As you read this, I am going to expose some things you may or may not know about Cass Sunstien, our Regulatory Czar...excuse me, "Commissioner". Let me start with a couple of tidbits of information and add my comments. The tidbits I will share will be labeled as Fact: and my comments labeled as Opinion:. Fact: Harvard Law professor nominated by the president and who has become the administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is a "raving animal rights nut" and devout disciple of Peter Singer. Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, is a leader in the animal rights movement. He has also argued that abortion should be permissible because unborn babies as old as 18 weeks cannot feel pain or satisfaction Singer once said: "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." In 1993 Singer said infants "lack rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" "Infants lack these characteristics," he said. "Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." Some animals, according to Singer, are worth more than some humans. A smart border collie, he says, is worth more, inherently, than a retarded child. Cass Sunstein has embraced the whole enchilada. He believes that animals should have some of the same rights as humans, in fact, greater rights than some people – including the right to follow lawsuits. Sunstein has also supported outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption. In Sunstein's 2007 speech at Harvard University, where he argued in favor of "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating" and proposed: "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." Opinion: OK let’s start with unborn infants not having rationality, autonomy, and self consciousness. The autonomy, I will give, since it is hard to be autonomous when you are in the womb connected to your mother by an umbilicus. As to the rationality...prove it, please. Oh, and show me how you can. It would end the abortion argument now and forever. All humans are rational from inception, as soon as brain tissue starts forming. They are just not developed enough to express said rationality. As to the self consciousness, I believe the same as rationality. We have it from inception, just lack the physical development to express it. If you have ever held your baby in your arms and looked into their eyes, even just minutes after they are born, you see the "spark" for lack of a better term. Killing an unborn child is murder, plain and simple. The next statement: "A smartborder collie is worth more, inherently, than a mentally retarded child." This is such an anti-human, animal chauvinist, small minded statement it angers me more and more every time I read it. Mildly and moderately mentally retarded children can be educated, hold a job, pay taxes, live independently, vote, have children and be parents. A really smart border collie can turn food into poo, herd other animals, fetch your paper, fetch your slippers, pass the smelliest gas at the most inopportune moments, and lick it's own anus. Judge for yourself. Oh, and if Mr. Singer meant that a smart border collie is worth more inherently than a severely mentally retarded child, he is the one who needs to get out of the gene pool, because last time I looked into my soul, my Christian consciousness tells me, my heart tells me, my mind tells me that a human being, no matter how feeble or unable to care for themselves is still a human being and worth more intrinsically than a smart damn dog. We need to sue this idiot on behalf of mentally retarded people. They had rights before PETA came along and claimed rights for animals. Animals do NOT have rights. They are animals. We are all carnivores. We fought our way to the top of the food chain. We are the ultimate predator. I do concede we must be wise predators and be conservative, but we domesticated our prey animals. We have food on hand. I could go on and on, but I shall move on. Much to do many things to cover. If Sunstien is not held in check, he will spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership, zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things Americans take for granted. Fact: Sunstein has also been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet. Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing. It is “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.” In Mr. Sunstien's book "On Rumors" he reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." That future is already here though, for according to Sunstien "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet," he writes. "We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?" Opinion: Thomas Jefferson said "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms" and "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against TYRANNY in government". Enough on that point. On to the next point, Sunstien's new book "On Rumor" is basically a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commentors on websites while altering the libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading "rumors"! Bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be “proven”. The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth “won out”. The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism. This guy is going to clamp down and you, me, and everyone else will lose the freedoms we have now. Blogs? Gone. Facebook? Gone. Twitter? Poof, gone. Myspace? HAH, gone. We will be spoon-fed the internet through approved filters, censors, and appropriate Government controlled gateways. I will have to become an internet pirate. Arrr, matey!