Posted on 06/21/2009 3:34:00 PM PDT by jazusamo
Many animal-rights and welfare organizations pose serious threats to all animal agriculture, the livestock sector and production agriculture in general. Altogether, they have combined annual budgets of $300 million.
The ones that pose the greatest threat are the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Sierra Club, Citizens for Decent Agriculture, the Dust Police, and the Animal Liberation Front. This group actually supports elimination of all animal agriculture, turning all domestic animals loose to roam, and even goes as far as to advocate assignation of people to free all farm animals.
This group has been active in various locations around the country in sabotaging, dismantling and burning medical labs where research is done to cure communicable diseases and perfect cures for cancer, heart and brain disorders and many others, such as nerve, vascular, muscular and joint function and replacement. Without these research and treatment facilities, our society as we know it would be much less able to treat, rehabilitate and offer us a sense of comfortable affordable health care.
Unfortunately most of the consuming public today does not realize that we have the safest supply of nutritious food on the grocery shelf that has ever been produced by our agriculture industry, not just the farmers, but all the processors and distributors in the food industry. All of these organizations that profess to be a friend of the consumer are a driving force to eliminate all poultry and livestock that are housed and grown for human food and nutrition. They support ballot initiatives to shutter any animal-feeding facility that puts nutritious milk, meat and egg products on the table. They have accomplished this in California, Arizona and Florida. They advocate care for poultry, swine, cattle and any other livestock used for meat, milk or eggs as you would your pet. They also have no concern for putting nutritious portions and satisfying food on the family table.
If these organizations get their way in regulating farm livestock production, all food production will be imported from foreign countries. Then we as citizens of the USA can look forward to the same problems we have with foreign imports of cars, clothing, household goods, electronics, shoes and other consumer goods, and do we dare even mention crude oil.
For instance, the Humane Society of the United States implies that a cow producing milk is jogging six hours a day. I guess they have never seen a cow chewing their cud while making milk of meat. I forgot they want all cows to be treated as pets. They also abhor the fact that a cow has to go through cycles of artificial insemination giving birth, and are tormented by a mechanical milking machine for milk production. HSUS now is focusing on federal legislation, since only half of the states have provisions for ballot initiatives to accomplish their terrorist tactics. With their expenditures of $300 million a year and 10 million members in the organization, their intent is creating havoc for all production agriculture. Not just animal agriculture but also food production from plants will decrease as an extreme amount of animal waste from animal production is now recycled to increase the food produced by the plant.
HSUS asks its members to e-mail President Obama to nominate an animal welfare person for secretary of agriculture. This may have worked, since apparently Charlie Stenholm, a former Texas congressman, was sidetracked for the secretary’s job, as he is for the humane slaughter of horses. As Stenholm stated, HSUS has a goal of eliminating animal agriculture in the U.S. They are winning, and win they will unless our animal industries educate the public about the domestic food industry.
We also absolutely must avoid the mistake of inhumane treatment of our livestock in the packing plants that have been featured on TV newscasts. Those events unfortunately add fuel to the HSUS cause. We must tell everyone in all ways possible that HSUS is an extreme group, with no connection to the local animal shelters or humane societies that care for unwanted or adoptive pets.
Decent anti PETA/HSUS article.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.
Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.
And with the vegan Wayne Pacelle as its newest chief executive, HSUS appears to be embracing PETA-style orthodoxy about meat and dairy foods, leather shoes, wool suits, and even silk ties with its “no animal products in the workplace” policy.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136
Excellent link, it’s a keeper. Here’s a another short one.
7 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS
1) The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a “humane society” in name only, since it doesn’t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. During 2006, HSUS contributed only 4.2 percent of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.
2) Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s 2007 dogfighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with the false promise that it would “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” The New York Times later reported that HSUS wasn’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group recommended that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch.
3) HSUS’s senior management includes a former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “terrorists” by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California veal processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage. And in 1998, Goodwin described himself publicly as a “former member of ALF.”
4) According to a 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation, less than 12 percent of money raised for HSUS by California telemarketers actually ends up in HSUS’s bank account. The rest is kept by professional fundraisers. And if you exclude two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Build-a-Bear Workshop” retail chain, which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really “fundraising”), HSUS’s yield number shrinks to just 3 percent. Sadly, this appears typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut with fundraisers who promised to return a minimum of zero percent of the proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did absolutely none of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing work.
5) Research shows that HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78 percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as “boycotters” weren’t participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.”
6) HSUS raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000 toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison. Public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations add up to less than $7 million.
7) After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger testified before Congress that the San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold on to the information while they completed their investigation.” But the District Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, even declaring that HSUS refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were present at those meetings. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage at a more politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/184
Please allow me a tangential note . . . those who support organizations that advocate (on the surface) organic ag and other wholistic food technologies had better do a little more homework that reading labels and feeling good. I have an ag background, education, vocational experience and have done research in the academic and applied realms - the neighborhood Co-op is more about Karl Marx than you might believe. Orgganizations that purport to support low orders of ag and small land holding farmers are particularly suspect. Low-tech is good, but sometimes those groups supporting it have larger agendas and free men doing what they please on their own land are not a part of the big program.
bump!
I understand some of those purely grainfed types ain't half bad.
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.