The EPA and other governmental agencies are becoming as abusive as the IRS. Stories are popping up in the news of the Obama EPA refusing to grant cities the right to make repairs on water systems and infrastructure because environmentalists filed complaints over the environmental impact it might have on the species that live there.
It appears that the White House thinks animals have at least if not more rights than humans do.
Last year, on June 16, the massive Monument Fire and the subsequent monsoon rains destroyed the pipelines that bring the water to Tombstone and boulders the size of Volkswagens blocked access to the springs–with some of the springs being buried under 12-15 feet of rock, gravel, and broken trees. Jack Henderson, who was Mayor at the time of the disaster recalls, “There was nothing left. It looked like a moonscape. We lost the war up there.”
In fact, the war was just beginning–but the war was not against nature; rather it is against the essential philosophy of our present national government.
In August, Governor Brewer declared a state of emergency for Tombstone, which provided $50,000 to the city to make repairs. The city rented equipment and applied for and received permits–except for those from the US Forest Service. By the end of October, the city grew tired of waiting. They took an excavator up to the springs. The Forest Service stopped them with the threat of arrest
Kathleen Nelson, acting ranger in charge of the Coronado National Forest, says the Forest Service has been letting Tombstone do some work to restore its water supply “as long as it complies with the 1964 Wilderness Act”–meaning Tombstone can do the work with shovels and haul the pipe up the mountain with horses (really!). More recently, workers were stopped from using a wheel barrow. Rangers say the wheel barrow is “mechanized” and “might damage wilderness and disturb endangered species.” The feds are blocking emergency repairs that are critical to Tombstone’s survival.
In fact, the war was just beginning–but the war was not against nature; rather it is against the essential philosophy of our present national government.
In August, Governor Brewer declared a state of emergency for Tombstone, which provided $50,000 to the city to make repairs. The city rented equipment and applied for and received permits–except for those from the US Forest Service. By the end of October, the city grew tired of waiting. They took an excavator up to the springs. The Forest Service stopped them with the threat of arrest
Kathleen Nelson, acting ranger in charge of the Coronado National Forest, says the Forest Service has been letting Tombstone do some work to restore its water supply “as long as it complies with the 1964 Wilderness Act”–meaning Tombstone can do the work with shovels and haul the pipe up the mountain with horses (really!). More recently, workers were stopped from using a wheel barrow. Rangers say the wheel barrow is “mechanized” and “might damage wilderness and disturb endangered species.” The feds are blocking emergency repairs that are critical to Tombstone’s survival.
Cass Sunstein, Obama's former regulatory czar and author of many of the 6000 new regulations that have been released by the White House this year wrote a paper in 2002 called "The Rights Of Animals: A Very Short Primer". In it he discusses animal suffering in various forms. He even goes into suppressing the practice of meat eating through government regulations.
Cass Sunstein
D. Eliminating Current Practices, Including Meat-Eating
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.
My argument—that we should consider refraining from certain practices if this is
the only feasible way to avoid widespread suffering—raises a host of questions. As
before, the argument raises issues of fact. Shouldn’t it be possible to reduce the level of
suffering in scientific experiments by, for example, requiring animals to be adequately
sheltered and fed? Why couldn’t farms generally give their animals decent lives, as many
farms now do? It would also be valuable to ask some factual questions. If vegetarianism
were widespread, would human health be undermined (as many contend) or improved (as
many also contend)? After the factual questions are resolved, disputes will remain about
the weight to be given to the various interests. My suggestion is that on a reasonable
reading of the facts, many practices will have to yield.
Cass Sunstein has been greatly influential in our lives recently. He's the guy that came up with "Availability Cascades". Government sponsored lies repeated over and over to the point it becomes common knowledge. This is how they suckered millions of Americans into believing in Global Warming and it's how it's gotten to the point that Americans are calling for higher taxes. They feel raising taxes on the wealthy is fine but little do they know that their own taxes will soon be going up along with the rich. It's already written into the law. The "Tax The Rich" argument has been used as a decoy while the White House is busy raising everyone's taxes by $800 billion dollars in the Affordable Health Care Act.
"Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[25] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[25] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups." They also suggest responses: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."[26]
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[25] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators,[27][28] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[29] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[30][31][32]
Sunstein responded to criticism, captured on video, and claimed: "I have written hundreds of articles, and I remember some and not others. That one I don’t remember very well.... But whatever was said in that article, my role in government is to oversee federal rulemaking in a way that is wholly disconnected from the vast majority of my academic writing, including that."[33]
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[25] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[25] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups." They also suggest responses: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."[26]
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[25] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators,[27][28] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[29] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[30][31][32]
Sunstein responded to criticism, captured on video, and claimed: "I have written hundreds of articles, and I remember some and not others. That one I don’t remember very well.... But whatever was said in that article, my role in government is to oversee federal rulemaking in a way that is wholly disconnected from the vast majority of my academic writing, including that."[33]
So if you spot these guys that seem to have a lot of facts to support Obamacare or some other program and that's all they seem to comment on they could be one of these independent experts.
The White House thinks the population is more of a threat to them than an external enemy. This is why hundreds of new gun regulations will be released by the end of the year.
An abusive government fears private gun ownership.
Last edited:
