Black Americans = Trees
Oops, "Arbor-Americans"
This kind of crap isn't even suprising anymore. Here's some of the article from CNSNews.com; (Emphasis mine)
In the 70s, Obama's Science Adviser Endorsed Giving Trees Legal Standing to Sue in Court
(CNSNews.com) – Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights. The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.
Giving “natural objects” -- like trees -- standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
Holdren, who is the new director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and President Obama’s top science advisor, made the comments in the 1977 book “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.”
Stone’s article -- “Should Trees Have Standing?” -- which Holdren called a “tightly reasoned essay,” was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972.
In that article, Stone plainly states: “I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment--indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.”
Stone admits in the article that it may seem improbable to give legal rights to nonhuman objects, but likened it to finally giving rights to black Americans.
Environmental advocacy groups such as the Center for Earth Jurisprudence have begun citing the argument.
Oops, "Arbor-Americans"
This kind of crap isn't even suprising anymore. Here's some of the article from CNSNews.com; (Emphasis mine)
(CNSNews.com) – Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights. The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.
Giving “natural objects” -- like trees -- standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
Holdren, who is the new director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and President Obama’s top science advisor, made the comments in the 1977 book “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.”
Stone’s article -- “Should Trees Have Standing?” -- which Holdren called a “tightly reasoned essay,” was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972.
In that article, Stone plainly states: “I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment--indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.”
Stone admits in the article that it may seem improbable to give legal rights to nonhuman objects, but likened it to finally giving rights to black Americans.
Environmental advocacy groups such as the Center for Earth Jurisprudence have begun citing the argument.
8 Comments:
So, since a human fetus is a natural object,
by these folk's "tightly reasoned" logic, it
too should have legal standing. Somehow,
I don't see Mr. Holdren's idea getting much
traction with our Dear Leader and the coven
of pro-abortion advocates supporting him.
Stone’s article -- “Should Trees Have Standing?” --
You're slipping up, Cavey. You should have commented on the obvious pun! :--))
I'm not surprised by this at all. My wife works for the U.S. Forest Service in legal and financial matters (claims). It seems people are suing the USFS all the time because Forest Service trees and wild life (e.g., bears) are hurting them. They should blame their stupidity. It helps to duck when confronted by a low branch and no one should consider for a moment having a "family" moment with a bear.
I say blame the trees and the bears. Thus, they should have standing!--except the bears because they are usually on all fours. LOL
BTW, Holdren is a f&*%$#@ idiot!
How is it that the supposedly enlightened, post-racial liberals are all about insulting people because of their skin color? If I were black, I would raise holy hell over a comment like that.
It never would have occurred to a conservative to equate ANYONE with an inanimate object.
Following this guy's ideas to their logical conclusion & what do you have, a new version of Nazi Germany where Christians are not considered human & thus in line for extermination.
We have to keep shouting loud & clear about what they are saying & where we are heading.
PS speaking of logical conclusions, Holdren's comparing blacks to trees could be taken to mean he doesn't see blacks as humans. Gee, I see an idea for a post coming on.
America! What more evidence do you need to realize that you voted a ideological criminal to be your president.
Heresy, I hope you realize that you are preaching to the choir. Most of us here didn't vote for him. & we wish more of our fellow Americans could have seen what you just said last November.
Yes, Al, I did realize that... I was just venting.
HH, I suspected you might be. & I don't blame you. You were saying what I lot of us feel down her in the USA.
Sadly, from what I see things aren't any better up in the Great White North. My sympathy to you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home