We've all heard the same regurgitated, rotten, deceitful song:
We aren't killing pets, we are 'humanely euthanizing' them, we are giving them a 'good death', because life is full of uncertainty and 'humanely euthanizing' someone is the only way to assure that they will not suffer. Thus we are 'preventing cruelty', that's all.
The frauds who spew these demented, hypocritical, and tragically lethal lies,
however, fail to explain one vital question:
If these killers believe that they are 'helping' pets by murdering them, that they are 'preventing cruelty' by cruelly killing pets, and that they are giving pets a 'good' death, why are THEY themselves, and their loved ones still walking this Earth? Why are they NOT 'affording' themselves and their families the same 'kind, humane,' escape from this cruel world that they so 'lovingly afford' to pets?
After all, life is full of 'uncertainty' and life can be 'cruel' sometimes, so according to these nuts, the only solution is to be killed. So why aren't these murderers practicing what they preach, and sparing THEMSELVES and their FAMILIES from an 'uncertain' and possibly 'cruel' future, by giving themselves and their families a 'kind', 'humane' and 'good death'?
Why do they allow themselves and their families to walk out the door every morning, not knowing what the future holds?
Is it not 'cruel' and 'selfish' of these killers to let themselves and their families continue living in this 'horrible, cruel, uncertain world', while there is a 'kind, humane, and good' death as an alternative?
I mean, think about it: There are 6 billion of us human animals walking this Earth. We are detrimental to the well being of others, we are procreating at an alarming rate, kids have bloated stomachs because they dont have food to eat, women are getting raped and left to suffer and die an undignified, lonely death in the woods, men are being killed for their Nikes, 70% of our population are obese and thus face a painful, cruel future of heart attacks, angina episodes, and surgeries with no assurance that we will live through them.
So, why don't Wayne Pacelle, Ingrid Newkirk, Ed Sayres, Jane Hoffman, kill "shelter" operators, pound operators, animal control officials, and the rest of us, do the 'kind, humane,' thing, and give themselves, their families and the rest of us a 'good death'?
Why do we hoard each other to the point where we don't even fit on this Earth anymore, and to the point where there's not enough food to go around? Isn't that cruel? Shouldn't the ASPCA get to work on 'preventing' such 'cruelty' right away?
Shouldn't PETA put an end to such UNethical behavior right away?
Shouldn't the HSUS do the 'humane' thing and give us a 'humane' death, because our species, the human species, is disgustingly and drastically 'overpopulated'?
Shouldn't the ASPCA, PETA, the HSUS, human animal "shelter" operators, human animal control, etc., 'rescue' us all from the carnage, and give us all 'kind, good deaths' rather than allow us to suffer and feel pain?
According to the above mentioned groups, they SHOULD be 'rescuing' us, themselves and their families, by giving us an 'ethically, humanely, kind, good death', because that is the very excuse they use to justify (unsuccessfully) their murder of pets.
But Wayne Pacelle still walks this Earth, even though he or a loved one, could suffer a stroke at any moment and live a horrible life in a near vegetative state. Yet Pacelle takes the risk everyday.
But Ingrid Newkirk still walks this Earth, and leaves her house everyday, and allows her family to leave the house everyday, even though she/they could be kidnapped off of the streets and be forced to live as a sex slave for 18 years, like the unfortunate Jaycee Dugard was. Yet Newkirk takes the risk everyday.
Ed Sayres still walks this 'cruel' Earth. At any moment, he, or his killing partner, in the "NYC Mayor's Alliance for Animals" Jane Hoffman, could be abused, beaten badly, and left for dead, only to survive and have to live through 15 cruel, agonizing, surgeries in an attempt to rehabilitate them and heal their wounds. What a 'cruel' life that would be. Yet Ed Sayres and Jane Hoffman have no problem taking the risk of living a cruel life, everyday, instead of 'preventing cruelty' by giving themselves and their families a 'kind, humane' death.
So, to summarize, why are HSUS head, Wayne Pacelle, PETA head, Ingrid Newkirk, ASPCA head, Ed Sayres, and NYC's Mayor's Alliance for Animals member, Jane Hoffman, "shelter" operators, pound operators, animal control officers, etc., all being so 'cruel' to themselves, their families, and the rest of us, when they COULD be, according to their (ILL)ogic, sparing themselves, their families, and the rest of us from having to face life's 'uncertainties' and a possibly 'cruel' future?
Isn't it ironic that they aren't offering themselves, their families or the rest of us, the same form of 'rescue' that they offer to equally as precious pets?
Why aren't they offering themselves, their families and the rest of us the same 'humane rescue' from this harsh world that they "offer" pets?
I'll tell you why: Because Wayne Pacelle and his HSUS, Ingrid Newkirk and her PETA, Ed Sayres and his ASPCA, and Jane Hoffman and her NYC Mayor's Alliance for Animals, kill "shelter" operators, pound operators, and animal control officials, are all murderous frauds, who do not murder their fellow precious, beautiful, living souls (pets) out of 'kindness', like they *claim*, for killing a healthy individual is not 'kind'.
It is, in fact the HEIGHT OF CRUELTY to play God over someone else's life, and to take that life away from them, essentially saying: "You're life is disposable, and not worth saving".
If such words were said to Pacelle, Newkirk, Sayres, Hoffman, any "shelter" operator, pound operator or animal control officer on Earth, NOT ONE of them would consider it 'kind'. No, they'd consider it to be very cruel. I know it, you know it, they know it.
Isnt it funny (in an unfunny kind of way) how all of these 'rescuers' refrain from "rescuing" themselves, their families, and the rest of us, from a possibly (or possibly NOT), 'cruel future', as a way to 'control our overpopulation problem'?
Unlike pets, humans ARE actually an overpopulated species of animal. Why aren't we being 'humanely euthanized' in order to help control our overpopulation numbers?
I'll tell you why: Because these frauds wouldn't get away with that "humane euthanasia" crapola in a court of law. They'd be called what they are: Murderers.
Lawmakers are humans, and they, like typical humans, make sure that they protect their OWN interests, but leave the rest of us (pets and other animals) out in the cold.
Why? Because pets don't carry wallets full of potential campaign contributions.
Because pets don't pull levers in voting booths that decide whether the lawmaking humans get reelected, or a pink slip, instead.
Thus, with the typical "What can YOU do for ME?" attitude that these politicians have, and since pets are smart enough to stay out of politics, unlike us human animals who ritually vote for 'our party', pets get the shaft when it comes to laws being put in place to save their equally as precious lives, and souls from the murdererous human frauds, who use euphemisms to disguise what should and will, one day, be considered acts of murder.
THAT is reason #1 why pets are murdered while their assassins vomit excuse
after excuse and parrot euphemism after euphemism.
Because of SPECIESISM.
Speciesism: The inherent belief in the superiority of one species over another species.
Like racism and sexism, only in this case, someone's species is the deciding factor in how they are treated, and whether they get to live or die.
Reason #2 for pets being murdered in "shelters":
Kindness breeds kindness, just like cruelty breeds cruelty.
And since PRO-killers are cruel (what with their cruel acts of killing and all), the only thing that keeps them in business is, MORE cruelty, and MORE killing. By killing, they succeed at remaining part of the cruelty/killing problem, and they fail to ever become part of the solution: No Kill Programs and TNR Programs.
If this nation became No Kill, and if laws were put in place protecting pets (and other animals) from being murdered (instead of euphemistically being "humanely euthanized") we'd see cruelty to pets vanish faster than a cookie at a "Sweet Tooth" convention.
Because it would send a message loud and clear that PETS ARE FAMILY, THEY ARE PRECIOUS LIVING SOULS WHO DESERVE TO LIVE, LOVE, AND TO BE LOVED, EQUALLY AS MUCH AS WE HUMAN ANIMALS DO.
And laws protecting pets from cruelty would inevitably follow.
The murderers of pets know this, and they know that if No Kill and TNR becomes the ways of the world, and thus, kindness reigns supreme over cruelty, that the ASPCA will become obsolete without the cruelty that keeps them in business, The HSUS would become obsolete without their "humane" services being needed, and PETA would become obsolete because, with rights protecting them, pets would be treated ethically, thus making PETA (who are UNethical) obsolete. Same thing with "shelters", pounds, and animal control officials. If these groups TNR'd feral cats, who take up 80% of "shelter" space, their donations (and the kill rate) would fall by at least 80%, because there wouldn't be feral cats being treated with cruelty in "shelters", because feral cats would never ENTER "shelters" to begin with. Further, with rights in place to protect them, the number of cases involving cruelty to animals would drop like a Lead Zeppelin.
Again, kindness breeds kindness. Cruelty breeds cruelty.
That is why the ASPCA, PETA, the HSUS, kill "shelters", pounds, animal control officers, etc., OPPOSE TNR and No Kill Programs...because they oppose kindness. Cruelty is more profitable. And to the Speciesists among us, pets are disposable, just like the Nazis considered Jews disposable, and how the KKK considers African Americans disposable. They don't have a problem killing in order to keep their business running like a well oiled, albeit filthy, dirty, corrupt, blood stained machine.
If you don't think that humans would stoop so low, as to kill the innocent in order to remain fat in the wallet and in power, I have two words for you: The Mafia.
One word for you: War
One more word for you: Murder
The truth is often harsh and unpleasant, but the truth it remains, and confront it we must... if not for us, then for our four legged soul mates, who love us unconditionally and deserve far better treatment than that in which the fraudulent murderers give them (the death penalty for crimes never committed).
That is why we, the truly humane, the truly kind, the truly ethical, the truly life revering pet lovers must spread the word far and wide, from Maine to Minnesota, from New York to Nevada.
We ALL must:
1. Expose the above mentioned fraudulent murderers for who they truly are, as uncomfortable as the truth may be. Comfort is not important. Putting an end to the murder of pets IS important.
2. Tell our politicians, with every campaign contribution, with every phone call, email or fax in support of them, and with every pull of the lever on Election Day, that we not only are entrusting them to act in our best interests, but that we are equally entrusting them to act in the best interests of our FOUR LEGGED FAMILY MEMBERS, equally as much.
Then and ONLY then, will laws be created, supported and passed, that will make this a no kill nation, and a nation of kind, honest pet lovers, who will no longer tolerate the lies of the killers of our four legged family members, and a nation who will come to realize that regardless of species, race or nationality, that we are all ONE.
Please, spread the truth far and wide.
Go on to Horrifying, Laboratory Animals
Rendered in to Pet Food
Return to 28 July 2011 Issue
Return to Newsletter Directory
on the link to see photos and bios)
Staff Editor and Contributor: Ljbeane1@aol.com
Staff Contributor and Advisor: CompassionAction@aol.com
Sled Dog Action Coalition: www.helpsleddogs.org Glickman37@aol.com
Staff Contributor: myREBAdog@worldnet.att.net
Pawprints, Footprints & Animal Chatter: SHORTIETEK@aol.com