Archive for Animal Rights

PETA president: not to be for animal rights is to be a racist

Posted in Animal Rights, PETA with tags , , , on November 2, 2015 by saynsumthn

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk at the 2015 Animal Rights National Conference, “We’re not survivalists. We don’t need animal’s body parts. To take them is cruel, it’s supremacist and it’s racist. There is the human race and there are all the other animal races and nobody surely is in favor of racism. So, not to be for animal rights is to be a racist.”

12:05

At 26:00 Newkirk asks her crowd “When you look at a lizzard or another animal don’t you see a person?” uh…NO!!!

Meanwhile at Planned Parenthood is appears it is okay that they take the body parts of human babies – just say’n.

Pig Farmer Locked in Battle with Michigan’s (DNR) Over Invasive Species Order

Posted in Alex Jones, Animal Lovers, Animal Rights, Invasive Species Order with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 17, 2012 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Pig Farmer Locked in Battle with Michigan’s (DN…, posted with vodpod

(NaturalNews) NaturalNews can now confirm that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has, in total violation of the Fourth Amendment, conducted two armed raids on pig farmers in that state, one in Kalkaska County at Fife Lake and another in Cheboygan County. Staging raids involving six vehicles and ten armed men, DNA conducted unconstitutional, illegal and arguably criminal armed raids on these two farms with the intent of shooting all the farmers’ pigs under a bizarre new “Invasive Species Order” (ISO) that has suddenly declared traditional livestock to be an invasive species.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035585_Michigan_farms_raids.html#ixzz1sJA1thHj

Read More Here

The tolerance of Christians and Conservatives for haters like Peter Singer and Ayn Rand

Posted in Abortion, Ayn Rand, Conservative, Peter Singer with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 22, 2011 by saynsumthn

Below is a great piece and worth reading: Come on people WAKE UP !

The Dangerous Mind of Peter Singer
Jun 22, 2011 / H/T First Things Written By Joe Carter

Bespectacled, balding, and thin, the Australian scholar Peter Singer has the looks of a stereotypical college professor. You would never be able to tell simply by his unassuming persona that his mind holds some of the most controversial ideas in American academia.

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).

If he were a high school teacher, one might expect his views would raise parental concerns about his fitness to instruct on matters ethical. But Singer is a college professor, and so must wait the three months between high school graduation and college to begin proffering his worldview to students beginning to form theirs.

Academic ivory towers are increasingly tolerant of psychopathy masquerading as philosophy, which accounts for the Australian philosopher’s appointments at elite universities on three continents. He currently is the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values.

Despite the fact that Singer champions an incoherent and inconsistent philosophy—he’s the Ivy League equivalent of Ayn Rand—he’s been eerily influential. He has served as editor for prestigious philosophy journals, appeared on numerous television programs, and even penned the entry on ethics for Encyclopedia Britannica. The New England Journal of Medicine said he has had “more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell,” and The New Yorker called him the most influential philosopher alive. His most dubious distinction, though, may be his inspiration of animal rights activist Ingrid Newkirk to start People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (The next time you see a celebrity posing nude to raise awareness about the dignity of chinchillas, you’ll know who to blame.)

Perhaps this unwarranted notoriety is why so many otherwise serious people—including far too many Christians—feel that Singer must be treated as a formidable thinker. The University of Oxford even held a conference last month called “Christian Ethics Engages Peter Singer.” Had the conference title ended with “In a Bout of Zulu Stick Fighting” it might have worth attending. Instead, it offered the usual tropes of academic politics—engaging in conversation “at once charitable and candid with other traditions of religious and philosophical thought.”

The Guardian reports that the dialogue “was striking for its agreements, particularly the common cause that can be made between Christians and utilitarians when tackling global poverty, animal exploitation and climate change.”

However, it was on the last issue that the conference demonstrated real philosophical interest too. Singer admitted that his brand of utilitarianism – preference utilitarianism – struggles to get to grips with the vastness of the problem of climate change. Further, there is an element that comes naturally to Christian ethics that his ethics might need in order to do so. It has to do with whether there are moral imperatives that can be held as objectively true.

Climate change is a challenge to utilitarianism on at least two accounts. First, the problem of reducing the carbon output of humanity is tied to the problem of rising human populations. The more people there are, the greater becomes the difficulty of tackling climate change. This fact sits uneasily for a preference utilitarian, who would be inclined to argue that the existence of more and more sentient beings enjoying their lives – realising their preferences – is a good thing. As Singer puts it in the new edition of his book, Practical Ethics: “I have found myself unable to maintain with any confidence that the position I took in the previous edition – based solely on preference utilitarianism – offers a satisfactory answer to these quandaries.”

One of the most “charitable and candid” things that can be said about Singer is that he may not truly believe some of his arguments’ conclusions. His decision to scrap his entire philosophical stance because it interferes with his views on climate change is just, one supposes, “Singer being Singer.” Tossing out a controversial premise but refusing to follow it to the rational conclusion is his modus operandi. It’s as if he enjoys the gasps of horror heard while he gives a sly wink that signals even he is not outlandish enough to believe such nonsense. For example, Singer has claimed that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” He later adds that this doesn’t mean that it’s all right to kill such a child. Killing a child, in his view, is only wrong inasmuch as it offends and hinders the wishes of its parents.

He also advocates euthanizing victims of dementia, since their care requires resources better used for more worthy purposes—perhaps honoraria for speakers at a conference on euthanasia. But when Singer’s own mother was stricken with Alzheimer’s, he claimed her situation was “different”: “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult.”

What makes Singer not just controversial, but dangerous, is that he is allowed to clear a path for those who will not be so squeamish about following his arguments to their logical conclusions. Singer may now, at the mature age of 65, finally be adopting a view of morality that most of us learned in kindergarten. But other preference utilitarians may not be so flexible—or as hesitant to act on their beliefs. By treating Singer’s irrational, immoral, and psychopathic views as if they were positions held by reasonable people, we are helping to normalize anti-rational ethics.

A couple of weeks ago I argued that those who make excuses for Ayn Rand are creating a climate in which gullible people who don’t know better may fall under her spell. “Are we willing to be held responsible,” I asked, “for pushing them to adopt an anti-Christian worldview?”

Some of the same people who nodded in agreement at that sentiment will now sputter that Singer must be held to a different standard. But why is that the case? It can’t be because his philosophical views are worth taking seriously—even Singer seems to recognize that his premises often lead to untenable conclusions. Why then do his academic peers treat him as an intellectual and philosophical equal?

In the past, some people thought he was a person whose ideas needed to be challenged (for example, Fr. Neuhaus debated Singer in 2002). However, it has long since become evident that Singer is neither intellectually honest (see the post below by Princeton professor Robert P. George) nor worthy of engaging. I suspect that many Christians who still consider him to be a thinker rather than an entertainer do so simply out of fear of being unpopular.

Too many Christians in academia are worried that if they dismiss Singer as unworthy of serious consideration, they’ll find themselves on the margins of academic life. While they safely ignore the cranks on the fringe—racial supremacists, anti-Semites, Objectivists—they feel compelled to respect a man who holds views that, if realized, would make Saddam Hussein look benign. Would his peers treat him so if he held tenure at Podunk State rather than the alma mater of James Madison, John Rawls, and Brooke Shields?

While it is necessary to consider and debate unpopular views, there should be a minimum standard for ethical discourse whether on the elementary playground or in the lecture halls of Princeton. There are certain moral issues that are all but universally recognized as self-evidently wrong by those in possession of rational faculties. Rape is wrong, torturing babies for fun is objectively morally bad, and the Holocaust was not just a violation of utilitarian ethic, but an event of grave moral evil. If someone cannot meet this basic requirement, they can safely be ignored, regardless of where they received a paycheck.

For far too many years, Singer’s ill-conceived sophistry has been considered and debated by some of our country’s best minds. It’s time to end such silliness. Let’s assign a sophomore philosophy student to rebut his arguments and the rest of academia can move on to squashing the bad ideas being championed by morally and intellectually serious people.

Joe Carter is Web Editor of FIRST THINGS and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That was a Great Piece and I thank Joe Carter for exposing the Christian/ Conservative hypocrisy on tolerating haters like Peter Singer and Ayn Rand

Just listen to Peter Singer bash Christianity and push abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights the read how Ayn Rand pushed the same and attacked Christianity as well:

I wrote this piece recently exposing how Conservatives support the pro-abortion/ Christian hating Ayn Rand:

“Conservatives” promote Atlas Shrugged while ignoring author Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion and anti-religious views

Fifty-four years after it was published, with sales of the book at 6.5 million copies and counting, Ayn Rand’s 1,000-page magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged” is finally coming to the screen. The $10 million production, part one of a projected trilogy, featuring a no-name cast (Taylor Schilling? Grant Bowler?) and financed entirely by John Aglialoro, a Philadelphia businessman.

“Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” the film adaptation of Ayn Rand’s prescient, unabashedly pro-free market capitalism novel, hits theaters April 15. Its timing could not be better.
The Daily Caller writes, Not only is the film a winner for holding firm to Randian philosophy, it also brazenly and refreshingly brings a political perspective that is almost universally absent from the big screen; so much so in fact it could become a cult classic, especially among Tea Partiers and their admirers, not to mention hordes of libertarians.

But, what is missing from most reviews is an in-depth look at the pro-abortion and hateful anti-religious philosophies of Atlas Shrugged’s author, Ayn Rand.

The National Review reports that , Conservatives with ties to the tea party are hoping a new movie version of a 1957 novel will help fuel their 21st century political movement.

And the Conservative watchdog group, the Heritage Foundation, promoted heavily by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, as scheduled a special screening of the film. Even FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, has undertaken a massive campaign to push the movie into as many theaters as possible. So far, they’ve lined up 63 for opening day in major cities nationwide; FreedomWorks hopes to push that number to 300.

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. She first achieved fame in 1943 with her novel The Fountainhead, which in 1957 was followed by her best-known work, the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged.

Rand’s political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally limited government.She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism…but as much as some “Conservatives” praise her views, Rand was an atheist opposed to faith as opposite of “reason” and profoundly pro-abortion under the idea of personal rights, for women while denying even that the fetus exists or is alive, something which has proved to be scientifically false. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, of heart failure.

An Embryo is not alive.” – Ayn Rand

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”
“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

(SOURCE: “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, Ayn Rand pp. 58–59)

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

(SOURCE: “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3)

“I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.

“By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, Ayn Rand, June 1981, 3.)

“A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 2.)

Ayn Rand on Religion:

Ayn Rand, “It has to be either reason or faith , I am against God for the reasons that I don’t want to destroy reason. I am against those that conceived that idea.” Watch interviews below:

Here Glenn Beck praises Ayn Rand – WHY ???

Rand’s Morality is not based on FAITH- but on her MIND and REASON alone, “his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own actions…”
Here she speaks to Mile Wallace about her Book which attacks basic RELIGIOUS morality : Atlas Shrugged ! ” I Say that man is entitled to his own happiness…nor should he sacrifice himself for the happiness of others.”

the question remains, will “Conservatives” cover-up this outrageous side of Rand in their effort to “save Capitalism” or will they expose it? To be determined……

“Conservatives” promote Atlas Shrugged while ignoring author Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion and anti-religious views

Graphic images: Peta’s (FAKE ) pro-life graphic abortion image (REAL)

Posted in Abortion, Animal Rights, PETA with tags , , , , , , , on August 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

PETA – the animal rights activist group today staged a pro-vegan publicity stunt at the intersection of W. 45th Street and Broadway in New York City’s Times Square. Peta poses as human-sized, plastic-swaddled “meat” trays bedecked with stickers proclaiming, “Billions of Animals Are Abused and Violently Killed Because You Eat Meat.”

On the other hand – when pro-lifers hold graphic images – they are showing REAL blood and death of Humans (Example below)

PETA’s Official Stand on abortion is to hide their eyes and “See no evil” – they see violence against animals and want all of us to react – but they keep silent when they see violence against unborn children:
“Where does the animal rights movement stand on abortion?”

Is BP burning sea turtles alive? Where is the President ?

Posted in Animal Abuse, Animal Lovers, Animal Rights, Oil Spill with tags , , , , , , , on June 25, 2010 by saynsumthn

VENICE, La. – A boat captain working to rescue sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico says he has seen BP ships burning sea turtles and other wildlife alive.

Captain Mike Ellis said in an interview posted on You Tube that the boats are conducting controlled burns to get rid of the oil.

“They drag a boom between two shrimp boats and whatever gets caught between the two boats, they circle it up and catch it on fire. Once the turtles are in there, they can’t get out,” Ellis said.

Ellis said he had to cut short his three-week trip rescuing the turtles because BP quit allowing him access to rescue turtles before the burns.

“They’re pretty much keeping us from doing what we need to do out there,” Ellis said.

Other reports corroborate Captain Ellis’ claims. A report in the Los Angeles Times describes “burn fields” of 500 square miles in which 16 controlled burns will take place in one day.

“When the weather is calm and the sea is placid, ships trailing fireproof booms corral the black oil, the coated seaweed and whatever may be caught in it, and torch it into hundred-foot flames, sending plumes of smoke skyward in ebony mushrooms,” the article says.

Ellis said most of the turtles he has seen are Kemps Ridley turtles, a critically endangered species. Harming or killing one would bring stiff civil and criminal penalties and fines of up to $50,000 against BP.

Watch the interview with Captain Ellis below:

Imagine the outrage if a Pro-lifer did this act of ” Assault and Terrorism” ?

Posted in Abortion, Animal Rights, Anti-abortion, Crazy People, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2010 by saynsumthn

Canada’s Minister of Fisheries gets a pie in the face during a news conference. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, has claimed responsibility, citing Canada’s support of the annual seal hunt as the motive.

Activists protesting the seal hunt laid claim Monday to having pied the fisheries and oceans minister, adding Gail Shea’s name to a list of politicians who have tasted that most peculiar of political protests.

Shea was delivering a speech at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters to open the Aquatic Life Research Facility, west of Toronto, when a woman stood up in the front row and pushed the pie squarely into her face.

While police called it a “shaving cream pie” the animal rights group that took responsibility for the act called it a “tofu cream pie.”

Whatever the filling was made of the incident resulted in an assault charge against an American resident.

PETA, which took credit for the incident, said in a release it was part of its campaign to stop the government’s “ill-advised sanction of the slaughter of seals.”

“Shame on you Gail Shea. Ban the bloody seal hunt. It is a shame on Canada, it is a shame that she has not denounced this bloody seal hunt,” the protester said after covering Shea’s face with the creamy white filling.

Shea, who represents a P.E.I. riding, did not require medical attention and returned to the podium after wiping the pie away.

Emily McCoy, 37, of New York City, was taken into custody and charged with assault, police said.

Politicians have often been targets for demonstrators wielding pies, some of whom went to jail.

Former prime minister Jean Chretien was hit in the face with a pie by a protester in Prince Edward Island in 2000. His attacker initially was given jail time but eventually received a conditional sentence.

A woman who missed Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach with a pie at the annual Calgary Stampede breakfast in 2007, and hit a security official instead, was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

So was a woman who threw a pie at Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier in the summer of 2007.

In 2003, a protester who hit then-Alberta premier Ralph Klein in the face with a pie at the Stampede breakfast was convicted of assault and ordered to serve a 30-day intermittent jail sentence.

Jean Charest got it in April 2003, two days before his Liberals ousted the Parti Quebecois and he was elected Quebec premier.

Too “chicken” to develop their own slogan, PETA Rains “Pro-Life” parade

Posted in Abortion, Animal Abuse, Animal Rights, Anti-abortion, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Panthers, Civil Rights, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on January 14, 2010 by saynsumthn

PETA or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has decided to take advantage of a huge protest planned for this weekend at a Houston Planned Parenthood.

Pro-Life groups will begin protesting Thursday at an 80,000 square -foot facility Planned Parenthood is planning to move into.

Pro-Lifers are calling the building an abortion “super center,” and claiming that Planned Parenthood is targeting minority neighborhoods.

“I believe Houston should not be known as the city that had the largest abortion clinic in the nation and in the Western Hemisphere,” said The Call to Conscience President Lou Engle.
“It’s time to subpoena the conscience of the nation,” said Engle.

From The Call: Houston We Have A Problem

The Second largest abortion clinic in the world is being built at this present moment in Houston, Texas. This six-story Planned Parenthood abortion “super center” is right in the middle of four (4) “super neighborhoods.” Three average to 85% Latino in population and the other is 85% African American. Planned Parenthood is targeting these minority pro-family communities, both for their finances and the restriction of their populations. But, there is a voice rising out of Houston and out of Texas, declaring, “We don’t want this death camp specializing in late-term abortions in our neighborhoods!”

On Martin Luther King Jr.’s holiday, January 18th, 2010, thousands are gathering to march against this Goliath to pray, fast, and peacefully siege this massive injustice in the spirit of that great liberator Martin Luther King Jr. Key African American, Latino, and political leaders are coming to speak and hold a nationwide press conference challenging this “super center.” This is a great hour for the Hispanic pro-LIFE people, Catholic and Evangelical, to raise their voices against abortion and for adoption. Public opinion over abortion is shifting radically in America to pro-LIFE at the same time this facility is exalting itself above the humble and oppressed.

We are entering into the 37th anniversary of the “Roe V. Wade” abortion decree of 1973 on January 22, 2010. We are in a ’73/’37 window to reverse that decree. It started in Texas, now let it begin to reverse there. We are calling for the pro-LIFE people of Houston, Texas, and America to gather Sunday night, January 17th, 2010 for four (4) hours of prayer for spiritual awakening and justice, from 6:00pm to 10:00pm at Grace Community Church. On this evening, 1/17, we will be unifying with one voice before God to pray for the Luke 1:17 answer to the killing of our babies and the wounding of our women – “And he will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the rebellious to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

On January 18th, at 9:00am on Martin Luther King Jr.’s holiday, we will gather by the thousands to launch a silent prayer march through the streets to the abortion “super center” for the nationwide press conference and prayer stand. As Martin Luther King Jr. would proclaim it – It is time to “subpoena the conscience” of the nation from the flashpoint of Houston, Texas. Maybe Houston could become the Birmingham of our day to let the unborn go free and spare the pregnant mother the agony of guilt. Maybe out of Houston a great demonstration of compassion could be launched through pregnant mother care with a mass movement of adoption. Martin Luther King Jr. cried, “I have a dream”. Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., has eloquently stated, “How can the dream live as long as we kill our children?” God has a dream. He has a dream for America and He has a dream for every mother and every child and a six-story massive abortion facility has never been a part of that dream. Lets end the nightmare and let the dream live.

But… Enter PETA:

PETA Plans on raining on the parade of this pro-life group. From PETA’s Press Release:

“When pro-life supporters arrive in Houston on January 18 to protest the future opening of a six-story Planned Parenthood facility, they may be met with a challenge. That’s because PETA is negotiating with outdoor advertisers to place a billboard ad near the building–an ad that shows newly hatched chicks and reads, “Pro-Life? Go Vegan. PETA.”
PETA’s goal? To urge people in the pro-life movement to respect the sanctity of life every time they eat–by rejecting the slaughterhouse. ”

NOW is that isn’t bad enough: Planned Parenthood of Michigan made this announcement:

PPWNM is participating with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, Planned Parenthood Mid & South Michigan, and Planed Parenthood South Central Michigan for the second annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day Project!

Together, we will be honoring Dr. King’s legacy of non-violence, helping those in need, and giving back to our communities by collecting donations for domestic violence shelters at Planned Parenthood health centers around the state. Because we are reproductive health care providers, and because people don’t often think to donate these goods to shelters, we will be collecting feminine hygiene products through January 31, 2010.

WOW ! This is incredible, especially since Planned Parenthood seems to “Target” African American Communities with abortion.

Pro-lifers point to the stats among African American Women which the Alan Guttmacher report admits places African American women at getting almost 5x’s the abortions than white women. Something pro-lifers claim is a targeted effort at eugenic to limit the black race.

Check out the well documented film: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Clip Below)
for the best information on the history of eugenics and racism from abortion
: