Monday, May 25, 2009

Never Say "They're Taking Away Our Rights."

The person who violates your rights does not take them away. If they raid your breeding operation and trample over your rights, they haven't taken your rights away. Neither has the person who forces you to give up your lion or your tiger.

They have committed a crime against you by violating your rights. They owe you for that. They took away your dignity for a time, your property, your feeling of safety in your own home, and they should suffer a just punishment for doing that, something that will deter them from doing it again.

Further, a citizen must stop denying that they do this. Generally, the police did not come and rescue a bunch of animals in dire straits. They went with a hired sociopath who told them what to do. That hired sociopath is like a witch-smeller, pretending to see "signs." The truth is that they see what they want to see and say what they want to say. There are always signs. An animal rights activist thinks that the biggest sign of abuse is keeping the animal, and even when they keep them themselves, they think that. Some of them deny that they are animal rights activists and they could be telling the truth. They're just social parasites who work with whatever group gives them someone to rape.

Take the attitude that a crime has actually been committed when this happens. There is a federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which defines what should be painfully obvious: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .” Click here for source

The ability to freely exercise a right is generally lost by a failure to enforce those rights, and a failure to deal correctly with the parasites who would violate them. First clue: don't use them to go after people you don't like. The parasites feed on your fear of what your neighbor does. They come up ways that your neighbor is dangerous to you because of the drugs that he uses, or the pets that he keeps, or because just one time in his life he might have acted like a man. Then they have you. Your money is theirs, they hold a proxy on your rights, and you may feel that you have to like it.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Just when you thought he couldn't go any lower...

Michael Vick has agreed to work for the HSUS. Now he can help get pitbull dogs killed wholesale instead of retail. 'Nuff said.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Will the HSUS Try to Shut Down Websites?

Armed with the disingenuous claim that we have been telling lies, the HSUS could decide to threaten Google and other providers to try to get blogs and websites shut down. WSB-TV in Atlanta repeated the claims of the Center for Consumer Freedom about the HSUS's use of money that they gathered to allegedly help victims of Katrina.

The rumor, which Wayne Pacelle knows to be true, is that during the worst of the aftermath, HSUS rescuers allowed a lot of dogs to die when they knew where the dogs were. There are a lot of witnesses to this fact and they need to speak to their local TV and radio stations and newspapers. It may not have occurred to a lot of people in time that the disaster aid was for photo opportunities and that they needed to watch the "Humane Society of the United States."

I suppose that the HSUS intends to quibble about the definition of using the money for Katrina victims, because even though WSB-TV issued a "correction" the fact is that a lot of the uses that the HSUS claims to have put the money to are not what you expect when you send money to help save pets who are stranded by floodwaters. I say in good faith because I have received word from eyewitnesses that the HSUS actually got in the way of rescuers who actually went into the water to save pets.

The HSUS's career has included hurling a lot of false accusations at animal owners, including horse owners and commercial breeders, so it's not surprising if they are using the quibble over some CCF facts to get David Martosko's Twitter account suspended, or to get the video segment pulled, or someone's blog or site suspended or closed.

WSB is supposed to eventually issue a new report. If it goes the way that the HSUS wants, the first mainstream media outlet to report what the HSUS has been doing wrong is going to be the first to issue a retraction. This is an attempt to deter any television, radio station, or mainstream media from reporting accurately what the HSUS has been doing to our rights and what kind of charities fraud it has been perpetrating.

The HSUS still has this guy who has all kinds of connections with people who he has taught to commit arson. Even if they "fire" him I'm sure they won't be strangers. This is one more chilling effect on freedom of speech. In Los Angeles people are afraid to go to their city commission meetings because all sorts of freaks show up for the animal rights side. Some leather-wearing character with tattoos shows me a Zippo lighter engraved with a devil's head and I'm probably going to wet my pants and leave the room. Most of the people who have the absolute right to be there can't take the pressure and shouldn't have to in a country like the U.S. Good people don't bully others, and the HSUS has been witnessed bullying people who were trying to save pets after Katrina.

Did the HSUS Suppress the WSB-TV Story?

On Thursday, May 14, 2009, WSB-TV in Atlanta Georgia, U.S., ran an expose against the HSUS, the Humane Society of the United States. By late Friday, that article was removed from their website. On her site, Erica Saunders says that Wayne Pacelle, president of the HSUS, claims that all of their information was from the Center for Consumer Freedom website and was discredited. As Erica says, how can it be "discredited" when the information comes from the HSUS's own IRS filings?

I suppose that more "discredited" information is the fact that John P. Goodwin now works for the HSUS in a high-paying job because of his experience working with the terrorist organization ALF, which has been burning more animals lately in an attempt to save them from the torment of human ownership.

The HSUS is a fraudulent charity with many front organizations. I say this without reservation because the HSUS tells lies about pet ownership, it gathers funds fraudulently, and it illegally spends those charitable contributions to influence legislation.

I have also been reading that various TV stations are blocking E-mails from people who want them to buy and play that segment in other markets. This is just weird.

If the HSUS is applying some form of intimidation to stop this broadcast from being aired, that is also proof that the HSUS does not want the truth to be told. Well, they've just made it so that this will go viral. The Center for Consumer Freedom put the video on Youtube. It is well worth watching. Please ask your local TV stations to air it.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Stop Fighting Animal Abuse, Part III

Removing animals from allegedly abusive situations is not the same thing as providing an adequate level of humane care. In fact, "puppy mill" dogs are often put in even more abusive situations at the impound or in foster care. They are often killed. In fact the HSUS both decries the alleged rough treatment of pitbull type dogs and works hard to get them killed.

Fighting against abuse attracts sadistic people. They get their jollies by attacking people who they know that few or none will defend, just like they got their jollies when they beat up small children in high school, violating some of our society's most sacred tenants, particularly the protection of innocence. They get the same thrill out of this as does the child molester or rapist. It's the violence that attracts them, and the opportunity to drain mana from people by domineering them. It's a sick thrill.

There's talk on the forums about creating an organization that helps animal owners who are in trouble. Someone has suggested that the organization only turn into the law those very worst abusers. I'm not comfortable with the idea of any loopholes. The mere allegation of abuse with zero substantiation is already adequate to get the police to raid someone's home. They do not have to prove injury to the animals. Instead of diligently protecting the rights of the humans who they go after, puppy mill raiders do everything that they can to circumvent human rights. We do not live in a situation in which anyone can be reported for animal abuse and be certain of a fair trial.

The thing that should attract the most disapproval and punishment is the circumvention or violation of human rights. Alex Pacheco should have been jailed for a minimum of five years. He committed acts of animal abuse in order to stage photographs to use to bear false witness against Dr. Edward Taub at Silver Springs. In fact, he delayed medical progress by a few years in the area of treatment of human victims of strokes and CVAs.

This is to drive home the point that helpers of animal owners should exercise loyalty to their employers, even as volunteers, and they should suffer when they do dirt to their employers. Whistleblower protection is abused of it protects someone who stages an alleged incident. And I'm sorry, some people may disagree, but letting an animal die without paying thousands of dollars for a kidney transplant is simply not a crime. Because the option of reporting someone for animal abuse results in abuses itself, it is useless and worse than useless.

An ethic needs to prevail that is entirely positive. Every bit of diligence must be exercised to stay within that ethic, too, and to err on the side of the rights of the owner of the animals. Some animal deaths, injuries, and suffering will result from this, but I believe far less than results from the puppy mill raider system. We also must count the loss of animals. We may have lost millions of canine lives due to those who were never born. Also we have lost a lot of lions, tigers, cougars, bears, housecats, and just about everything else. Neglect is considered a form of abuse. It is also neglect, which is forced on people far too many times, to fail to breed animals.

If you want to compare moral imperatives, compare the imperative of survival of a species with the imperative to reduce abuses of the animals. One is at odds with the other. We have to admit that there will be abusive situations as long as their are animals. We are also damned if we don't, as I said in the previous paragraph. So, as a mature and responsible choice, we must decide what is more beneficial to the animals. I've been among a lot of animals and seen that they consider existence to be of benefit to them. Everyone knows that nature is a bloody mess out there, and it's only the lucky that make it past the first year and reproduce. Humans are more efficient at producing animals that survive to reproductive age and this is a good thing. Reproduction may or may not need to be regulated, but if we do kill a large percentage of that which we assist to breed, we're just taking care of nature's business.

The uniquely human context is one in which we feel tenderness for members of other species. Dogfighters are pretty much just being animals. This does not place humanity beneath the animals. In fact many dogfighters work hard to be good to their animals outside of the ring, as can still be learned in some books that haven't yet been banned. Instead of thinking of them as dragging us down, we would do far better to think of ourselves as doing our best to climb that ladder towards enlightenment and better relations with our natures. All but the meanest of capable humans share our homes with animals, just about any animal. Every animal taken into a home and fed and sheltered shows compassion. The spectrum correctly runs from some compassion to a lot of compassion, or from some love to a lot of love. People who hoard should be revered and treated as saints even though it's messy. It's not really compassion for people if you can't tolerate mess and smell. People who breed also deserve the utmost respect and care because they are doing things that the animals need, helping them evolve and propagate.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Not That Much to Say Tonight

The animal rights movement has been a full-blown movement towards fascism for quite a while now. They use the same tactics as the common bullies so many of us knew and despised in school. It is better to remember them as human trash than to think of them as some kind of overwhelming moral agency. Not that there's a lot of difference between a batch of trash and a moral agency.

America, Australia, England, and other civilized nations have had many opportunities to exercise some intelligence and render this fascist movement harmless. I suggest that while most of us humans have not yet been neutered we find something inside of ourselves to use to defend our lives. When the same person who used to give wedgies and swirlies now wears a uniform and gets his jollies by abusing that uniform, we've got to do something.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Stop Fighting Animal Abuse, Part II

It takes more than one part to explain this.

How does anyone "fight" animal abuse? They have to find a person to fight. They have to label that person as an abuser and fight that person. They make that person the personification of evil in the eyes of their chosen audience. When scapegoating old ladies as witches was in fashion, they also had to make some kind of profit doing it. This is why the properties of the accused were turned over to the state for the state to sell. This gave the governing bodies involved a cash incentive to convict an old lady of witchcraft. "Puppy mill" and "animal abuse" are the modern witchcraft.

It's hard to separate the idea of corruption from the idea that a humane society can be overzealous. "Overzealous" is just as bad if not worse. Go to Care2 and look at the comments for any subject line that has any kind of connection with animal abuse. Some of those "animal protection" people want humans to be tortured and murdered because they had animals in pens with wire floors, that were designed to help the animals stay clean. I suppose Care2 might get wind of this and clean up some of their comments and pretend this never happened, too.

The only legitimate reason to fight animal abuse is to try to improve living conditions for animals. It is not legitimate to do this to hurt other humans, to corrupt a free society, or to profit from the abuse while also increasing the incidence of abuse and unnecessary deaths. The Blue Dog State blog is just one good source of information about the fact that the HSUS puts a great deal of effort into getting dogs killed. A great number of atrocities have been performed against all kinds of dogs, including cramming dogs into crates too small for them, choking them, and basically breaking the animals to get them into the crates. There's someone who knows how to fight animal abuse. That's what I'm talking about.

The animal rights movement is already famous for fighting every kind of human care of animals as "exploitation." When they fight abuse, they sometimes set homes on fire, or cars, or laboratories that are doing research into improving the health of animals. As I reported earlier, they also sometimes set fires that kill animals, or release animals from confinement to die in the wild or on the highways. They also get laws passed to deny homes for animals. They try to get all domesticated animals outlawed, sterilized, and they kill them by the millions. This is also a method for "fighting abuse."

The simple fact is that there is rarely anything to actually fight. You bring food, clean pens, work with the animals, and help the human. This is not a fight. It's work. A person doesn't "fight" against it, he works to bring about the desired conditions that are "not abuse." "Not abuse" isn't a state of being. It isn't anything. Caring about your animals, loving them, feeding them, grooming them, sheltering and protecting them, these are far better things than "not abuse." It's sickening to think that anyone has ever been under attack for giving care to an animal, has spent even one hour in jail, has had to answer to some neurotic stupid useless person, or has spent even one minute feeling guilty because a so-called animal advocate said something.

The place that we want to be is where we have our pets and livestock and do the best that we can by them. Instead of a thousand words here about how we're being abused, we need to write stories about how glorious it all is, and how even when we're tired and weak there is still goodness and light.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Stop Fighting Animal Abuse

It is time to stop fighting animal abuse. The fight reached the point of diminishing returns a long time ago. Activists are no longer fighting people who beat animals to death. They're fighting people who try to provide comfortable lives for animals and the industries that produce our food. The fight generates a lot of profits for lawyers, so-called humane societies and shelters, and politicians. It also allows the most anti-social element of our society to band together to damage other humans.

When Dwight David Eisenhower left office as President of the United States, he said "beware the military-industrial complex." The puppy mill raiders have developed a little military-industrial complex of their own. They have become dependent on finding people guilty of animal abuse in order to gain donations and a bit of money from the people whose homes and businesses they invade.

This does mean that the humane societies have sought and obtained undue influence over the process of law-making and law enforcement. They first demanded licensing then treated the results of mandatory state inspections with contempt, re-inspecting and "finding" things wrong. They handle and interpret all of the evidence. They get the local prosecutor to present the animal owner with a choice: Give the animals to the Humane Society or be charged with a felony. A lot of kennel owners have no choice but to comply, largely because they are also forced to secure their property by posting a bond. Their property can be taken from them for failure to give a lot of money, tens of thousands of dollars, to the county and to the Humane Society that has stolen their property under color of law. This is done to the owners before a trial. Doing this denies them due process. An organization that would do this is as criminal as it gets and should go to jail for doing it, let alone have any credibility with the press, the judiciary, or the police. This is a tremendous fault in our justice system, that rarely does law enforcement get prosecuted for violating civil rights. The prosecutors often help them do it, and for the sake of animals! They are already acting as if animals have more rights than humans do.

Fighting against animal abuse makes this kind of corruption a lot easier to perform. People excuse it thinking that we're getting at the bad guys. Our bad guys turn out to be people who humanely breed a variety of animals to sell to consumers, essentially honest farmers who do take good care of their animals. When "fighting animal abuse" sometimes so-called humane society officers will pick on as little as a few hairs and a piece of dogfood on the floor, as they did to Linda Brown for the high crime of selling a purebred dog to the Vice President of the United States. This is because, corrupt or not, a "fight" includes a bone of contention, no pun. It's hard to contrive a better illustration of how corrupt fighting animal abuse has made the humane authorities.

I used to say that I was fighting abuse when I fed an animal, gave it comfort, took it to the vet, and so on. Not any more. In a way it's a good position to take but that's giving PETA, the HSUS, and their various followers far too much credit. Anything that a human does with an animal can be and has been interpreted as abuse of that animal, by people who although human harbor a sick grudge and contempt against humanity. It's giving them too much credit to say that doing this is anything but malicious, even if this malice is disguised, poorly, as some kind of philosophy. Now I say what I should have said all along, that I'm caring for the animal. "Abuse" or "not abuse" is not rightly judged by isolated incidents or a little bit of dirt on the floor, and certainly not by malicious lies about cruel exploitation. It is judged by whether, on the balance, the care of the animal is of benefit to that animal. The caged tiger doesn't tell me that she's miserable and that the cage is "all that can be done." She tells me that she is happy and wants to play. She and the pet dog range between "happy" and "ecstatic" most of the time. And no matter how happy they are, I will always wish that I could make their lives even happier, and that's a fight I'm happy to join.