Former White House Advisor Thinks Rocks Should Have Human Rights

Knowing what you know about the “mainstream media”, allow your mind to wander to a place where a former White House adviser for a Republican was now part of a “mainstream” think tank. On the side, this adviser is involved with other, shall we say, not-so-mainstream organizations. Most of those other organizations revolve around the same subject matter for which he was a White House adviser. They’re just not very well known. For the sake of discussion, we’ll call this person the former “Getting Oil Out of A Rock” Czar. He is no longer a White House adviser because he once signed onto a cause that held some pretty far out views.

After leaving his position at the White House, the former czar kept a pretty high profile as a speaker at “Getting Oil Out of Rocks” events, etc. Despite the controversy which led to his ouster, he remained a well-respected member of the movement. His fans in government and academia still think he shouldn’t have been let go. They think he was a victim of politics instead of a victim of his own unorthodox views. Then one day, it became known that the former adviser was now a board member for a group that believes rocks should have the same rights as humans. Remember, he advised a Republican president. How do you think the media would react to this news?

I would expect the left leaning news outlets to immediately dive into this person’s past and start asking serious questions. How did this guy make it through the vetting process? Do the people who continued to support him still support him now? Should this leading advocate for getting oil out of rocks cause the entire movement to be called into question? Rocks should get human rights? Who else believes this insanity?

You might be surprised to learn that this isn’t entirely a hypothetical situation. Only a few aspects have been changed for the sake of the thought experiment. The President? A Democrat. The adviser? It’s Van Jones. The movement? Green energy / environmentalism. What inanimate object does he believe should be granted human rights? “Mother Nature.”

Van Jones, the Obama administration’s controversial former “green jobs czar,” has found a new calling: helping to push for a new, global architecture of environmental law that would give Mother Nature the same rights status as humans.

The new movement is almost certain to be showcased at a U.N.-sponsored global summit on “sustainable development” to take place in Rio de Janeiro in May 2012, when similar issues of “global environmental governance” are a major focus of attention.

Jones is taking up the challenge as one of the newest board members of an obscure San Francisco New Age-style organization known as the Pachamama Alliance, which has been creating a global movement to make human rights for Mother Nature an international reality — complete with enforceable laws — by 2014. The Rio summit will create an important midpoint for that campaign.

Apparently, this isn’t some fringe movement, either. The group, called the Pachamama Alliance, is real and is working to get some kind of UN resolution granting “Mother Nature”, presumably the Earth, human rights. They’ve been able to successfully get these “rights of nature” into a new Ecuadorian constitution, and are working on other governments according to their web page.

The goal is clear. Grant the earth human rights and nearly every industry suffers, except for the ones the Left deem “green” and acceptable, of course. The same would go for developing countries. I’d imagine waivers of these new “laws” would be granted to allow them to get up to speed with the rest of the modern world. This would be Marxist redistribution of wealth on a global scale. This is statism writ large. There is no better way to control the population of the planet than by pitting them against the planet itself with the “enlightened” elite picking the winners and losers.

I’m confident there are enough sane people on Mother Earth to block this nonsense. In the mean time, the media is failing once again to ask how a person like this was able to be in a position to significantly affect policy. It also means they are failing to ask the next logical questions: Did Obama know about and agree with Jones’ world view? Is this new effort a completely new concept that Jones just signed onto or has he believed it for a significant amount of time? Does Obama agree that the earth should be granted human rights?

Shouldn’t we know before the next election?