Someone Pushes Some Emotional Buttons

And then it becomes verboten to say bad things about the death of Daniel Shaull, who set himself on fire and then tried to use his flaming body to set fire to a business, Nicholas Ungar Furs.

Someone actually asked me to "prove it" about, I guess, a statement that I made that a lot of people could have died or that he intended to catch the business on fire when he attempted to run inside, or maybe I was supposed to prove that he attempted to go through a locked door. I don't know why.

Fascinating is how many newspapers shut down the comments on this case. What, does not every terrorist have family? The people who own the businesses that the animal rights activists destroy, don't they have family? What about the people who might have been seriously injured or died in that attack?

Victoria Taft says that the demonstrators egged Shaull on to do this. I would like to see more evidence but I'm not skeptical. If he was not "political" and not "religious" like his father says, how did it occur to him to do this? Someone had to put him up to it. I think that a very careful investigation needs to be made here. A local businessman said that Shaull had protested at the store "regularly" which implies having been in Portland more than the five days that his father claimed. There should also be some witnesses who saw who egged him on and who provided the gasoline and matches.

If you read "Free the Animals!" you can learn that for over thirty years there have been training camps for animal rights terrorists. They learn to form terrorist cells and conduct disciplined attacks against targeted installations like mink farms, a Bureau of Land Management horse barn, slaughterhouses (they burned two slaughterhouses that processed horses) and medical researchers. They demonize their targets, often lying, then go after them with fire, vandalism, and animal releases that often result in dead animals. Their more respectable fronts include by now almost countless "SPCAs" and "humane societies" that prey on anyone who has a breeding or rescue and lie about them to get them into trouble.

Are the legislators who pass laws that are pushed by the animal rights activists any better than the activists themselves? When they passed the laws against exotic animals they were serving the same animal rights terrorists. When they passed the "puppy mill" bills they were doing the same thing. I would guess that about 95 percent of Americans are not sympathetic animal rights terrorists and are not being served by what amounts to morality laws that come from extremists who would bait a man into killing himself to protest against animal use. We have to understand that any time that we support part of the animal rights agenda by "regulating" animal use the way that they want, we strengthen their entire agenda: No meat, no fur, no leather, no pets, no nothing.

Unfortunately some major newspapers seem to have clamped down on news and opinions about this, but the fact is that we have to get totally sick of this sometime. Why not when someone dies doing the same thing that has been so destructive to everyone in the animal businesses? I don't know that Daniel Shaull was entirely an innocent. He did in fact set himself on fire and try to burn down a business, like a suicide bomber, and he had enough of his faculties to travel around the U.S. on a bus, find employment as a "youth counselor" at least until they decided his screws were too loose, then find this store in a strange city.

I would have to say that someone might get burned for not cooperating with the AR terrorists. It looks like if you do cooperate with them you will, sooner or later, get burned a lot worse.

So a Terrorist Runs Into a Locked Door...

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/father_of_man_who_set_himself.html or http://tinyurl.com/yl6dz6w

Daniel Shaull left Dodge City for Oregon five days ago. He somehow had the money to take a bus from Dodge City, Kansas to Portland, Oregon, after he had called his family for assistance because he was broke. He attacked a very specific store that had been the site of animal rights demonstrations before. He set himself on fire and would have set the store on fire had he not run into a locked door. Mentally ill or not, there is both purposeful behavior which requires a good amount of mental effort and the possibility of a third party providing him with the money and the address to go to. At the end he was a suicide (fire) bomber, the first one I've heard of in the United States.

It is distasteful to attack the mentally ill dead, but the fact is that he tried to set someone's store on fire. This is a heinous crime without counting the number of firefighters who would have been put at risk. I remember when a firefighter died in Omaha because an acoustical ceiling collapsed from the weight of the water that had been poured into the building, crushing him to death. Like I have to explain to anyone that firefighters risk death every time that they put out a fire.

Terrorist acts deserve contempt and ridicule. It's politically correct to withhold some of that from a person who committed such an act when he seems to be mentally compromised, but he attempted a terrorist act. He targeted a store that was 1800 miles from where he had been living on the streets, and rode a bus those 1800 miles (plus all the transfers and roaming around). How did he even find the place?

The article doesn't say what kind of mental problems the man had.

If a somewhat mentally ill person robs a convenience store at gunpoint I have no sympathy for him if someone pots him on the spot. Daniel Shaull had the mental faculties to call for money, collect it from wherever (if you've done it you know that this task requires mental faculties), and conduct himself unaided from Dodge City, Kansas to Portland, Oregon. He was probably sane enough to assist in his own defense.

My conclusion is that this was a terrorist act conducted by a person who was sane enough to be held responsible for his own actions. It's a tragedy for his family, yes, but he did commit a terrorist act. He was as able as any of us to tell right from wrong.

Also, many citizens have suffered arson attacks, thefts, property destruction, deaths of their animals, and death threats against humans. Being politically correct in this case and "making allowances" or "having sympathy for the family" dodges the question of just how much contempt to have for a domestic terrorist. We're all sick of it. I am really disgusted with the idea that I might be denied a forum to express my contempt for these acts. The one terrorist who acts on behalf of the animal rights groups, we should be nice to because he's dead and mentally ill. No sir, not this time.

The best weapon against terror attacks is utter and complete contempt of the attack, the attacker, and particularly the ideas and organizations behind the attacks. I have mentioned before, also, that the terrorists just get worse when they get anything. In spite of the misdirection I'm pretty sure that the same people who got the bad laws passed in Oregon are somehow behind this.

Daniel Shaull is outside the pale, totally undeserving of sympathy, and yes it's funny that after all that effort, after all of the windup, our would-be suicide (fire)bomber runs into a locked door. The act deserves no more respect than that. I can't believe that anyone's heart bleeds for him.

Half-assed Support

Support groups just aren't what they used to be. I suppose that every new social movement, revolutionary or reactionary, thinks that it can reinvent the rules.

The first rule of a support group is that you don't point fingers at each other and make accusations. Maybe it being the first rule is why it is the first rule that is always broken. It's sort of like thinking that your car doesn't need fuel or energy to get you where you are going. At least with a car there is a visible difference between going somewhere and going nowhere.

Some have an arbitrary notion of what constitutes "responsibility" coupled with the idea that a person shouldn't be part of the group if they are not "responsible." One or two who are reading this know which argument inspired this blog entry. It is predictable that someone in the crowd is going to try to attain dominance using this arbitrary notion.

Now we have people who oppose ownership rights and use the idea of human safety in bad faith. A lot of these people do not care if we humans live or die and would launch lethal viruses if they were sure that they were immune. The environmental movement and the humane movement have become bent on the destruction of at least part of the human race and a lot of them want it all gone, all of our technology, all of us, everything, and they really mean it. The leaders just want to be billionaires. They are the ones who shout "safety!" when someone wants a tiger.

A lot of people think that they are for ownership rights but they carry the same message to legislatures: Do something about people who keep tigers in backyards and apartments. Do something about irresponsible people who let their pet tigers touch other humans. Do something about people who keep dangerous pets. And by the way, let us have the right to own tigers and sell photos of people handling tiger cubs.

It's no wonder if legislators don't know who we are. Even if the owner of a menagerie or zoo is not AR, they believe that a monopoly on the business in their area could increase sales. I guess it doesn't matter much to them that the people who they need most to help them actually run the business are the ones who are least likely to be tolerant of abuse. Those who are still attracted to working near tigers when they can't touch them, well, what do you think you're going to get? People who sneak touches and who are eventually just going to jump in the cage with an animal that isn't being handled. Those who are a little less obsessive and think it through stay away from the menagerie that won't allow touching. Smarter people, saner people, won't go there. You also have people who don't give two pennies about the animal and it's just a job for them. If I had to work in a no-contact facility and couldn't wash dishes or haul trash instead I'd rather just not give a crap.

People who say that they love animals and say don't touch them can't be entirely sane unless they are saying that for personal gain. At least when they do it for gain it makes some kind of sense.

It's half-ass support when they want to stop a ban law that will adversely affect their own businesses but they want that same law to stop everyone who they think of as "irresponsible." There is little worse than this AR-lite kind of business because AR-lite is the major source of credibility for the animal rights activists. It's how their ideas get into the mainstream. It is also trying to stop a train by pushing the same direction that your opponents are pushing.

It gets where I want to tell them to shove their business up, well, half their asses.

The Fight Against Animal Abuse Will Kill Us

It's intended to kill us. It's not just intended to end or tax the use of animals. It is intended to kill human society, to end the modern era, and to kill off a lot of humans.

The "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" or "VeHeMent" is just one of several who do not have the grace to immediately kill themselves as they recommend that the human race commit suicide. To them I say that I want to live my life even at the expense of the planet. It only makes sense to continue what evolution has led up to, what the planet seems to have willingly given itself to creating, which is humanity.

PETA and the HSUS sell the mass extinction of humans and human-owned animals to its followers, even to the grandmothers who send them $25 a year. They've soft-peddled that lately because they know that a smoking gun can derail their entire program. They look on the surface as if they are succeeding more and more but the ice is getting thinner under them.

Somehow they have us thinking that it's "just" the meat industry. Ladies and gentlemen, our brains run on meat. It takes cholesterol to grow a brain. Even the historical vegetarians in India use milk because cholesterol is a necessity. It's also because the original "don't eat cows" edict was for the purpose of preserving the use of cows for food.

Maybe some of us have noticed that animal owners have trouble tolerating each other, even within a class. Any time in any social setting when someone brings up "issues" there is some kind of fight, anywhere from a low-key verbal conflict to fist-fights and shooting.

Tolerance is a matter of survival. Learn it or die. A mind can kill the body that it possesses by intolerance, by the "Oh my God I'm so allergic to cat dander" reaction that often means that the reactor is a passive-aggressive whiny controlling brat. At one time this was well-known, that allergies are often psycho-somatic and can be created or eliminated by psychological means. The same thing can happen to a human population and the way it works is much more clear. People start destroying each other, directly or by proxy, over any kind of issue. It's generally easier to see that the issue is irrational when we can see it from the outside. Someone might be killed in LA for wearing red and green to celebrate Christmas because those are a rival gang's colors. Isn't it also irrational to want someone dead because his sixteen-year-old dog died in an outdoor kennel? "But that's a legitimate issue"?

Don't "legitimate issues" seem to be far more important to people who can't understand the meaning of those issues and don't have the requisite brainpower to deal with those issues?

Abhorring Violence

My philosophy may be hard to explain because there is an abhorrence of physical aggression that is also compounded with a fear of hitting back at a bully. A lot of us have experienced hitting a bully only to be pounced on by several other bullies. A lot more of us believe that's what's going to happen. In fact most of the time the bullies scatter and stay away when someone hits back.

It's good that the more human, more normal, "nicer" side of the animal rights controversy abhors violence. We are the mainstream of humanity. We are almost everyone. Almost everyone hates to be violent even in self-defense.

The abhorrence of violence can be taken too far. If you're not willing to wring the neck of the little cretin who set your house on fire, twice, that might be taking a reluctance to be violent too far. That's saying that your home and family are not worth fighting for. By default that supports people who hate you and who would murder your children.

This is not a difficult problem. It's not new, either. In some form or another there have always been sneaky little cowards who would sneak into people's homes and steal and break things. There have always been small groups of people in every town who would form little gangs and believe that they stole and vandalized for some kind of high moral purpose. The humane movement allows just one easy moral loophole. Nothing else like it exists. The same moral loophole that allows these gangs to terrorize medical researchers also allows them to steal your dog and sell it, to allow deer to starve to death instead of being cleanly culled, to raise the price of your food that you can barely afford to buy now, and to inflict a whole host of other miseries on the human race.

The recent BB gun assault against animal rights demonstrators may be deplorable. I don't waste sympathy on people who want a law that mandates spaying and neutering of all pets in the state of California. I have even less than no sympathy when I know that this same group is strongly connected with exploding cars in Los Angeles. The demonstration was a gang action by a terrorist group targeting a legal business. People need to cross that picket line and make a point of attending the targeted store and buying things and the owner of the store has a legitimate need for self defense if the picketing interferes with his legal business.

Nothing dispels intimidation like doing something that scatters a crowd of cowardly terrorists. I'm laughing at the whining of Judie Mancuso about being shot at with BBs. This really doesn't match up against someone's car exploding in his driveway, or someone's house on fire, or millions of dollars in research being destroyed by a bunch of little jerks who are no better than the neighborhood troublemakers who steal your DVD player and scatter flour all over your kitchen.

They do a few things that intimidate people from doing so much as contradicting them. They seem to form an impenetrable shield, but when this shield is broken they are so screwed. They're peeing their pants right now, afraid that real bullets are next. This puts us in a better position to deal with them politically because we wake up and realize that we are dealing with impotent cowards rather than a political juggernaut. They've lived by undermining society way too long. It's time to take it all away from them.

Protecting Innocent Owners

What are human rights worth? We kill billions of animals in order to eat, and that is completely acceptable. I even applaud the practice. This way we feed other species first and we manage their populations so that there are large, healthy populations of pigs, goats, horses, cattle, sheep, chickens, and more. We even do this in a way that reduces the impact on wild animals. This is a good thing.

I don't believe that one set of rights is more important than another. You could argue that the right to keep and bear arms is important because it helps defend the rest of the list, and the right to free speech is like that too. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are being treated with contempt even though they are listed in the body of the Constitution as rights.

We are in a war and we have to understand what the animal rights activists want to compromise and how they plan to do it. They want to compromise our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the Bill of Rights is intended to spell out in a little more detail how the Constitution is to protect that.

Isn't it more important to protect the quality of life of the vast majority of humans who have committed no offense heinous enough to warrant the loss of life and limb, liberty, or property? The ability to use excessive force against anyone who is accused or suspected of animal abuse is being widely used against animal owners. Animal control has actually stunned older disabled people with a stungun. The Yellowstone County sheriff's department broke dogs trying to stuff them into carriers that they didn't fit into. There was nothing wrong with the dogs before the sheriff's department arrived. Some damn animal rights representative always seems to be able to wind these people up to do atrocities against citizens and that's exactly what they did to Germany.

The right to confiscate animals enables bad people to do bad things to good people and use animal cruelty as an excuse. The damage is done before the courts can decide if any abuse has been taken place and the same confiscations are used to psychologically damage the victims and coerce them into signing away their rights. The dogs are often killed or given away before the court date. It is actually possible for the animal rights activists to use this, as they plan, to get rid of all animal breeders without any of the breeders being convicted of a crime.

This is why confiscation of animals should be banned. No one, period, should be allowed to confiscate any animals. Confiscation destroys the innocent. Those who think that the rights of innocent humans are not worth this much, maybe you should just kill yourself. My right to keep my animals humanely and safe from inhumane shelters and rescues supersedes their right to "do something about animal abusers." They don't know how to go after the ones who need to be shut down while protecting the ones who are doing good for the animals, so they should have no power at all and no money.

Terrorist Attack Planned Against German-Owned Power Plant in England

No kidding. As I've been saying, give the environmentalists an inch and they'll take your food, your water, your fuel, and leave you shivering in the cold and starving.

Protesters target E.ON's Ratcliffe plant

Environmentalists campaigning against climate change said on Monday
they would attempt to shut down German utility E.ON’s power station at
Ratcliffe in central England in a mass action planned for October.

What do I have to say to the police and security forces who are guarding this power plant that is vital to the security and safety of the citizens of the human race? Shoot to kill. Load up the worst people-killer rounds that you have. They work on environmentalists also. If they want to make martyrs, draw a one hundred meter perimeter and drop them there. I would also be happy to see them bleeding on razor wire.

These people will kill their fellow human, actively or by neglect, for the sake of a rat or an owl. They want laws against what other people do but do not want to obey laws. They will destroy animals alleging that those animals are tainted by human manipulation. If they successfully shut down a power plant they will have succeeded in committing a terrorist act, blatantly, and I would just as soon they die before they get in the door rather than have good men risk their lives trying to root these damned rodents out. So happy hunting, whoever is guarding the Ratcliffe plant. Let Ratcliffe be their Waterloo.