That'll Never Happen!

What do veganism, the movie "Blackfish" and the proposal to ban Central Park carriage horses all have in common?

They are all results of the extremist animal rights agenda to eliminate animals from our lives.

The official “Animal Rights Agenda” was drafted in 1987 and included in the Green Party platform, and was also published in ‘Animals Agenda’ magazine. The “Agenda” includes these statements of policy:

• We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats.
• We encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons.
• We call for the eventual elimination of animal agriculture.
• We believe that animals should be left in their appropriate environments in the wild, not showcased for entertainment purposes.
• Hunting, trapping, and fishing for sport should be prohibited.

People scoffed at groups like PETA. "Those crazy ideas will NEVER take hold!" they said.

But here we are, nearly 30 years later.  And we can see that the campaign for animal rights has had a definite influence on society. Inch by inch, bit by bit, these animal rights concepts are taking root in the public psyche.

Veganism is promoted in our schools and in many commercial food enterprises.

Laws restricting breeding of pets are being seen in many areas.

Pet stores are being attacked for selling pets, and laws are being passed to prohibit them from doing so.

Humaniacs are infiltrating agriculture with moles and fabricating videos that supposedly demonstrate "abuse".

In California, the name of the Department of Fish and Game was recently changed to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. A subtle but disturbing shift. The term "wildlife" is not necessarily synonymous with "game".

Animals have lived outdoors in a wide range of temperatures since time immemorial, but suddenly the government is confiscating dogs that are kept outdoors. "Too cold", they claim.
 
Demonstrators attacked the Sea World float at this year's Rose Parade in Pasadena, and masses of ordinary people who saw the movie "Blackfish" are now proclaiming "I'll never go to Sea World again!"

The film "Blackfish", filled with misrepresentations and lies, was produced by anti-captivity animal rights activists with an agenda. The lies are being slowly revealed, but the damage to the reputation of marine parks has already been done. It's a little too late to put the toothpaste back into the tube now. Animal activists know that getting in the first strike is imperative to shock and sway the attitude of the public.

Horses have been bred for centuries to pull carriages, but according to animal rights extremists, this is now an abusive form of "slavery".

The comparison of animals to human "slaves" or animals to human victims of genocide should be deeply offensive to people everywhere.

New York City's new mayor DeBlasio has vowed to put an end to the horse carriage industry in that city. He is not only pandering to animal rights groups; he has an ulterior motive for banning horse-drawn carriages. The pricey real estate currently occupied by the stables has been promised to a campaign contributor. 

The mayor has hidden his agenda to pad his own wallet behind wild-eyed humaniac crusaders who want to "free the horses". Freed, to join the masses of other horses who are slaughtered because of lack of resources to feed and house them. A horse without a paying job is a dead horse.

The campaign against animal agriculture could not be more clearly delineated. Miyun Park, HSUS Vice President from 2005-2009, said at an animal rights conference in 2006: “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]…unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry. And so because of that….we work on promoting veganism.”

And thanks to this "work", humane and ethical measures designed to keep animals safe, such as cages for chickens or prods to keep cattle on their feet, are now viewed as "cruelty".

Our largely urban society does not have any realistic understanding of agricultural animal management. Few people nowadays live on farms, and those who never gave a second thought to where their dinner came from see a video with trumped-up incidents of farm animal cruelty, and suddenly they embrace veganism with a born-again religious fervor.

The end justifies the means, to radical activists. Lies about supposed animal cruelty and abuse justify the goal of getting people to reject the very basic and natural human-animal relationships. Once the humaniacs gain public acceptance of their claims of exploitation and abuse, it is easier to push through more and more laws that restrict animal ownership.

Step by step, eliminating the human-animal connection. That's the goal of groups like PETA, HSUS, and the ASPCA, and that goal is  gradually becoming reality.

Irreconcilable Differences.... INDEED

When it comes to the No-Kill Sheltering movement, I have always been squarely on board. Years ago, I read Nathan Winograd's books on the subject and found them enlightening, uplifting, and just plain exhilarating! California Federation of Dog Clubs, along with PetPAC, co-sponsored a no-kill sheltering seminar given by Winograd in Ventura, California at the July dog show cluster just a few years back. This was during the time when we were in the throes of battle with humaniacs who wanted every pet in the state to be spayed or neutered. 

At that time, I found Mr. Winograd to be a reasonable and earnest proponent of the cause of shelter reform. While he never mentioned being opposed to our mandatory spay-neuter proposal, he never outwardly advocated for it either. I had assumed that the groups asking him to do a presentation might have questioned his philosophy to see if it jived with the world view of animal owners and breeders.

In Mr. Winograd's seminar and his writing, there was never any blame placed on breeders or the public at large for issues with shelter killings; the blame was always placed squarely where it belonged, on regressive shelter management.There was certainly no mention made of blaming nebulous "abusers" for animals in shelters. Non-judgmentalism was the order of the day. 

It was a refreshing change from the lynch-mob mentality of the so-called "animal rights" groups who have always profited solely by highlighting pornographic pictures of animal abuse and neglect. In fact, Mr. Winograd is usually at odds with groups such as PETA, the HSUS, the ASPCA and is a very vocal critic of these groups who proclaim to be pro-animal but instead push for programs and policies that encourage needless shelter killings. At least, he criticized their killing ways, so one would think he also opposed other insane and illogical animal rights world views.I was happy to have him autograph my copy of "Redemption". I drove home with an exhilarating new hopefulness for the future of America's shelter animals.

I wrote a glowing, positive review for Winograd's book on Amazon. I joined the California Federation of Dog Clubs in order to help in the cause of public education to promote humane and responsible pet ownership, while at the same time ardently fighting to preserve ownership rights.

Meanwhile, as time passed, I noticed some disturbing trends. Clues that should have alerted my normally steady radar when it comes to trustworthy people. Winograd came out with a vegan cookbook. Well, OK, he's a vegan, but not an ARist who would ever try to legislate his way of thinking on the rest of us, right??

Wrong. Boy oh boy, was I ever WRONG.

Next we began to hear ramblings from Winograd about "puppy mills". In this blog post from 2012, Winograd answers a question about pet store sales:

 “Given that pet overpopulation is a myth, should we still fight to stop pet stores from selling puppies?” My answer was “Yes.” Because even if every shelter embraced the No Kill philosophy and the programs and services that make it possible, even if no dog or puppy was killed in a shelter again, we’d still want to close down puppy mills.

Say WHAT? Where to begin? Pet stores as evil peddler of abuse and greed, all the other bogus stereotypes. He goes on to describe his view of the horrors of dog breeding in establishments he slurs with the "PM" term. Naturally, we get no specific examples. Just hysterical ramblings.

And further down in the same blog post, Winograd states his opinion about breeders and the AKC quite clearly:

Moreover, I’ve held workshops on shutting down puppy mills or closing down their markets at every No Kill conference. I bashed the AKC in Redemption. And I believe that though dogs are not dying because of pet overpopulation, they are still dying. And as long as that is true, I believe people should adopt from a rescue or shelter. I also could not care less about maintaining breeds and never have. As far as I am concerned, if all dogs become all-mutt, that would be fine with me and probably healthier for the dogs. I’m a Heinz 57 man myself.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=10853

Funny, I attended that conference of his years ago, hosted by a dog show and dog interest groups. Oddly enough, he never made mention of his belief in "puppy mills", "adopt, don't shop", and had he mentioned his aversion to DOG BREEDS...well, I think you can imagine it would not have garnered a warm reception. I also read "Redemption" and honestly do not remember any jab at the AKC, but I'll have to go back and see if the stars in my eyes blinded me to the subtle displays of Winograd's ulterior anti-breeding motives.

Vegan...strike ONE. Puppy mill rhetoric, strike TWO! Bashing AKC for no apparent reason, other than the fact that it represents dog breeders: Strike THREE. 

But hey, we even have AKC breeders who buy into veganism and who call other breeders that "PM" slur, who are heavily involved in rescue; some even have those "until there are none, save one" and "if you breed, rescue. If you don't breed, rescue anyway" signature lines in their emails. They don't believe in their hearts that people should have the freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner. How about all the breed club people who believe no one should breed without health testing and dogs being titled? Hey, folks, these people are supposedly on our side and they walk among us.

Now we here at this blog have been openly critical at times of the AKC; But there is ONE big reason why AKC deserves our support. 

AKC is US. It represents the vast majority of dog breeders in this country. Rightly or wrongly in our methodology, we are the AKC and they are us. It's our family, and it is exactly what we make of it; no more, no less. Our delegates vote on the actions to be taken and on who will ascend to the upper hierarchy of the managing Board of Directors. The flaws of AKC are all our flaws. On the other hand, the very promotion and proliferation of dogs as pets in this country is due in large part to the AKC.

This is what separates us from animal wrongist "humaniacs". They don't want people to breed pets, or in fact to even OWN pets! That's the ultimate goal from their point of view.....NO PETS, no animals in our lives at all. "Enjoyment from a distance".

 

Does Winograd really differ from other humaniacs? Here is a quote from PETA's  president Ingrid Newkirk:

 "For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance."

Why, these words could have come directly from Winograd's mouth! He has paraphrased the exact same sentiments on his blog!! Ingrid and Nathan, long-lost twins separated at birth?

Winograd's objective was insidious but is now becoming crystal clear. His goals are the same as any other radical animal extremist group. Those stray sheep in our own flock need to eventually recognize the animal rights wolf at the door. And not just recognize the threat but ATTACK with our full force of effort! We hang in there with our own crowd, hoping they will "come to Jesus", because they are our eventual only hope to preserve a way of life that deserves preservation.

Winograd is exponentially more dangerous than assorted misled dog owners, because he sets himself up as an expert on matters of public policy regarding animal ownership.....while he doesn't believe in dog breeding!! According to him, dogs should just randomly mate and become free-ranging "Heinz 57" purposeless creatures. Or, worse, should all be sterilized until they no longer exist.

And what step would best separate people from their pets and from breeding? How about an ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRY. Yes, this is the latest brainchild of this very dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing, this snake in the grass named Nathan Winograd. A registry with the intent to enshrine the names of “abusers” so that they will have a scarlet “A” emblazoned on their chest. Only not for anything quite as fun as adultery. The idea is for “Offenders” to be publicly known, and barred from animal ownership way beyond any legal penalties they may have already paid.

I went to Nathan Winograd’s Facebook page, which I had previously “liked” and tagged as a favorite for California Federation of Dog Clubs as well, to weigh in on this very onerous idea. I posted a few thoughts. Minor offenses like failure to license are considered animal offenses, should you be denied animal ownership due to that? What about dirty teeth? Chimed in another commenter. People have been prosecuted for that. Be careful what you wish for, someone else said, because when your rescue is busted for being over a numbers limit, you will then be branded “abuser”. One defender of the idea remarked “your veterinarian can speak in your defense!” To which I replied that there had been many unjust animal busts over the protestations of the accused’s veterinarian. I finished off my comment by stating that I believed that the rights of humans were being violated by misanthropists such as those in support of this registry. My friend Mr. Kirby also posted some thoughtful comments. We were met with venom such as this:

 "Brenda Mcnulty and I would say that THOMAS KIRBY and his ilk have shown their true colors......do u have children? how about I abuse them and see how u like it assholes."

Within a short period of time, lo and behold, all opposing comments were removed by Mr. Winograd. Also, I and other critics may no longer comment on that page! However, the offensive comment flinging the “asshole” insult and threatening our CHILDREN with their particular brand of misanthropist violence remains. Subsequently, Winograd posted a long, pompous statement, which for sake of brevity I will only include the beginning portion::

NW: Thank you for trying to respond to the inane, conspiratorial, anti-animal positions from Kirby and other trolls with your thoughtfulness and compassion. I’ve deleted and banned them.
I welcome criticism because criticism—when it is fair, thoughtful, and truthful—helps the No Kill philosophy I champion, grow. But criticism that defends an immoral status quo through selective use and even disregard of the truth is unconscionable. I used to spend a lot of time answering each of their criticisms, trying to educate them and others, and it’s been largely a waste of time. Instead of dialog, they attacked; instead of discussing the issues, they accused. Recently, you may have heard that Popular Science magazine no longer allows comments on their articles. This is what they wrote: “Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.”…. I would add that trolls are bad for the truth, too. I am joining Popular Science in two ways: I am turning off comments on my Huff Post pieces going forward and I am deleting and banning anti-animal, pro-killing trolls on this page.

WHOA. Let’s stop right there! Those who disagree with Winograd are automatically “anti-animal, pro-killing trolls” in his teeny tiny little mind! And the hypocritical Winograd, who proclaims to welcome criticism, shuts off comments and bans any disagreement. All in the name of science! He believes that his political machine gun of a registry is….scientific! He is omniscient and any disagreement is, well, simply wrong; and, worse than that, EVIL in intent!

What a giant crock of crap!

The concept of animal rights flies in the face of science. Science decrees that there is a food chain. Dogs and cats are not vegans, and neither are people according to the biology of our bodies. Science is the reason we include dogs in our lives to assist mankind as guide dogs, police dogs, military dogs, guardians, herders, and hunters (watch the animal rights nuts heads explode trying to process the concept of HUNTING in the natural order of life). Science also has proven that pet ownership confers health benefits on humans; reduced blood pressure, lower stress levels, better heart health. Those who breed animals so that people can enjoy pet ownership are doing society a SERVICE.

Now THAT’S science.

Another commenter to Winograd’s page noted: Nathan Winograd I firmly support your no kill and totally believe in it but THIS I can not get behind. A registry like this will be abused. If someone was once convicted of animal abuse but is now legally able to get animals NOBODY has the right to say that they should not. I do not like the sex offenders lists for the same reasons. People will get put on the list for things that are not really abuse ( no water at the time of inspection, very minor things or having too many animals) these people do not deserve to be haunted for the rest of their lives by their conviction Many people that are convicted of animals abuse took a plea (I have talked and read many abuse cases) to escape a worse sentence even tho they really did not do any abuse. Many cases are bogus raids. This is like on a sex offender registry where the girl was 17 and the guy 21 (my parents) but girls dad filed charges. That guy does not deserve to be called a sex offender or harassed. Nor do those that are accused of abuse but no abuse happened. As for the ones that did abuse for real will continue and that will be found out.

But guess what?? A candidate for Los Angeles City Council, David Hernandez, has not had the opportunity to read any of the opposing points to this “abuser registry” concept, which as we have noted were removed. Only glowing comments with praise for this program remain. Mr. Hernandez writes on NW’s Facebook page:

“Can we implement this at a Local Level? As a candidate for LA City Council I am will to make this part of my platform…..Thank you, will get under way in presenting this to the Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles with the goal of getting them to request the Los Angeles City Council adopt it.”

Just peachy!

I believe I will never use the phrase “No Kill” again because it is inextricably entwined with misanthropist Winograd. From here on out, I’ll only note “successful shelters”. Leave the drama to the drama queens like Nathan Winograd.

Legislation proposal from those who wish to ban breeding and ultimately eliminate animals from our lives.

License Plate Propaganda

You remember PETA, the people who would rather kill dogs and cats than find them homes? Yep, aren't they just too precious. We've blogged about them here on many occasions. Check out www.petakillsanimals.com for some eye-popping truth about the underlying evil nature of PETA.

In 2007, PETA employee Jane Garrison, her buddy Judie Mancuso and their husbands formed an animal rights group in California. They called it “Social Compassion in Legislation”. The goal? Agitate for spay and neuter laws in the state of California. The method? A relentless political campaign for spay-neuter legislation, enabled by well-planned  propaganda to promote public acceptance.

The left wing slant in the state of California has gotten so out of control that we actually had Judie Mancuso, a PETA supporter and founder of “Social Compassion”, recently appointed to the California Veterinary Medical Board! Fresh from her crusades sponsoring failed bills that would have required all pets in the state of California be sterilized, Mancuso continues to push her anti-pet breeding agenda from a position of authority as a member of the CVMB.

“Social Compassion” was behind two recent onerous pieces of proposed legislation; AB 1634 and SB 250. The former would have required all pets in the state to be sterilized, with a few narrow exemptions. The latter would have required mandatory sterilization and would have also prohibited the sales of unaltered dogs and cats. Several other animal rights groups also joined Social Compassion in official support of these bills.

So far, our state legislature has rejected this proposed intrusion into pet owners' rights to choose their pet's reproductive status. However, with a newly-elected Democratic supermajority in both the California Senate and Assembly, the next legislative push for spay-neuter laws will likely be successful. Meantime, as the animal rights groups strategize their next move, the focus has temporarily shifted to spreading propaganda.

And what better way to spread propaganda than on the back ends of thousands of cars?

Almost two years ago, "Social Compassion" began a push to mass produce a California spay-neuter license plate. With "Social Compassion" founder Mancuso sitting on the California Veterinary Medical Board, it was easy to solicit CVMB support for this license plate program. A minimum threshold of 7500 orders is required to begin production of special license plates; that's the break-even on the expenses of printing up special license plates. Yet today, many months later, the animal rights groups can't quite manage to sell the minimum amount of spay-neuter license plates. They desperately pushed a bill attempting to get themselves a special exemption to reduce the numbers of pre-orders down to 2500 to get their “pet project” rolling. When that effort failed, they introduced another bill, AB 610, that passed and successfully extended their pre-order deadline for another year, until June 2013.

Why there's some of the perps now!!

Now mind you, our state has nearly 40 million residents, yet the spay-neuter fanatics can't seem to find more than about 6,300 people gullible enough to pre-order this special license plate. That's only 0.016% of the population, or less than 1 in 6200 people. Understandable, because not only is this plate UGLY, but this license plate promotes the urban legend that sterilization is healthy and beneficial.

Seems that “Social Compassion”, PETA and the HSUS are devoting a great deal of time and effort to promoting these license plates. But don't be fooled; propaganda is the top priority; they don't care about actually funding any pet clinics; nor finding homes for shelter animals; nor setting up programs and policies that help people keep pets in their homes. The priority is to push lies about “overpopulation”and the presumed need for widespread pet sterilization.

This week, “Social Compassion” sent out an email blast with a special offer. Pierce Brosnan, the Hollywood actor/artist who designed the license plate, is offering to PAY for a free license plate for anyone who wants one. He is being joined in this offer by Katherine Heigl, another Hollywood celebrity nutjob. Heigl recently set up a website in support of animal neutering proclaiming “I hate balls”. (www.ihateballs.com) This website demonstrates how misguided, sick, twisted and desperate these animal rights nuts are.
A friend of mine who spoke out against the license plate program received this note by email:

“Can't figure out what was wrong with AB 1634. Also can't figure out what is wrong with the California Pet Lover's license plate. Proceeds from the plate provide funding for free or low-cost spay and neuter surgeries across California and do not go to PETA or HSUS. They also help to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering.”

“I want to emphasize that the sponsor of this program is the California Veterinary Medical Board. Yes, HSUS is listed as one of the “supporters” but there are many other supporters...None of these supporters receive financial benefit from this license plate program. Proceeds from the plate would provide funding for free or low-cost spay & neuter surgeries across California. They will also help to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering. So, its up to you to decide whether you want to show an “ugly” and distinct license plate in support of what I think is a worthwhile endeavor … And you can get it now for free!”

Uh, OK. Where do we begin to address what is “wrong” here?

First off, if Brosnan and Heigl were really interested in spay and neuter as a presumed cure for the imaginary problem of pet overpopulation, their money would be much better spent in directly providing for free spay and neuter clinics. But no, their main interest is advocacy for the cause of animal rights; the elimination of pet breeding and strictly limiting pet ownership. Brosnan is also seeking the ego boost of seeing his great art masterpiece plastered about the state.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that any funds beyond the cost of production will go to any spay-neuter program. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

IF there are profits from the license plate program, the sponsoring agencies collect the money in a License Plate Fund. Per the text of the agreement “ the sponsoring agency shall expend all funds received under this section exclusively for projects and programs that promote the agency's official policy, mission, or work.” And, "to allow the Veterinary Medical Board to support the critically important efforts of city and county animal shelters to address serious animal care and control problems facing the state."

You may have noticed that the words “spay-neuter program” are nowhere to be found. Imagine that!

The VMB may collect the profits and use them as they see fit. Why, they could even decide to funnel that money to [wink wink] Mancuso's “Social Compassion” group.

Funny thing about "Social Compassion" is that those who work for them are unpaid “volunteers”. Volunteers who have endless resources and time to travel thousands of miles back and forth across the state of California, to produce multiple propaganda websites, to lobby incessantly in Sacramento and at the local levels. Mancuso owns a lovely house near the ocean in Laguna Beach. How does she pay her mortgage? How does she support her lobbying lifestyle? Perhaps now that she is on the CVMB, Mancuso does actually receive some sort of salary, but where has her support come from in the past? It can only be from animal rights groups such as HSUS and PETA. They are paying her for her tireless work toward the extinction of pet ownership and breeding.

It is disgusting that an unscrupulous lobbyist like Mancuso has wormed her way into an influential position in state government. It's galling and appalling that this woman, a vegan animal rights fanatic, has weaseled her way onto the California Veterinary Medical Board.

The admitted goal of animal rights groups behind these initiatives is NO BREEDING. They prefer to force us to import mutts from other countries, especially from nearby Mexico, but also from as far away as Taiwan, the Caribbean and Europe. These dogs are often street dogs who bring with them other special bonuses like parvo and rabies. So you can forget about finding an intentionally-bred healthy puppy, a purebred dog, or a “designer” dog bred on purpose, if the animal rights groups have their way. Breeding laws here in the US are now so restrictive that it is difficult to find a puppy of any sort....purebred or street-bred. And in an animal shelter? No puppies. When they occasionally enter they are stolen by staff, snapped up by “rescues” and sometimes even raffled to the highest bidder.

Despite being touted by animal rights groups as being “healthy”, sterilization surgery, especially when performed while the dog or cat is immature, is ironically responsible for many health problems..... everything from spay incontinence, to a depressed immune system, hypothyroidism, and orthopedic disorders as a result of abnormal bone development. This is just the tip of the iceberg; we have detailed many of those problems here in the past, check our tags “spay/neuter” and "rethinking spay neuter".

These license plate proclaim "Spay-Neuter Saves Lives"? There is absolutely NO data to support such a ridiculous claim. Spay-neuter is certainly not a "PRO LIFE" agenda. It is ANTI BIRTH. And it is certainly not "PRO CHOICE." The extremists want to take the CHOICE of spay-neuter away from the person who owns the animal.

Considering the adverse health effects of spay-neuter, we should use the existing excellent tools readily available for doggie birth control. They are called DOORS and LEASHES. These amazing tools are very reasonably priced. Even low-income individuals have access to them. As an added benefit, these great tools are highly effective in preventing death from a car or a coyote. They also work perfectly to prevent your dog from chasing the neighbor's cat or using the neighbor's lawn for a toilet.

Where is the license plate educating about the need to confine your pet? I sincerely doubt that Judie Mancuso, Pierce Brosnan, Katherine Heigl or anyone at PETA or HSUS give a flying fig about your dog being hit by a car.

And then there is the obvious disingenous nature of this offer. If these celebrities and PETA people really do want to subsidize spay and neuter clinics, why don't they just open some up themselves? Or donate directly to those already in existence? We all know the real agenda here. Propaganda regarding spay and neuter is the priority. Control the public psyche and you win the debate. The public must fervently and earnestly believe in “pet overpopulation” in order for the animal rights groups to pass more laws regulating pet ownership and breeding rights. If state-sponsored license plates urge us to support spay-neuter, it reinforces the public perception that more laws are necessary to address a “problem”.

And if you believe in the notion of supposed “overpopulation”, then do I have a bridge to sell you.

Check our posts on this blog for articles that blast the notion of “pet overpopulation” right out of the water.

Why Animals Don't Have Rights

The phrase "animal rights" sounds pleasant enough on the surface. Kind-hearted people the world over love animals and wish to see them treated humanely. Abuse and neglect of owned animals is illegal in every state of the union. We as a society value and promote the welfare of animals.

However, upon close examination, we find that the concept of "animal rights" is invalid.

"Rights" is defined as "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral".

What specific "rights" are animals entitled to claim, under a system of justice? This must be determined in order to discuss the situation intelligently.

Here is a listing of some commonly-accepted "rights":

·        right to life

·        right to liberty (freedom from slavery or serfdom)

·        right to own personal property

·        right to equality of justice

·        right to vote

·        right to free speech

·        Freedom of religion

·        Freedom from torture

We can't reasonably expect for animals to participate in free speech, or in a political system whereby they vote, or in the selection of a religion.

Rights are civil and political concepts. In order for animals to have rights, they must have an established system of government. They must have laws for which there is punishment for infractions, determined by a system of justice.

Animals don't have laws. The concept of justice does not exist for them. They don't live by a moral code.

In order for rights to exist, corresponding responsibilities must also exist. For instance, if one expects the right to vote, then one must abide by societal rules and laws that have been instituted in order to maintain that right. The right to liberty must be balanced with a respect for the rights of others. Animals do not have a respect for the rights of others, and therefore the liberty of wild animals is balanced only by the forces of nature such as predation and the food chain. Animals may have a concept of possession of property, but no reciprocal idea of theft being "wrong".

There are also social rights concepts such as sexual equality, racial equality, rights to education and to health care. These rights are agreed upon by the members of society as beneficial and just for the group. Animals have no understanding of or participation in abstract concepts like equal rights based on gender, race or age.

The concept of "animal rights" ignores the very nature of animals. Animals fight for territory or partners. They hunt, kill and eat each other. They rape, pillage and plunder at will. Humans have established official codes of conduct that prohibit such activities impinging on the "rights" of others. While the very nature of "humane" treatment prohibits any human-caused torture of animals, there is no such natural prohibition against torture in the animal world. 

Animals are incapable of moralizing; and even if capable, should the lion be told that he may not eat the lamb? Should the very process of natural selection and evolution be altered in consideration of the "right" of prey to avoid being someone's dinner? Of course not. 

Most people do, however, believe in the concept of humane stewardship toward animals. The very use of the word "humane" tells us that compassionate treatment of animals and each other is an ideal inherently related to human values, ethics and morals.

 We believe that the animals we own should be treated with compassion and mercy. We believe that animals in the wild should be conserved from the effects of mankind that might serve to decimate their populations. This ideal of stewardship of animals (or animal welfare) is vastly different from the concept of animals having "rights".

Animal rights activists have waged a campaign to convince the public that animals ownership is akin to slavery; that breeding is no different than rape; that animals on farms are the moral equivalent of Nazi holocaust victims. Such comparisons are deeply offensive to anyone who cherishes genuinely "humane" ethics and values.

 

The idea that animals must be "free" from human use ignores our human biology. We are not herbivores, with multiple stomachs and lengthy intestines, who ruminate a grassy diet; we are omnivores who rely on some meat and animal products in our diet to maintain our health. We have evolved in this manner. We co-evolved with dogs, who hunted alongside us and helped us to herd our flocks, so that both our species could enjoy our natural diets. 

Those who believe that the concept of "Animal Rights" is worthy of support may obtain self-satisfaction derived from a sense of moral superiority, but their logic and intelligence is certainly questionable.

It's Just Another Meatless Monday.....

"It's just another manic Meatless Monday.
I wish it were Sunday. 'Cause that's my Funday."

You're having a great weekend, tending your vegetable garden, bathing the dogs, spending a bit of time taking up arms against the animal rights extremists. Toss in some family funtime at the beach. And then, just when you take a deep breath after a nice weekend, and head back to work, you are hit with

MEATLESS MONDAY

in the cafeteria

Now I'm not saying I didn't enjoy that spaghetti squash casserole....it was delicious! but Oh Dear LORD! I felt like I really should have had a frontal lobotomy done before eating anything presented under such a theme.

The vegetarian/vegan agenda is relentlessly being pushed under the guise of "good health" and "better for the environment". Now it is even hitting the workplace cafeteria! The concept originated in the GRACE Spira Project at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. No, GRACE is not a lady. GRACE stands for "Global Resource Action Center for the Environment", an anti-agriculture project funded by animal extremists. "Spira" refers to Henry Spira, who is widely regarded as one of the most extreme animal rights fanatics of the 20^th century.

Not surprisingly, Meatless Monday is being promoted by the fanatic animal extremist group PETA. I guess they don't actually eat the thousands of animals they kill in their Virginia "shelter" every year. Bully for them!


Meatless Monday aims to reduce meat consumption worldwide by 15 percent. The organization’s Web site claims that going meatless once a week could not only reduce the risk of developing cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity, but would also reduce greenhouse gases and preserve natural resources such as fresh water and fossil fuel.

That seems just a tad far-fatched to me. We found when diabetics went onto the Atkins diet they did much better on meat and veggies instead of carbs. How does meatlessness preserve fresh water? If the animals are not eaten, do they drink less? Less meat eaten means more soybeans grown. Soybean fields need water. Plenty of water. And when did animals learn to use fossil fuels? Who knew! As to cancer, there has been no proven link between meat and cancer. That's just a bunch of tripe. Mmmmm. Menudo sounds pretty good right about now. I must be craving Vitamin B-12 after that vegetarian lunch.


“Meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests,” writes Mark Bittman in a New York Times article from 2008.

Meat factories? Meat can't be manufactured. Well, after all, it's the New York Times. We can't expect objective journalism from them. And, I don't believe for a moment that eating meat is destroying the rainforests. If people eat less meat and more grains and veggies, they'll need to cut down even MORE of the rainforest for crops. Quite a conundrum. A possible solution might be better birth control for humans?

Some vegetarians are not satisfied, however, simply to reject eating meat. They also believe that milk, eggs, leather, fur, and feathers are a product of cruelty to animals. They even oppose eating honey! Those poor oppressed bees, you know. Never mind the fact that bees work just as hard for their queen as they do for us. That doesn't matter at all! These no-animal-products-at-all type of vegetarians are known as "vegans". Vegans are not so much anti-cruelty as they are anti-human.

The reality is that veganism is not simply a choice related to health, fitness or the environment. It's actually a religious belief held dear by fanatic idealogues. The vegan religion proclaims that all animal products should be opposed on moral grounds. These are the same extremists who believe that animals are not ours to use in any way....THAT is the true ulterior motive in the promotion of veganism. Health and the enviroment are not REAL concerns, but manufactured ones intended to send the vegan agenda mainstream.

Even Nathan Winograd, the king of No Kill sheltering, has fallen prey to the mind-numbing mantra of meatlessness and veganism. I LOVE Nathan's No Kill pet sheltering methods, but I'm sorry to see that he has swallowed hook, line and sinker the animal rights nonsense regarding veganism. The guy even has a book out called "All American Vegan" and has blogged that he is an "ethical vegan" who raises his kids and dogs on a vegan diet.

So, if he is an "ethical vegan", wonder what the heck an "unethical vegan" would be? No, I don't think that is the meaning intended behind that phrase. Seems the not-so-subtle implication is that vegans are ethical while the rest of us are sinful, animal-abusing barbarians.

My mother should be so ashamed! Look what a terrible person she raised.  

Not content to push the vegan diet on just humans, the HSUS markets a vegan dog food, based on soy. Figures they'd try to make even dogs into vegans. Seriously, feeding dogs or cats (carnivores) a vegan diet is abuse.
Dogs are carnivores and require complete proteins found in meat. Their digestive tract is not set up to extract proteins from vegetation, like herbivores. A vegan dog is a sick dog.

Human children also need animal products in their diet for proper growth and development. Animal products are the only source of vitamin B12 in the diet, a vitamin essential for proper brain and nervous system function. Well, you can try to include blue-green algae for the B12 content, but it is an unreliable source from what I understand. Not to mention, it tastes like shit.

I believe if God intended us to eat algae, we'd have been born with either fins or flippers.

There are more hazards involved with following a vegan diet. The other nutrients at risk for deficiency are riboflavin, calcium, iron, and the essential amino acids lysine and methionine. Vegan children not exposed to sufficient sunlight are at risk for vitamin D deficiency. Zinc deficiency can occur in vegans because the phytic acid in whole grains binds zinc, and there is little zinc in fruits and vegetables. Other risks of veganism are osteoporosis, rickets, iron-deficiency anemia, macrocytic anemia and poor growth in children. There was even a recent study published that shows that vegetarians have smaller brains than those who eat meat.

Winograd recommends a diet based heavily on soy. Without soy, vegetarians are at risk of protein deficiency. However, soy is extremely high in phytoestrogen content. If one chooses to forego animal products and eat a predominantly soy-based diet, then you can expect as a side effect some hormonal imbalances. Phytoestrogens that are so abundant in the popular vegan food soybeans (think tofu, including "tempeh", "tofurky" etc.) also cause thyroid, reproductive and liver problems.

Based on animal studies, soy also causes aggression, high cortisol levels, low tolerance to stress, neurodegenerative brain disease, and there is a strong suspicion that soy also can produce depression.

Most soy is also the genetically modified variety of crop. Let's not even attempt to go over that subject here. I'll let you do your own research on GMO foodstuffs. How many rainforests have been burned to make way for mass-produced, GMO soy? That's actually a big issue in current events. Look it up! Don't foget the pesticides they are sprayed with!

 WHOA! I think the evidence is in. Meatlessness is certainly not healthier, nor is it in any way "greener" than a traditional diet. And we can conclude that moderation, variety, and a full spectrum of nutrients provided by foods, including animal products, is necessary for a balanced, healthy diet.

Nature evolved the food chain for a reason. That is the reality of life. Veganism is fantasyland thinking, like the bullshit anthropomorphism you see in the Disney movies.

What's next? Treeless Tuesday? Waterless Wednesday? Fat-Free Friday?

Maybe Disney's next film will feature teens hard at work promoting veganism, starting with Meatless Mondays in the school cafeteria. I'll take that lobotomy now, please. That'll make the whole vegan experience SOOO much easier to swallow.

More info on GRACE detailing the connection to PETA:
http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/grace.pdf

"Study Finds Vegetarians Have Smaller Brains":
http://thehealthyskeptic.org/study-finds-vegetarians-have-smaller-brains

"Does Meat Make Us Sick?":
http://theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/08/does-meat-make-us-sick-q-a-on-veganism-nuts-and-more/2443343/

Dr. Blaylock on dangers of soy:
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/dr_blaylock/dangers_of_soy/2011/01/20/372072.html?s=al&promo_code=B858-1#ixzz1Bxcbef5f

Here's the study with the big splashy headlines about "Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters". Then if you read the report, you find that their vegetarians were MORE likely to have cervical and bowel cancer. So the headline was totally false!
Supposedly those who eat LOTS of RED meat are more prone to blood cancers, while fish eaters do better than either vegetarians or meat eaters. All in all, the finding are meaningless. We are not told what proportion of those studied were in the various groups, and what other lifestyle factors were involved. Maybe meat eaters are also more likely to smoke? Maybe they are older? Who knows? No mention of other factors. And the study relied on subjective  report of diets which could be faulty.Was the red meat grilled or cooked in high heat? Grilling or frying are known to produce carcinogenic substances. Was the risk lower if the meats were baked, roasted, poached or cooked rare? Was there a large percentage of processed meats or meats with preservatives among the cancer group? Could be that THOSE are the culprits for any presumed cancer risk.
It's a rather worthless study but here is the new article if you care to read it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk

California’s Vegan Revolution- Animal Owners, Raisers, and Farmers in the Crosshairs

California has long been a bastion for those who dare to dream, innovate, and strive to create new frontiers whether it is in science, academia, the arts, business, or politics. From these creative forces we Californians have given the nation significant advances in science and technology (the microchip), the movie industry ( Hollywood ), a gifted president (President Reagan), and last, but certainly not least, some of the finest agriculture the world has ever known. At its zenith, all of these wonderful achievements coalesced to form the quintessential "California Dream" and from this wellspring came forth the famous and factual saying "so goes California, so goes the nation".

But, it is becoming more clear with each passing day that something is terribly, terribly wrong in California . Gradually, unnoticed by most, California is slowly deteriorating over time like a grand old mansion with a steadily crumbling foundation.   The California Dream is slowly dying and what seems to be rising from the ashes is a nightmare. Why? How did this happen? The answer is quite simple. Deliberate and strategic social and political engineering by motivated special interest groups. These groups seek to force their agendas upon us via carefully crafted and legislated mandates. The most powerful, dangerous, and influential of these groups are found in the realms of Environmental Activism (green groups) and Animal Rights. Homeland Security has identified in an official national security report that these groups constitute one of the most dangerous terrorist threats to America on a par with Muslim jihadists. While we have been busily pursuing our livelihoods and enjoying our families and animals, these dangerous groups have been stealthily working behind the scenes to gain more and more political power and influence over us all.

Among the more potent of these special interest groups are HSUS (Humane Society of the United States ) and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). HSUS is the richest and most politically powerful Animal Rights organization in the world. They seek to synthesize an unnatural world devoid of all animal use including the abolition of pet ownership and animal based farming. Their ultimate goal is nothing less than the extinction of all domestic species.

Here is one of the more infamous quotes from the president of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, which clearly conveys this horrific goal: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."— Animal People News, May 1993  PETA, funded by George Soros' Tides Foundation, is no less radical in their beliefs as conveyed by their president Ingrid Newkirk:  "There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all animals."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986 and: "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Feb 1990 Shockingly, PETA kills over 95% of the animals it take into their Norfolk, Virginia "shelter" annually according to state records. One can only assume that they equate death with kindness.

Unbelievably, HSUS, and to a lesser extent PETA, have grown into well funded juggernauts with tremendous political influence at the local, state, and federal levels in the United States . HSUS pushes for a thousand plus laws on all levels per year to usher in their brave new vegan vision. Most of this lobbying activity is illegal and based upon fraudulent fundraising activity. There is an ongoing IRS investigation into this matter. Meanwhile, PETA's focus is the media, education, and influencing public opinion to embrace the Animal Rights agenda. They have been incredibly successful to this end.

It has long been the goal of HSUS and PETA to "capture" California and to mandate veganism through carefully worded and placed state laws. The "capture" of California would be the crown jewel of their Animal Rights movement knowing that "so goes California , so goes the nation". To this end, HSUS has ushered forth SB 917 and AB 1117. SB 917 will legally redefine the term "animal cruelty" with purposefully overbroad and poorly defined law to include the transportation, display, and all sales of animals on public property.  

Think carefully about that.  This would mean that if you walk your dog or if your cat suns herself in your front yard you are, be the strictest interpretation of this law, "displaying" an animal and are guilty of "animal cruelty" which will be a misdemeanor replete with arrest, jail time, seizure of your animal, and punitive fines. If you transport rabbits to a show or take your dog to the vet you would, according to SB 917, be committing an act of animal cruelty. If your child gives away kittens in front of WalMart, she will instantly become a criminal in doing so. AB 1117 further expands the scope and reach of SB 917 by mandating seizure of all animals in one's possession if a single act of "animal cruelty" has occurred (see SB 917). Heavy fines and "upkeep" fees are then levied against the owner for each animal seized.  AB 1117 allows for the killing or other disposition of seized animals before the accused can prove their innocence in court. This bill allows for the destruction of evidence and the theft of real property under the color of law. Furthermore, if the accusation is founded (remember all evidence has been destroyed or disposed of) then the accused will not be allowed to own any animal again for 5 to 10 years. All other people living with the accused are bound by the same mandate. It does not take a lot of imagination to figure out how such bills might destroy all animal based agriculture, pet breeding, and animal ownership in California.

Horrifically, both of these bills have nearly passed through both the California Assembly and Senate. If you find this both shocking and terrifying, then please immediately contact your representatives at the state and federal levels. Contact the governor of California and urge him to veto both SB 917 and AB 1117. After contacting your representatives, it is equally important to inform as many people as possible to do like-wise.  Tell family members, friends, co-workers, and anyone else you can think of about these dangerous bills. Contact your local Tea Party and as many groups who have an interest in animal ownership that you can. Write to the editor of your local paper to get the word out. Knowledge is power. With knowledge and the fortitude to oppose those in power who push for these laws, we can effectively fight back against these highly influential Animal Rights special interest groups (HSUS and PETA) to save animal ownership in California .

Written by Diane Amble

California Animal Voters Alliance