Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein qoutes.. Pay attention.

[huskergun]

 If you don't read these things and understand the implications then some day you will be scratching your head wondering where your rights went.

 If you don't believe the things below then do your own research. Prove that they are wrong....good luck.

 People like this were the reason for the first revolution by true patriots.

 I believe that the next generation of true patriots will soon show their resolve again.  I'll be with them.

Rich

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. "
Thomas Jefferson
-------------------------------------------


 

 

Cass Sunstein Quotes

Second Amendment

Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns.

The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on

various grounds. As late as 1980, it would have been preposterous to argue that the

Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns, and no federal court

invalidated a gun control restriction on Second Amendment grounds until 2007. Yet

countless Americans politicians, in recent years, have acknowledged that they respect the

individual right to bear arms, at least in general terms. Their views are a product of the

energetic efforts of meaning entrepreneurs ? some from the National Rifle Association,

who have press a particular view of the Second Amendment.

 

 

--Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds, Princeton University Press,

2009, p. 172-173

The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests

typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle

Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as

jurisprudential twins. The National Association of Broadcasters is prepared to make selfserving

and outlandish claims about the First Amendment before the public and before

the courts, and to pay lawyers and publicists a lot of money to help establish those claims.

(Perhaps they will ultimately succeed.) The National Rifle Association does the same

thing with the Second Amendment. In both cases, those whose social and economic

interests are at stake are prepared to use the Constitution, however implausibly invoked,

in order to give a veneer of principle and respectability to arguments that would

otherwise seem hopelessly partisan and self-interested.

--Cass R. Sunstein, Republic 2.0, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 173

 

 

?[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. ?

- Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, ?Radicals in Robes?

In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was

interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second

Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second

Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word

'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my

lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't

guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second

Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for

the defense of the state."

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering

over Burger's words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and

the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a

constitutional question in an interview on national television. (Chief Justice John Roberts

is not about to go on Fox News to say that the claimed right to same-sex marriage is a

fraud on the American people perpetrated by special interest groups.) Should we

therefore conclude that Burger had a moment of uncharacteristic recklessness? I do not

think so. Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus within the culture of

informed lawyers and judges?a conclusion that was so widely taken for granted that it

seemed to him to be a fact, and not an opinion at all.

-- Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Most Mysterious Right,? National Review, November

12, 2007

 

 

?[T]he Second Amendment seems to specify its own purpose, which is to protect the

"well regulated Militia." If that is the purpose of the Second Amendment (as Burger

believed), then we might speculate that it safeguards not individual rights but federalism

-- Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Most Mysterious Right,? National Review, November

12, 2007

 

 

?[T]he Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the Second Amendment

creates an individual right to own guns. There is a decent chance that the Court will say

that it does. Whatever the Court says, we have seen an amazingly rapid change in

constitutional understandings--even a revolution--as an apparently fraudulent

interpretation pushed by "special interest groups" (read: the National Rifle Association)

has become mainstream.

-- Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Most Mysterious Right,? National Review, November

12, 2007

 

 

Even if the Second Amendment does confer an individual right, and therefore imposes

limits on national gun-control legislation, a further question remains. Does the Second

Amendment apply to the states? By its plain terms, the original Bill of Rights applies

only to the national government. To be sure, most (but not all) of the listed rights are now

understood to have been "incorporated" in the Fourteenth Amendment and made

applicable to the states through that route. But is the Second Amendment incorporated as

well?

-- Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Most Mysterious Right,? National Review, November

12, 2007

 

 

How did the individual rights position, so marginal and even laughable among judges and

lawyers for so long, come to be treated as a respectable view--and even to be described as

the standard model by 2007? It is certainly relevant that the National Rifle Association,

and other like-minded groups and individuals, have sponsored and funded an endless

stream of supportive papers and research. The Second Amendment revolution has been

influenced by an intensely committed social movement with political and legal arms. But

it is also true that for many decades lawyers and law professors paid hardly any attention

to the Second Amendment.

-- Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Most Mysterious Right,? National Review, November

12, 2007

 

 

But whatever the founding generation may have thought, the Second Amendment has

become a shorthand, or a rallying cry, for a deeply felt commitment on the part of tens of

millions of Americans. There would be not merely prudence, but also a kind of charity

and respect, in judicial decisions that uphold reasonable restrictions without rejecting that

commitment, and without purporting to untangle the deepest mysteries about the meaning

of the Constitution's most mysterious provision.

-- Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Most Mysterious Right,? National Review, November

12, 2007

 

 

In the context of use of guns, it might be helpful to emphasize that the National Rifle

Association is funded in large part by gun manufacturers, and that manufacturers of guns

are often behind efforts to claim that the Constitution guarantees rights of gun ownership.

In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, that the Second Amendment confers

an individual the right to own guns for nonmilitary purposes. In doing so, the Court was

greatly influenced by the social setting in which it operated, where that judgment already

had broad public support. In recent years, there has come to be a general social

understanding that the Second Amendment does protect at least some kind of individual

right; and that understanding greatly affects American politics. The Supreme Court?s

ruling in favor of an individual?s right to bear arms for military purposes was not really a

statement on behalf of the Constitution, as it was written by those long dead; it was based

on judgments that are now widespread among the living.

--Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds, Princeton University Press,

2009, p. 5

 

 

But there is a radically different reading of Heller. The constitutional text is ambiguous,

and many historians believe that the Second Amendment does not, in fact, create a right

to use guns for nonmilitary purposes.8 In their view, the Court?s reading is untrue to the

relevant materials. If they are right, then it is tempting to understand Heller not as

Marbury but as a modern incarnation of Lochner v. New York, in which the Court

overrode democratic judgments in favor of a dubious understanding of the Constitution.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?Second Amendment Minimalism,? Harvard Law Review,

Vol. 122: 246

[huskergun]

Hunting & Animal Rights

 

"We ought to ban hunting"

- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

 

?[Humans?] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen ? as a

form of unconscionable barbarity? morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination

of human beings.?

- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

 

But I think that we should go further. We should focus attention not only on the

?enforcement gap,? but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In

short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments,

entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It

is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed

European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,? John M. Olin

Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of

Chicago

 

 

If we understand "rights" to be legal protection against harm, then many animals already

do have rights, and the idea of animal rights is not terribly controversial... Almost

everyone agrees that people should not be able to torture animals or to engage in acts of

cruelty against them. And indeed, state law includes a wide range of protections against

cruelty and neglect. We can build on state law to define a simple, minimalist position in

favor of animal rights: The law should prevent acts of cruelty to animals.

--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and

New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). Introduction

 

 

?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.?

--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and

New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 11

 

 

Do animals have standing? To many people, the very idea seems odd. But several cases

suggest that the answer might be yes.

In a remarkably large number of cases in the federal courts, animals appear as named

plaintiffs.

?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. Congress might do this in the belief that in some

contexts, it will be hard to find any person with an injury in fact to bring suit in his own

name. And even if statutes protecting animal welfare are enforceable by human beings,

Congress might grant standing to animals in their own right, particularly to make a public

statement about whose interests are most directly at stake, partly to increase the number

of private monitors of illegality, and partly to bypass complex inquiries into whether

prospective human plaintiffs have injuries in fact. Indeed, I believe that in some

circumstances, Congress should do just that, to provide a supplement to limited public

enforcement efforts.

--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and

New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 259-260

 

 

In the future, legislative decisions on such questions will have considerable symbolic

importance. But they will not only be symbolic, for they will help define the real-world

meaning of legal texts that attempt to protect animal welfare ? statutes that now promise

a great deal but deliver far too little.

--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and

New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 261

 

 

Do animals have rights? Almost everyone believes in animal rights, at least in some

minimal sense; the real question is what that phrase actually means. By exploring that

question, it is possible to give a clear sense of the lay of the land?to show the range of

possible positions, and to explore what issues, of theory or fact, separate reasonable

people. On reflection, the spotlight should be placed squarely on the issue of suffering

and well-being. This position requires rejection of some of the most radical claims by

animal rights advocates, especially those that stress the ?autonomy? of animals, or that

object to any human control and use of animals. But this position has radical implications

of its own. It strongly suggests, for example, that there should be extensive regulation of

the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture. It also

suggests that there is a strong argument, in principle, for bans on many current uses of

animals.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,? John M. Olin

Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of

Chicago

 

 

?[R]epresentatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that

anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. If, for example, a farm is treating

horses cruelly and in violation of legal requirements, a suit could be brought, on behalf of

those animals, to bring about compliance with the law.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,? John M. Olin

Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of

Chicago

 

 

Now turn to some quite radical suggestions. Suppose that we continue to believe that

animal suffering is the problem that should concern us, and that we want to use the law to

promote animal welfare. We might conclude that certain practices cannot be defended

and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be

insufficient?and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal

suffering will remain very high. To make such an argument convincing, it would be

helpful, whether or not necessary, to argue not only that the harms to animals are serious,

but also that the benefits, to human beings, of the relevant practices are simply too small

to justify the continuation of those practices. Many people who urge radical steps?who

think, for example, that people should not eat meat?do so because they believe that

without such steps, the level of animal suffering will be unacceptably severe.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,? John M. Olin

Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of

Chicago

 

 

Of course the largest issue involves eating meat. I believe that that meat-eating would be

acceptable if decent treatment is given to the animals used for food. Killing animals,

whether or not troublesome, is far less troublesome than suffering. But if, as a practical

matter, animals used for food are almost inevitably going to endure terrible suffering,

then there is a good argument that people should not eat meat to the extent that a refusal

to eat meat will reduce that suffering. Of course a legal ban on meat-eating would be

extremely radical, and like prohibition, it would undoubtedly create black markets and

have a set of bad, and huge, side-effects. But the principle seems clear: People should be

much less inclined to eat meat if their refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,? John M. Olin

Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of

Chicago

 

 

We should increase the likelihood that animals will have good lives?we should not try

to ensure that there are as many animals as possible.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,? John M. Olin

Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of

Chicago

 

 

Every reasonable person believes in animal rights. Even the sharpest critics of animal

rights support the anticruelty laws. I have suggested that the simple moral judgment

behind these laws is that animal suffering matters, and that this judgment supports a

significant amount of reform. Most modestly, private suits should be permitted to prevent

illegal cruelty and neglect.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,? John M. Olin

Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of

Chicago

 

 

Less modestly, anticruelty laws should be extended to areas that are now exempt from

them, including scientific experiments and farming. There is no good reason to permit the

level of suffering that is now being experienced by millions, even billions of living

creatures.

--Cass R. Sunstein, ?The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,? John M. Olin

Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of

Chicago

 

 

Those who emphasize suffering have a simple answer to this objection: Everything

depends on whether and to what extent the animal in question is capable of suffering. If

rats are able to suffer, then their interests are relevant to the question of how, and perhaps

even whether, they can be expelled from houses.

--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and

New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 12

 

 

The idea here is that animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant

respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings.

Sometimes such arguments posit general rights held by living creatures (and natural

objects) against human depredations. In especially powerful forms, these arguments are

utilitarian in character, stressing the often extreme and unnecessary suffering of animals

who are hurt or killed. The Animal Welfare Act reflects these concerns.

--Cass R. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory

State, Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 69

 

 

[huskergun]

The Judiciary
It is reasonable to suggest that the meaning of federal statutory law should not be based
on whether a litigant has drawn a panel of judges appointed by a president from a
particular party?or on whether the Supreme Court is dominated by judges of any
particular ideological stripe.
--Thomas J. Miles & Cass R. Sunstein, Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An
Empirical Investigation of Chevron, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies, Working Paper 06-15, May 2006

Government Regulation
No institution in the executive branch, moreover, is currently responsible for long-range
research and thinking about regulatory problems. It would be highly desirable to create
such an office under the President, particularly for exploring problems whose solutions
require extensive planning, most notably the environment. Nor is there an office charged
with acting as an initiator of as well as a brake on regulation. Some entity within the
executive branch, building on the ombudsman device, should be entrusted with the job of
guarding against failure to implement regulatory programs. Such an entity would be
especially desirable in overcoming the collective action and related problems that tend to
defeat enforcement.
--Cass R. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory
State, Harvard University Press, 1990, p. 108

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has been entrusted with the
power to coordinate regulatory policy and to ensure reasonable priority-setting. In the
Clinton Administration, OIRA appears to have become an advisory body, more limited in
its power than it was in the Bush and Reagan administrations. In view of the absence of
good priority-setting, and the enormous room for savings costs and increasing regulatory
benefits, this is highly unfortunate.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 315

OIRA should see, as one of its central assignments, the task of overcoming governmental
myopia and tunnel vision, by ensuring aggregate risks are reduced and that agency focus
on particular risks does not mean that ancillary risks are ignored or increased.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 315

Congress should add to existing legislation a general requirement that agencies consider a
range of risks to life and health, including substitute risks, to the extent that this is
feasible. Finally, OIRA should undertake the process of scrutinizing risk regulations to
show that agency action does not suffer from the kind of tunnel vision exemplified by so
much of modern risk regulation.
Problems of selective attention, interest-group power, and myopia have created a range of
irrationalities and injustices in modern government.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 316

[huskergun]

Free Speech
?Many discussion groups and websites, less and often more extreme, that can be found
on the Internet. Discussion groups and websites of this kind have been around for a
number of years? On the National Rifle Association?s ?Bullet N? Board,? a place for
discussion of matters of mutual interest, someone calling himself ?Warmaster? explained
how to make bombs out of ordinary household materials. Warmaster explained, ?These
simple, powerful bombs are not very well known even though all the materials can be
easily obtained by anyone (including minors).?
--Cass R. Sunstein, Republic 2.0, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 47

To the extent that they weaken the power of the general interest intermediaries and
increase people?s ability to wall themselves off from topics and opinions that they would
prefer to avoid, emerging technologies, including the Internet, create serious dangers.
I don?t want government regulation of the blogosphere in the form of mandated links or
mandated civility or, you know, if you?re doing liberal ideas on your site you have to
have conservative ideas too. I don?t want any of that stuff? But I do have some ideas
and they?re about private voluntary solutions. One is that blog providers, either writers or
those who operate them should, if they are involved in opinion ? at least most of the time,
work hard to obey norms of, let?s call them, civility and diversity. So not complete
diversity. You?re entitled to have a point of view. But to think that some of the time if
people are reading you its good to catch their eye with something that might irritate them
a bit.
-- Bloggingheads.tv, Cass R. Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School and
Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, UCLA Law School video debate,
recorded May 27, 2008 and posted June 2, 2008.

A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should
not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. 92

I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of
the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring
greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views. The First Amendment
should not stand as an obstacle to democratic efforts to accomplish these goals. A New
Deal for speech would draw on Justice Brandeis? insistence on the role of free speech in
promoting political deliberation and citizenship. It would reject Justice Holmes?
?marketplace? conception of free speech, a conception that disserves the aspirations of
those who wrote America?s founding document.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. 119

Consider the ?fairness doctrine,? now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and
television broadcasters:
?In light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether,
as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving
democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of
the First Amendment in the democratic process.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. xi

A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not
necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p.137

Many people all over the world have become even more concerned about the risks of a
situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another?Democracy
does best with what James Madison called a ?yielding and accommodating spirit,? and
that spirit is at risk whenever people sort themselves into enclaves in which their own
views and commitments are constantly reaffirmed? Such sorting should not be
identified with freedom, and much less with democratic self-government.
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p. xii

[huskergun]

Civil Liberties
Courts should ordinarily require restrictions on civil liberties to be authorized by the
legislature, not simply by the executive.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Fear & Liberty, working paper, December 12, 2004

The availability heuristic and probability neglect often lead people to treat risks as much
greater than they in fact are, and hence to accept risk-reduction strategies that do
considerable harm and little good. Civil liberties may be jeopardized for precisely this
reason. And when the burdens of government restrictions are faced by an identifiable
minority rather by the majority, the risk of unjustified action is significantly increased.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Fear & Liberty, working paper, December 12, 2004

[huskergun]

Taxes
Sunstein scolds readers like small-minded, selfish children for opposing the size, scope,
expansion and skyrocketing expense of government:
?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 ??
-- Cass R. Sunstein, ?Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes,? The Chicago
Tribune, April 14, 1999

[huskergun]

Second Bill of Rights
My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America?s
heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect
both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and
clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR?s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 1

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.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR?s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 3

Those of us who have plenty of money and opportunities owe a great deal to an active
government that is willing and able to protect what we have.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR?s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 4

In a nutshell, the New Deal helped vindicate a simple idea: No one really opposes
government intervention. Even the people who most loudly denounce government
interference depend on it every day.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR?s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 19

For better or worse, the Constitution?s framers gave no thought to including social and
economic guarantees in the bill of rights.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR?s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 115

[bkoenig]

The guy is a fruitcake, much like many of the people Komrade Obama surrounds himself with.  Our Dear Leader tries to come off as a moderate, but if you want to see someone's true colors look at the people he associates with.

[Dan W]

Great compilation huskergun, reminds me of why I am doing all this work... We must stop this man from destroying our country.

[A-FIXER]

Very informative rich...

[huskergun]

Great compilation huskergun, reminds me of why I am doing all this work... We must stop this man from destroying our country.

It reminded me also.
This guy could be one of the more dangerous people (along with George Soros) in this country right now.
 He may be a fruitcake but he's a fruitcake with a crap load of power. Let's not let our gaurd down again.

LIVE FREE OR DIE !!

[FarmerRick]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/regulatory_affairs/default/


OMB HOME ? INFORMATION & REGULATORY AFFAIRS
Information & Regulatory Affairs
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget, was created by Congress with the enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA). Under this and other authorities, OIRA develops and oversees several critical functions, including:

    * The implementation of government-wide policies and standards with respect to Federal regulations and guidance documents;
    * The quality, utility, and analytic rigor of information used to support public policy;
    * Dissemination of and access to government information;
    * Privacy and confidentiality;
    * Electronic records; and
    * Federal statistics.

OIRA reviews significant proposed and final rules as well as information collection requests prior to publication in the Federal Register. Coordinated review of agency rulemaking is necessary to ensure that regulatory actions do not conflict with the policies or actions taken or planned by another agency, are consistent with applicable law, the President's priorities, and the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. The office is headed by a Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed Administrator.


    Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Q&A?s http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/OIRA_QsandAs/

[JimP]

"The guy is a fruitcake, "

Which makes him all the more dangerous......, yet vulnerable at the same time.

[Dan W]

I say we all dress up as furries and he will leave us alone

[huskergun]

Don't underestimate these guys. Back door politics at it's worst.
 This guy could be in a position to change regulations while never touching the Constitution. He could just regulate firearms and ammo out existance if not unchecked.
Regulation, Registration, Confiscation. Just a thought.

Funny Dan..