuses that are twelve weeks or older, according to the publication, the New Civil Rights Movement.

Liberals in the state legislature immediately jumped on the notion of granting an economic benefit for those cash-strapped parents who may be hit with higher taxes next year. They, like many parents across the nation are worried about the congress and the president being hopelessly deadlocked in ‘fiscal cliff ‘negotiations that will possibly add an additional $2,300 – $3,500 tax bill to their household. Why are Democrats worried about granting a tax break for middle-class families? Does it make sense to you?

Parents that have chosen protecting a child’s life over aborting the child should be a cause for celebration and why not reward the expectant parents with a tax break and legislators with re-election!  State legislatures across the nation are moving to strengthen the opportunity for an unborn child to hold onto their right to life, as abortion numbers continue to fall in America.

In 2009, which is the last year for reported abortion numbers, “A total of 784,507 abortions were reported to CDC for 2009. Of these abortions, 772,630 (98.5%) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2000–2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The value of life in the womb is gaining traction.  And these future parents deserve to be helped and not spurned by liberal and anti-life supporters.  Millions of families that are seeing their bills continue to increase, and it becomes more difficult to make their shrinking paychecks stretch.  A tax break for their unborn child, could be passed in early 2013 and have retroactive impact on 2012 income.

Is this legislation extreme as many liberals have claimed, who are concerned about the possibility that an unborn child just might be granted “personhood rights” rights? The director of Progress Michigan, Zack Pohl, called the pro-family legislation a back door way of, “passing extreme personhood legislation.”

How can it be extreme to grant a young struggling family the right to take advantage of the tax system that could grant them the benefit of putting a little more in their budget to pay for items necessary for the support of their expected child?

 

How can  liberals like Obama, force Catholic institutions like Georgetown pay for Law student Sandra Fluke’s abortion pills, but liberal leaders like him them not support tax-breaks for struggling parents of an unborn child?

With the fortieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe V. Wade decision coming in May of 2013, it seems more than ironic, that these same anti-life pro-choice forces are looking for yet another way to deprive a mother and father of a benefit of bringing a life into the world.

These liberal leaders know what you already know in your heart and in your gut. An unborn child is not just a mass of tissue, but is life, feels pain and suffers when harmed.  Examine for yourself, the state of law in America, concerning the status of an unborn child being carried in the womb of a mother. You determine if granting tax privileges for an unborn child is wrong.

An unborn child is considered a person under the law, when the mother is attacked and the attack results in the death of the unborn child. The laws which give legal human status to a murdered unborn child are called “feticide” laws. As a matter of law, the fetal homicide is considered a separate and distinct criminal act which exists aside from an attack and possible harm to the mother.

Therefore, the unborn child already has legal status, and that legal status is protected by law in 38 states in America. Twenty three states go even further in granting legal right-to-life protection for the unborn child from harm. These states provide, “fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy including ‘any state of gestation,’ or conception,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So where is the debate and where is the harm in granting a mother and father a tax benefit for their child, in any state, be it Texas, Ohio, Montana, Tennessee, Kentucky or any other? Abortion activists have claimed that granting “special rights” to the unborn child would take away a mother’s flexibility to strip an unborn child’s life from its body as the Roe v Wade decision permits. How ironic that the mother can harm and impede the life of her child.

The congress has already set the table for protecting the unborn child’s right to be defended against harm, with passage of the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act. When President George W. Bush signed the legislation into law, it recognized:

A “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

If a child is considered a legal victim and is, “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb,” then why shouldn’t the 49 other states in the nation, and Michigan, take the next logical step and pass a law granting parents the right to a tax break for their unborn child?

Make 2013, a year of celebration for the truth about unborn life. Life is more than a heartbeat.  Life is a child, a future that deserves a choice.  Join the effort locally to protect the parent’s choice by supporting their right to a tax break for their unborn child.  After all, each precious unborn child is a “member of the species Homo sapiens.”  We all are…born and unborn!

( click – let me know what you think )

 

Cass Sunstein: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Cass Sunstein. I really don’t have a good (tasteful) way to describe this man other than Extreme Left Wing Socialist Liberal. He has some extremely questionable and left wing views. The position Obama appointed him to makes him very dangerous indeed.

Here’s his Bio from Discover The Networks:

Born in September 1954, Cass Sunstein earned a BA degree from Harvard College in 1975. Three years later, he received a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he had served as executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

After graduating from law school, Sunstein clerked for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1978-1979), and then for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1979-1980).

From 1980-81, Sunstein worked as an attorney-advisor in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and then took a job as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School in 1981. Two years later he also became an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science. In 1985 he was made a full professor of both law and political science. He would continue to teach full time at the University of Chicago Law School until 2008, at which time his status changed to that of Visiting Professor. Today he also holds the title of Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

Sunstein is a contributing editor to The New Republic and The American Prospect and has frequently testified before congressional committees. He played a particularly active role in opposing the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998.

In 2008 Sunstein served as an advisor for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. After Obama’s 2009 inauguration, Sunstein was appointed to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In 1993 Sunstein published the book The Partial Constitution, which contains a chapter titled “It’s the government’s Money,” wherein Sunstein writes 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.” By Sunstein’s reckoning, a system whereby the government funds childbirth but not abortion “has the precise consequence of turning women into involuntary incubators” and “breeders” whose bodies are sacrificed “in the service of third parties” (i.e., fetuses).

With regard to citizens who object to having their tax dollars finance abortions, Sunstein writes:

“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.”

Also in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a “First Amendment New Deal” in the form of a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would authorize a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure that a “diversity of view[s]” is presented on the airwaves.

According to Sunstein, private broadcasting companies do a disservice to the American public by airing programs only if their ratings are high enough, or airing commercials only if advertisers can afford to pay the cost of a 30- to 60-second spot:

“In a market system, this goal [of airing diverse views] may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

“If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters,” Sunstein writes, “a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access [to the airwaves] will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome.” Government, he sayshas a moral obligation to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that represent a “diversity” of views:

“The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

According to Sunstein, the judicial system should issue rulings to make it clear that private media companies do not have the final say in rejecting “diversity” commercials.

Asserting that government regulation of the broadcasting industry is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, Sunstein writes: “It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech.'” He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming [and] content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

Reasoning from the premise that public television stations provide benefits to society that profit-driven private enterprises do not, Sunstein calls for a government mandate that “purely commercial [television] stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

On April 14, 1999, Sunstein published an opinion piece in The Chicago Tribune titled “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes.” He wrote:

“In what sense is 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 …”

In his 2001 book, Republic.com, Sunstein argued that the Internet posed a threat to democracy because it promoted cyberbalkanization, a phenomenon whereby people isolate themselves ideologically within groups that share their own political perspectives, while turning a blind eye to any views or facts that might challenge their beliefs. To counter this tendency, he called for government-imposed diversity on websites promoting a particular political perspective. Specifically, he suggested that all partisan websites should feature “electronic sidewalks” providing links to resources that offer opposing views. In a 2001 interview, he elaborated:

“Sites of one point of view [would] agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated, and sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.”

Several years later, Sunstein retracted this suggestion as a “bad idea.”

In 2004 Sunstein published The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than EverArguing that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that they are granted by the government, the book drew its inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a new bill of rights. WorldNetDaily reports that among the mandates laid out in the book are the following:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • 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;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

In The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights [such as the foregoing], they may migrate into the Constitution itself.” He adds that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.” Another notable quote from the book is the following:

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.” (p. 3)

Sunstein, who believes that the federal courts are dominated by conservatives, agrees with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s assertion that the Constitution is a “living” document whose meanings and mandates change with the passage of time.

According to The Weekly Standard:

“Sunstein would give up on the idea that law is supposed to be an apolitical discipline in which practitioners put aside their political beliefs. The judiciary Sunstein contemplates would have Democratic and Republican caucuses.”

Contending that “the judiciary is already politicized,” Sunstein says the notion that “judges are not policymakers” is a “myth.” Judges’ “political commitments,” he states, “very much influence their votes.” He contends that “judges are subject to conformity pressures, and like-minded judges go to extremes, in the sense that ideological predispositions are heightened when judges are sitting with others who were appointed by presidents of the same political party.”

In 2005 the American Constitution Society sponsored a conference at Yale Law School titled “The Constitution in 2020,” whose purpose was to give liberal/left lawyers and judges a forum wherein they could trade ideas on what they would like the U.S. Constitution to look like 15 years down the road, and how they could influence it toward that end. Sunstein participated in this forum, where he put forth his ideas about a “Second Bill of Rights.” According to The Weekly Standard:

“The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize ‘positive’ rights, not just ‘negative’ rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits. The bottom line is that Congress would no longer have the discretion to decline to enact liberal policies. The triumph of the left would be constitutionally mandated.”

Sunstein has argued in favor of bringing socialism (in the form of expanded wefare benefits and wealth redistribution) to the United States, but contends that the country’s “white majority” opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:

“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).”

Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:

“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.”In 2007 Sunstein co-authored (with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner) a 39-page University of Chicago Law School paper titled “Climate Change Justice,” which held that it was “desirable” for America to pay “justice” to poorer nations by entering into a compensation agreement that would result in a financial loss for the United States. The paper refers several times to “distributive justice.”

Sunstein and Posner further speculate about the possibility of achieving this redistribution by means other than direct payments:

  • “It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”
  • “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”
  • “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.”
  • “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

In their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler brainstorm about ways to increase the number of organ donations that Americans make each year. They theorize that the main reason why more people do not arrange to donate their organs posthumously is because in order to do so, they are required to actively give “explicit consent” for such procedures, which few people ever take the time to do. To remedy this, Sunstein and Thaler advocate a policy of “presumed consent” — the opposite of explicit consent — whereby the the government would “presume” that someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation unless that person has explicitly indicated his or her wish to prevent such an action.

Sunstein and Thaler realize, however, that such a proposal “is a hard sell politically” because “[m]ore than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter.” Thus they propose an alternate solution — “mandated choice” — where the government forces all people to make a decision on the matter:

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences. Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

Under such a system, government “incentives and nudges” would replace “requirements and bans.”

Sunstein’s views about human cloning have been the subject of much controversy. By his reckoning, cloning should pose no moral dilemma because human embryos are “only a handful of cells.” In 2003 Sunstein wrote:

“It is silly to think that ‘potential’ is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have ‘potential’ and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them.”

In a 2002 paper (titled “Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?”) for the Harvard Law Review, Sunstein wrote:

“Moral repugnance might well be a response to vaguely remembered science fiction stories or horror movies, or to perceptions based on ignorance and confusion (as in the idea that a clone is a complete ‘copy’ of the original, or a ‘copy’ that is going to be evil).”

Added Sunstein:

“For some people, cloning might be the only feasible way to produce a biological offspring. It would certainly not be ludicrous to say that as a matter of constitutional law, the state has to produce a strong justification for intruding on that choice in cases in which it is the only realistic option.”

Sunstein is an animal-rights activist who once said, in a speech at Harvard University: “We ought to ban hunting, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” He also has stated that livestock and wild animals should have legal “rights” and should be empowered to file lawsuits; that the human consumption of meat is a practice that should be ended permanently; and that the use of animals for work, entertainment, science, and food is akin to “human slavery.” “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,” Sunstein wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school. He expanded on these ideas in his 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions.

On July 4, 2008, Sunstein married his second wife, Harvard professor Samantha Power, whom he had met when they both worked as advisors to the presidential campaign of Sunstein’s longtime friend and former University of Chicago Law School colleague, Barack Obama.

In 2008 Sunstein authored a paper proposing that the government use a variety of methods to limit or eliminate conspiracy theories critical of the U.S. government. These methods suggested that the government could:

  • ban conspiracy theories outright
  • impose a tax on those who advance conspiracy theories
  • engage in counter-speech to “discredit conspiracy theories and theorists”
  • hire private parties to engage in counter-speech
  • engage in informal communication with such private parties, encouraging them to help

Added Sunstein: “Our main policy claim here is the government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.”

I changed none of the words above, only added some links direct to his books in Amazon, & to PDF files on his papers.

Lets take a look at some of his radical views caught on film.

Here he is discussing his book on FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

What you need to understand about FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights is that it mirrors the USSR’s Communist Bill of Rights, take a look.

Here he discusses Roe V. Wade

“The Constitution doesn’t refer specifically to Privacy Rights”

Here is Cass Sunstein discussing his book Nudge:

As you can see, your stupid, and since you won’t act in your own best interests, on your own, the government will just “nudge” you into doing what the government thinks is in your best interest.

And here’s a few on Animal Rights and Hunting

“A full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison more rational as well as a more conversible animal than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month.”

Here is a compilation, and he also discusses his position interpretation if the 2nd Amendment

“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”

“Our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen as…..not the same as but in many ways morally akin to slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

And Cass Sunstein on a way to regulate internet free speech

Basically the “Fairness Doctrine” playing out on every website you try to look at.

Now here is Cass Sunstein lying to get Senate Confirmation

Is there really any doubt he lied based on the information above?

Here is Senator Sessions explaining why he cannot vote to confirm Cass Sunstein

Unfortunately, Cass Sunstein was confirmed. Now lets try to understand the job to which this Radical has been appointed.

From WhiteHouse.Gov:

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA, pronounced “oh-eye-ruh”) is a Federal office established by Congress in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act. It is part of the Office of Management and Budget, which is an agency within the Executive Office of the President. It is staffed by both political appointees and career civil servants.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA reviews all collections of information by the Federal Government. OIRA also develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in several areas, including information quality and statistical standards. In addition, OIRA reviews draft regulations under Executive Order 12866.

What does that mean exactly? According to the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Sunstein, a friend of President-elect Barack Obama from their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school, will mark a sharp departure for the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Although obscure, the post 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.

Here Sean Hannity & Ann Coulter Discuss Cass Sunstein and his Radical Views

Cass Sunstein is a left wing idealogue that would elevate animals over people. Cass Sunstein reinterprets laws and has them sounding exactly the opposite of what actually is written. Cass Sunstein supports a Communist Bill of Rights and redistribution of wealth. Cass Sunstein believes the people are ignorant and need a little push, just a little “nudge,” to do the right thing (determined by government). Basically, Cass Sunstein believes the government should dictate every aspect of your lives, but remember, you are no better than animals. And Cass Sunstein has been handed the position, by Barack Obama, to redefine our written laws, and make these radical views law.