I remind readers that President Barack Obama appointed Cass Sunstein as his Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs czar. In this report I filed nearly three years ago, it was revealed that Sunstein supports and promotes the perverted notion that animals should be allowed to bring lawsuits and that humans should be their representatives. It is easy at present, at least to some of us, to acknowledge that this lawsuit written about below is absurd, but it is not logical to dismiss it entirely. As is pointed out below, PETA is seeking publicity in order to raise money but history tells us that a certain incrementalism and desensitizing of our society results in future gains by such evil and demented thinkers as Cass Sunstein and others like PETA.

Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are amused and appalled at the latest publicity stunt from the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals “animal rights” group. PETA is suing to take control of five killer whales away from the SeaWorld marine parks, claiming the whales are being held and forced to perform as “slaves” in violation of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“Oops! I just fell out of my chair. PETA’s comparison of SeaWorld and slavery insults the remains of hundreds of thousands of slaves who are buried across the American South,” said Project 21′s Deroy Murdock, a Scripps-Howard nationally-syndicated columnist. “To equate performing killer whales with human beings who suffered the worst possible exploitation short of actual genocide makes the jaw drop. Half of me wants to laugh. The other half wonders if I have been whisked from Earth to another planet.”

Last week, the PETA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to release killer whales named Corky, Katina, Ulises, Tilikum and Kasatka “from bondage” in the SeaWorld theme parks in San Diego, California and Orlando, Florida. The court is being asked to appoint a legal guardian for the whales and also to award PETA attorney’s fees and related costs.

The PETA legal team, which reportedly spent 18 months preparing the 20-page legal complaint, argues the whales are being illegally detained in violation of the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude. PETA General Counsel Jeff Kerr explained the team’s logic: “Slavery is slavery, and it does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on gender, race or religion.”

“Even Free Willy would likely find PETA’s lawsuit comical,” said Project 21 spokesman Ak’bar Shabazz. “If we are awarding these whales aspects of humanity, shouldn’t we also be looking for their Harriet Tubman to spirit the whole pod back to the open sea? And who’s protecting the rights of the seals and fish these killer whales ruthlessly hunt in the wild? But, to be serious, for PETA to invoke slavery and seek to employ the anti-slavery provisions of the 13th Amendment to advocate for animal performers is ignorant of the past and the treatment of real slaves at best and revisionist at worst. It’s a slap in the face to those who suffered in bondage as well as their descendants.”

Marine parks such as those in the SeaWorld chain are already regulated under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. SeaWorld officials released a statement calling PETA’s legal reasoning “baseless and in many ways offensive.”

“For PETA to compare penning killer whales to human slavery would be hysterical if it wasn’t so offensive. Our ancestors were raped, whipped, taken from their families, stripped of their religion and culture and defined as property. This is a perfect example of how the left now defines everything as a ‘civil rights movement’ — diluting the history of slavery and human cruelty,” said Project 21 spokeswoman Shelby Emmett. “If our children are taught SeaWorld is the equivalent to the plantation, how will they ever understand the evils of slavery? Sadly, it seems that PETA, like the plantation owners of our past, also think humans are animals.”

David Favre, a law professor at Michigan State University who has advocated for a new legal designation of “living property” that would help advance an “animal rights” agenda, told the Washington Post that he doubts a judge will rule that PETA has legal standing to advance the case, saying, “a court would not be predisposed to open up that box with fully unknown consequences.”

GroupSnoop.org, an educational web site administered by the National Center for Public Policy Research, recently posted a profile of PETA , noting that the group may be best known for its use of outrageous stunts that attract attention to its message. It quotes PETA saying “[u]nlike our opposition, which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporations, PETA must rely on getting free ‘advertising’ through media coverage… not surprisingly, colorful and ‘controversial’ demonstrations and campaigns like activists stripping to ‘go naked instead of wearing fur’ consistently grab headlines.” As such, the whales lawsuit may be as much, or more, about publicity than about prevailing in the courts.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for nearly two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

When you consider the track record of Obama’s Department of Justice, led by Eric Holder and his brazen attacks on civil rights, we all should conclude that Wendy Olson’s appointment as a U.S. Attorney to Idaho was no random act of kindness. Arbitrary selections don’t just happen.

Former Idaho Rep. Walter Minnick (D), according to the Idaho Reporter, was part of a formed committee that made the selection of Olson. I have yet to also mention that Ms. Olson is a resident of Idaho having grown up in Pocatello. Certainly Minnick’s choice and the overwhelming support of all four Congressional delegates for Olson, had nothing to do with the fact she was from Idaho? Right?

It was U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson who opted to lay charges against Jeremy Hill, the young man with a wife and 6 children, who shot and killed a grizzly bear he describes as threatening his family. Last week I wrote in explanation of the difficulties in proving, according to Endangered Species Act law, a person’s intent to “poach” (illegally kill) a protected species when it involves self defense.

Yet, wet behind the ears Idaho U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson decided to prosecute anyway. I know of no one who sides with Attorney Olson’s decision, even the four amigos that represent the citizens of Idaho in Congress. Of course attorneys general shouldn’t base their decisions to prosecute on public opinion but as has repeatedly been asked since the announcement of Olson’s decision to press charges, what jury in their right mind would convict a man who was attempting to protect his children?

But this really should come as no surprise to those who know anything of the history of Eric Holder and Obama’s administration. Obama himself, uses every opportunity he can to sidestep the Constitutional authority and do things his own way. However, it should be pointed out that many of the people that Obama chose to surround himself with are animal rights extremists. Cass Sunstein comes to mind; a man who believes that animals have a right to defend themselves in court.

In recent years we have all be subjected to the extremist positions of environmentalism and animal rights perverts. Abraham Lincoln said we should work to overthrown those who pervert the U.S. Constitution. This has been happening for decades and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

I searched for the Senate Judiciary Committees’ questionnaire for Wendy Olson prior to her confirmation but for whatever the reasons, that file isn’t where it is supposed to be. It may answer some questions many of us have.

From Olson’s past court cases we know little about her political ideals. One can only assume, and that assumption wouldn’t be far off, that if she was appointed by Obama, she must line up with his ideals. Let’s not kid ourselves.

Is this the real reason behind Olson’s decision to prosecute Jeremy Hill? We may never know but several things are for certain. One of them is that everyone is seriously questioning Olson’s decision in this case. This leaves us wondering about her ability to make rational decisions. After all, the killing of the bear took place in May of 2011 and it took Olson until August 8, 2011 to reach a decision. Why the wait?

The other thing that Idahoans might need to be asking themselves is the decision by all four of their delegates, Crapo, Risch, Labrador and Simpson, to support the nomination of Olson. Did they do their homework or was she a good candidate because she was from their home state?

While all this rotten politicking goes on, a man and his family worries of being torn apart over perhaps the inexperienced zealousness of an attorney trying to represent the perverted ideals of a very troubled presidential administration.

Tom Remington

Regulatory Czar is more formally the name given to the person who heads up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is located within the Office of Management and Budget and was created by Congress with the enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA). OIRA carries out several important functions, including reviewing Federal regulations, reducing paperwork burdens, and overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.

The head of the OIRA is a very powerful position essentially because this person is overseeing every government regulation that controls our lives. There, you feel better now? I’m about to make you feel much worse.

Cass Sunstein is a nut case, a demented mind, with twisted and radical notions and ideas of how life for human beings should be. Note I did not say Americans. I said humans. You see, Sunstein is a radical animal rights person and really makes no bones about telling the world about it.

Much like Obama, Sunstein is a narcissist who I think genuinely believes what he says and that’s the real scary part. The web site StopSunstein.com has compiled many of the Regulatory Czar’s quotes and comments over the years. These are available in a pdf download and covers topics ranging from hunting and animal rights, to taxes, Second Amendment, free speech and many others. It would be well worth your time to read these quotes to learn what the person Obama picked to be your Regulatory Czar thinks about issues that affect all our lives.

I am only going to highlight a small handful of quotes made by Sunstein and then offer a historical comparison. My intent being a comparison of how like minds may think. History allows us to learn what happened and what may have caused it and to learn from it. This is the only tool we have in order to plan for our future. Think about that as you read on and ask yourself if how Sunstein thinks is important to you as a human being.

Selected quotes by Cass Sunstein:

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

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

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

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

~~~~~

These are the thoughts of one of Obama’s “czars” in how he perceives animals, or perhaps more accurately how his opinion of humans is so unimportant. He is a person intently preoccupied with the welfare of animals for what purpose? Mind you, Obama selected this man to oversee all regulations that control us. One can only believe that Sunstein believes as Obama does, that killing unborn and newly born human babies is an acceptable practice and yet harm that might befall an animal is considered an abomination, something demanding harsher Government control and regulation.

Sunstein says in one of his quotes that “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights. Even the sharpest critics of animal rights support the anticruelty laws.” He presents his argument that people believe in animal rights because they act and think like humans. I contend that most people who support basic anti animal cruelty laws do so because it is a reflection on the greater society. Beyond that much of it has more to do with a natural aversion to see blood, guts and gore. Sunstein’s radicalism is beyond sensible.

Is there danger we should be aware of from people whose brains contain such perverse thoughts? I think so. To what degree I couldn’t say but history shows us some parallels.

I know I will be chastised from making comparisons of Nazi Germany and Hitler’s Third Reich to anyone associated with Barack Obama. Too bad! I’m not suggesting that Cass Sunstein is a Nazi. There are aspects of Nazism that Sunstein doesn’t appear to promote. My point is to compare the thoughts of modern day Obama czars with the thoughts of historic Nazi Germany.

Hitler and his Reich controlled the press. I was able to find a translated article from a German newspaper that in it’s day was bragging on the animal welfare beliefs of Hitler and his minions. (Note: Not intending to insult anyone’s intelligence, vivisection refers to the cutting into or perhaps dissection of animals.)

Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!

The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!

The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication of the “union of patriotic Europeans”, the lead article “Protection and Rights {Recht} for the Animal”. National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual’s duty toward the animal . Most Germans have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals…

The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which the words “cultural shame” do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a criminal activity.

Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler’s sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.

We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been betrayed!

The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:

Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!

A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party { NSDAP } press release states:

“The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps.”

Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenceless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!

Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: “He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!” May this blessing fulfils the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!

R.O.Schmidt

*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent – thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples’ chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.

From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.

What was really behind the Third Reich’s prohibition of “animal cruelty” and animal rights? It has been said that Hitler believed that eating animals descended from the Jewish people and he saw Judaism and Christianity as both being one in the same. We know his feelings toward the Jews and as such some believe that the animal worship, if you will, was a justification for killing all the Jews who killed and ate animals.

Most experts believe the animal welfare promotion in Nazi Germany was mostly about control of the people. Animals were food and sustenance being one of the mainstays to survival; if you can control the food supply you control the people. The Nazis killed people who refused to treat animals in the fashion designed by the Third Reich. We know of the millions of Jewish people slaughtered, which has always led sane people to ask what kind of sick, demented mind would place the welfare of an animal above that of a human? That question remains relevant today.

The similarities here are obvious. Sunstein believes that animals have rights above people, as did the Nazis. Sunstein supports the life of animals over human life, as did the Nazis. Hitler and his savage followers are dead and gone. Sunstein and Obama are very much alive.

So, I ask again. Do you think it is important to you as a human being to know how Obama’s Regulatory Czar thinks?

Tom Remington

Picture this if you will. One day you sit down to your computer and log onto your favorite website. That of course would be the Black Bear Blog. There you find a story about 300 scientists who have gathered in Chicago to discuss the prospects of global cooling, update everyone on the fallout from Climategate and provide the best available science about our changing climate. In the middle of your reading, this annoying bubble keeps popping up trying to tell you that if you go over to the website Climate Debate Daily, you’ll get an opposing view.

So that you know, the administrator of the Black Bear Blog did not provide that service for you. That would be compliments of Cass Sunstein and his dictator Barack Obama. This is just one idea these intellectuals have for us ignoramuses because we just aren’t smart enough to figure out right from wrong or what our interests are.

You may even think that it’s a good idea to have such a feature on all websites. From my own perspective, if the Internet Marketplace demands that this be the trend, then more than likely I would keep up with the demands of my readers and give them what they want. Government should have no business telling me or anyone else that I must provide a link to a website with an opposing view.

I heard this being discussed on the radio yesterday and someone asked if this sort of opposing view enforcement would be carried out to involve everyone and everything? In other words, when the president is giving his State of the Union Address, will there be a script rolling across the bottom of the screen informing viewers where they can go or who they can listen to that has an opposing view?

I remember when I began making a few waves about Internet regulation, etc., I was told that this would never happen in America. I was fear mongering. Well, it hasn’t happened yet but there sure are a lot of people in high places that want to see it happen.

Tom Remington

Not to worry though about this czar as this was one of few that actually got voted on by our asleep-at-the-wheel Congress. They are clueless and have been for some time. How important is it that this guy, who wields a lot of clout in his new position, thinks guns should all go and wants to ban hunting. Neither of those two things are that unusual coming from the democrats but it gets pretty freaky when a high ranking White House officials actually thinks animals should have a right to sue their owners. That’s very sick thinking, making me believe he has some kind of mental illness.

Our lawmakers voted him in anyway. What’s another 60s radical, anti-America thug hanging around Washington going to hurt?

Oh, but there’s more. Too bad our lawmakers didn’t do their jobs beforehand but hey, they have more important things to do than worry about the total destruction of the United States Constitution. They need to worry about controlling speech on the House floor. That’ll do it!

According to World Net Daily, as early as 2006, Sunstein wrote in a Yale Law School paper that interpretation of our laws should be left up to the president. No, really!

“There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,”

Which Article of the Constitution does that fall under? Oh, yeah. This president, and from what I can tell everyone of his crony appointments, have no use for that document. After all, Obama was the one who said the United States was a great country, now let’s go change it. And change he has.

You and I may not exactly have fond feelings for all members of the Supreme Court, or judges at any level, but history has shown us the importance of the distinct and separate three branches of government. This was insisted upon by our founding fathers. Without it, Barack Obama becomes a dictator.

Without going on another dump on Sunstein tirade, instead I will use this “teaching moment” to remind people how useless many in Congress have become. They have forgotten who they work for and have the attitude that they don’t care anymore and will do just as they please. Voting for approval of Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar is only one example of why you need to make some serious decisions the next time you enter the polling booth.

Our own complacency has brought us to a point where it is not enough to just stop what Obama is doing. He has virtually all control over every aspect of our money. If you don’t think so, you need to open your eyes. Just yesterday, Congress decided it was time to take full control over student loans. Now government can decide who gets money and who doesn’t for education. Put that together with control over the banks, Wall Street, the Auto Industry and the housing market and you cannot get money without the government’s control over you. Is that what you want?

No, going to the polls to stop Obama now is not enough. We have to stop him and reverse all this nonsense in order to take back our country. The choice is yours.

Tom Remington

Sunstein, another of Obama’s radicals bent on the destruction of America as we know it, passed muster in a 57-40 vote. Here’s how the voting went.

Tom Remington

Six republicans voted for cloture: Collins and Snowe from Maine (no surprise. They are liberals anyway and should change parties); Bennett, Utah; Hatch, Utah; Lugar, Ind.; and Gregg, NH.

Tom Remington

Senator moves to block controversial appointment

(Columbus, Ohio) – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has scheduled a vote for Wednesday, September 9 on a presidential nominee opposed by many American hunters, gun owners, and farmers.

The nominee, Cass Sunstein, has been tapped to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) or “Regulatory Czar” as the position is known. The job functions as the “choke point” between the White House and regulations from government agencies including the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The vote will take place over the objection of Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), who is attempting to place a hold on the appointment. To force the confirmation vote, Senator Reid has scheduled a vote of cloture – a procedural move to force a vote on an appointment. Cloture requires 60 yes votes.

That is where the controversy begins. Sunstein has written and spoken extensively regarding his anti-hunting and anti-2nd amendment positions. He’s also advocated in favor of legal standing in a court of law for animals.

For example, he has written that the history of the 2nd amendment does not support the concept that it covers individual gun ownership rights, but rather that it was intended to cover state militia’s or today’s national guards. This in spite of the recent Supreme Court decision reaffirming an individual’s right to own firearms.

Sunstein has also written that if the sole purpose of hunting were recreation, perhaps it should be banned. Many American hunters pursue game species such as pheasant, ducks and rabbits not for any population control, but to provide recreation for those who prefer to hunt and eat game.

He has advocated that state animal cruelty laws should be applied to hunting and livestock, and further that organizations should be able to sue on behalf of animals in court.

“All of Mr. Sunstein’s views are far outside the mainstream of American opinion,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO. “If he was able to implement them, severe damage would be done to the sporting goods industry in general, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, dry up funding for wildlife conservation and hurt the economies of rural towns all over the country.”

“When his views came to light during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Sunstein wrote off years of speeches, books, and academic papers he has authored by saying he would not seek to implement his views into this job,” said Pidgeon. “We remain unconvinced as his recantation of his extreme views did not come about until his nomination seemed in question.”

The Alliance has received a flood of calls, letters, and emails from sportsmen across the country who are deeply concerned about this nominee and who wanted to know their Senator’s position on the issue.

Pidgeon said that win or lose, the USSA will report to sportsmen and all citizens about how each Senator voted.

Take Action!!! It is imperative that sportsmen and all citizens who believe in American traditions contact their Senators TODAY and tell them to vote AGAINST the confirmation of Cass Sunstein to head the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Tell them he has been an advocate for the animal rights movement and is an anti-hunter, against gun ownership, and wishes to give animals the right to sue in court.

Please use the Legislative Action Center to contact your senator.

In the letter, the organizations express deep reservations about Sunstein’s views on animal rights and hunting. Sunstein has been quoted as saying, “we might ban hunting altogether, at least if it’s sole purpose is human recreation” as well as his discussions about offering animals the rights to sue humans.

The groups signing the letter include: Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, Fur Takers of America, Houston Safari Club, Masters of Foxhounds Association of North America, Mule Deer Foundation, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Trappers’ Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, Pope and Young Club, Shikar Safari Club, Texas Wildlife Association, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, Whitetails Unlimited, Inc. and the Wild Sheep Foundation.

Posted by Tom Remington

Cass Sunstein, the president’s pick to head the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has been an advocate for the animal rights movement and is an anti-hunter. As a part of the federal budget office, OIRA has extensive authority to block rules, including those that protect hunting and conservation.

Sunstein claims that, “we might ban hunting altogether, at least if it’s sole purpose is human recreation.” He also supports allowing lawsuits on behalf of animals, a right currently only extended to human beings.

That is why it is crucial that the block remains in place.

Take Action! Sportsmen nationwide should contact their U.S. senators and ask them to support Sen. Cornyn’s hold on Sunstein. Let them know that you are deeply concerned by Sunstein’s radical statements about hunting and animal rights. Ask your Senator to join Senator Cornyn by blocking this appointment.

Click here for talking points.

To find your senators’ information, please visit the Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org/lac.

For more information regarding the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alert Network, call 614-888-4868, or email Greg R. Lawson, director of communications at glawson@ussportsmen.org or Sharon Hayden, assistant director of communications at shayden@ussportsmen.org.