Obama’s Science Czar Advocated Giving Trees the Right to Sue

  Please allow me to repeat the title of this post; “Obama’s science czar advocated giving trees the right to sue.”

  Yes, you read that right. John Holdren, Obama’s science czar, once advocated for giving trees legal standing.

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.
 
“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.

    This was all being written as a means to pass environmental legislation and should be considered scary in light of the cap and trade legislation that will soon be debated in the senate. John Holdren is the man that President Obama defers to on matters of science and this whole global warming hoax falls nicely into that realm for Holdren.

  A man that once said that trees should be able to sue in order to save the environment is now in charge of advising the president on scientific issues.

  The book that Holdren speaks so glowingly about above also calls man’s treatment of trees akin to slavery, the author of the book says that granting inanimate objects rights may seem far fetched but so did granting equal rights to black people at one time:

The fact is, that each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new ‘entity,’ the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable,” Stone wrote.
 
“This is partly because until the rightless (sic) thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of ‘us’–those who are holding rights at the time . . . Such is the way the slave South looked upon the black

    This is the type of thinking that John Holdren agrees with? I had labeled Holdren a radical for some of his other views but he is more than just a radical, he is a radical whack-job. The idea that someone who believes that an inanimate object deserves the right to sue in court was actually nominated and approved to the president’s cabinet is just mind blowing to me. Where was all of this evidence before his confirmation hearing? Why is it only coming out now when it is too late?