First Tuesday Press

What's on YOUR ballot?

As we are all aware (sometimes painfully) November 2nd fast approaches and we'll all be heading to the voting booth once again. Oftentimes people get to their polling place to find measures and initiatives on their ballot that they've never even heard of, been misinformed on, or are still undecided about. In an effort to help with this vexing problem we're kicking off First Tuesday Press with an article series describing the various ballot measures Missouirans will face.

We've chosen what may be the least understood and most controversial measure first.

Prop B: Protecting Puppies or Robbing Us of Our Freedom?

Part 1: World's Collide

Or

The Futile Effort to Have a Reasonable Argument With The Animals Rights Proponents

by Nancy Kraus Womack


We cannot squander this opportunity"

Wayne Pacelle, Pres. and CEO of Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) September 2010 Columbia, Missouri

("Never let a 'crisis' go to waste" Rahm Emmanuel)

"That's why I've always particularly admired writers whose works have activated people and strengthened our movement. Very few books will ever have the impact of Peter Singer's ANIMAL LIBERATION. Accessible in its prose, logical in argument and jarring in detail, it triggered a wave of grassroots animal activism still being felt 33 years after its original publication."

Wayne Pacelle, Pres. HSUS website June 2008

"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is (sic) to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition."

Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation

"There should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in AGRICULTURE."

"Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives."

Cass Sunstein, "The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer"Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Barack Obama

What is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are largely the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim world. That, he claims, is where these conspiracy theories thrive most vibrantly, and he focuses on various 9/11 theories -- both domestically and in Muslim countries -- as his prime example.http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

The Connections seem complex at first, however, as you study the issues and discover the common worldview of these people and their advocates, everything makes "sense". It is our duty to understand this thinking and ultimately flawed logic in order to defeat it. This worldview envelopes Progressives, the Animal Rights movement and a wealth of other groups and organizations in our world today. To allow these people to fulfill the 'logical' conclusions of their ideology would be devastating to civilization in its outcomes.

As to the issue at hand, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an animal RIGHTS organization behind the Missouri ballot initiative known as Proposition B---the puppy mill initiative. Why, who would be opposed to saving the puppies, you ask? Well, not me-----if I believed for one second Prop B was really about the welfare of dogs. Problem: this is NOT about animal welfare at all! This is about ultimately controlling the agriculture industry and once again, limiting the freedoms of the citizens of this State and this country.

You think that is quite a leap in rational deduction? You think I'm one of those fringe conspirators that Cass Sunstein talks about and wants to control?

The animal rights' WORLDVIEW is bizarre and very dangerous. Let me explain and you will learn how something so seemingly innocent as Proposition B is just another insidious effort to once again dilute and destroy our God given freedoms.

That is the crux of the whole issue. God. The Animal Rights movement and their worldview is an atheistic, Darwinist approach to the world and in direct opposition to the Judeo Christian worldview; a worldview that is under assault on nearly every issue facing us today. First, let me give a little background of the HSUS.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) began as an animal WELFARE group in 1954. By the 70's, the animal RIGHTS people began to take over and by the 80's, the transformation was complete. John McArdle of the HSUS stressed at their 1984 convention, that members "should avoid the words "animal rights" and "....claim that your only concern is the animals." The HSUS assimilated activists from PETA and in a memo to his staff upon taking over as President in 2005, Wayne Pacelle stated that their new focus would be on "farm animals". As of today, all HSUS staffers are required to be VEGANS and no animal products are allowed at the HSUS headquarters, including wool suits.

As far as bringing in the extremists from other fringe animal "rights" organizations in addition to PETA, Pacelle said, "I was trying to find people who have the energy, the passions and the smarts to effect major changes in PUBLIC and CORPORATE policies when it comes to animal agriculture. Whether it is Safeway or McDonalds, their decision in terms of the the products they purchase will have enormous implications for animals." Pacelle also states that he wants to be the NRA of the animal rights movement in terms of power, influence and organization.

Now, let's look at the distinction between the animal RIGHTS worldview and the animal WELFARE worldview. Animal WELFARE is the Judeo-Christian worldview. Humans are stewards of God's creation. There is a distinct hierarchy of creation as taught in the Bible and as evidenced by nature and all of human history.

Not so for the animal RIGHTS worldview. Theirs is an ANTI Judeo Christian worldview that holds a "utilitarian" view of the rights of animals and is clearly stated in Peter Singer's works. Remember, Peter Singer? He is the avowed and admired founder of the Animal Rights movement as credited by current President and CEO of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle. These people argue and believe that there is no hierarchy of creation, thus the rights of animals are equivalent to the rights of mankind. They argue that to think otherwise, one is guilty of speciesism-- something akin to racism or sexism. It is not the capacity for reasoning , but the creature's ".... capacity for suffering (that) is the characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration". The philosophy flows from Darwinism and Singer happily says that humans are just big apes.

"Singer argues that Christianity arbitrarily separated man and animal, placing human life on a a pedestal and consigning the animals to the status of tools for human well-being. Now, Singer says, we must remove Homo sapiens from this privileged position and restore the natural order."

Since the basis for equal rights is the capacity for suffering, Singer argues for experimentation on "...human infants---orphans perhaps---or retarded human beings for experiments, rather than adults, since infants and retarded human beings would have no idea of what was going to happen to them." (From "The Animal Liberation Movement" by Peter Singer). He also believes that infants can be disposed of within 28 days of birth (his number) if they prove to be defective or deemed not to have a future of usefulness in later life.

You can see how this world view is at odds with Christianity. This is the "culture of death" that Pope John Paul II referred to. There is no real concern for animal life among the animal RIGHTS people, either. Read their own words:

"Note that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies. These are independent organizations, governed by their own bylaws and boards of directors (in the case of humane societies), or local ordinances and officials (in the case of animal care and control agencies). The HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter." (From the HSUS website under the obscure subject of the migratory bird treaty act (!?)

Well, what do they do with the $162 million in 2008 declared assets? Excellent question. I"ll cover that in Part 2. For now, the point is this: if one subscribes to such a worldview as the animal rights people, how then can you argue with them? You cannot. The only course of action is to fight their efforts every step of the way. They are liars and manipulators, preying on the good impulses of ordinary people. It is NEVER for the issue at hand, but for the grand picture that will fulfill THEIR worldview. We must declare such people our enemies and not be deceived.

That is why we must VOTE NO ON
PROPOSITION B in Missouri.

Coming soon:

Part II

The Money Trail,The Players,Their Strategies

Details on What is in the Proposition and Why the Whole Thing is a Scam.

For official ballot language please see:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp