 |
Serving God & Country....Defending Faith & Freedom An Outreach of What's Right What's Left Ministries |
 |
***** The PETA Principle By Fred Gielow April 15, 2006 T he mainstream media, and the rest of the Left, seem to have a love affair with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and other animal-rights groups. Whenever there's a PETA campaign, or announcement, or any save-the-animal demonstration, the press covers it with enthusiasm and fawning support. Look closely, however, and very often you'll find that animal-rights advocates are – underneath their disguise – nut cases, loonies, and extremists, wildly out of step with traditional American values. But, don't take my word for it. Listen to what these animal kooks themselves say:"Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth." PETA statement "I don't believe human beings have the "right to life." That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig, is a dog, is a boy." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director "It would be great if all the fast food outlets' slaughterhouses, laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow." Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children, than on animals." PETA statement "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would... Only 7 perent of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box, and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species, until all hunting is stopped in California. Then, we will take it state by state." Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S. "Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition." Peter Singer, known as the "Father of Animal Rights" "To those people who say, "My father is alive because of animal experimentation," I say, "Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live." Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of tradeoff." Bill Maher "Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], we'd be against it." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director "Chickens are interesting individuals, who have as much right not to be cooked and eaten as a dog, or a cat, or even a human being." Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman "Ants are sentient beings, like we are, and have a right to life like we do, and they shouldn't be shown the level of disrespect the producers of ant farms show them." Stephanie Boyles, PETA "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration." Michael W. Fox, vice president, Humane Society of the United States "We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA, and subsequently the head of an animal-rights fundraising company "I think it is speciesist [someone who accepts human domination over animals] to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day, and what they endure every day, because they cannot defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed against them." Karen Davis, president of the animal rights group, United Poultry Concerns "If a human four-year-old has what it takes for legal personhood, then a chimpanzee should be able to be a legal person, in terms of legal rights." Steven Wise, Harvard University lecturer, and author of Rattling the Cage "Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans." Peter Singer "[A]rson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are "acceptable crimes" when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA "If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justified solution." Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for PCRM [Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine], a front group for PETA We see that many of the "noble" animal-rights people are anti-Christian, anti-human being, even anti-mankind! Based on recent reports about PETA folks killing large numbers of dogs and cats, it seems some may even be anti-animal! (State of Virginia documents show PETA kills 85 percent of the animals it receives. By contrast, the Norfolk SPCA finds homes for 73 percent of the animals it takes in. On June 15, 2005, two PETA employees were arrested in North Carolina on charges of animal cruelty. Police caught the pair, Andrew Cook, 24, and Adria Hinkle, 27, dumping the corpses of eighteen dogs, including seven puppies, a cat, and two kittens, and several other animals into a dumpster behind a Piggly Wiggly supermarket in Ahoskie County, North Carolina. Witnesses told reporters they thought the animals had been given to PETA by owners, who assumed good homes would be found for them. After all, they worked for PETA! PETA president, Ingrid Newkirk, explained in a 2003 New Yorker article how she became involved in the animal-rights movement, after some kittens she had taken to a "shelter" were put to sleep. She said, "I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself... I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." -- Information from Capital Research Center Organization Trends, January 2006, pages 2 and 3. Published by Capital Research Center, 1513 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1480. Phone: 202-483-6900 or 800-459-3950.)
Fred Gielow is the author of "You Don't Say," and is involved in property rights activities at: www.youdontsay.org. *****
Redefining the "Separation of Church and State" By Fred Gielow January 1, 2005 M ore and more, the armies on the left roll out that big, powerful cannon they call "separation of church and state." And, they use it to stifle the Ten Commandments, banish nativity scenes, take "under God" out of our Pledge, and even transform Christmas into merely a celebration of cold weather.So, where exactly, is this sacred principle that keeps the U.S. government untainted by religion, and religious principles? Where, precisely, is it in our laws, our founding documents, or our heritage? Some might be surprised to learn, it's not there. Our Constitution deals with the question of religion in one place: the First Amendment, the first words of which are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." That's it! There's nothing mentioned about "the separation of church and state". That phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802, letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association, responding to an October 7, 1801, letter from some of its members, assuring them the federal government would be true to First Amendment prohibitions. No Congressional action would be taken to establish an official "National Church," or "religion." No action would interfere in any way with personal religious expression. The quest for religious freedom, after all, was a significant factor that motivated early settlers to flee England. But, leftists have carefully reinterpreted the "separation" statement to mean all things religious - correction: all things Christian - must be banned from all things governmental. Strangely, they have no problem with references to Islam, Judaism, or Kwanzaa. Only Christian allusions must be excluded. Let's look at this carefully. If school kids want to sing "Joy to the World," does that in some way establish a national religion? If a teacher explains that Christmas is an observance of Christ's birthday - a rather indisputable fact - does that explanation constitute the establishment of a national religion? If a student wears a T-shirt to school with "WWJD?" on the front, does this action somehow signal that government is forcing all students to accept some specific religious perspective? If the shield of a town or county contains the image of a church or a clergyman, is that tantamount to proselytizing? Only those who are foolish, or are fanatical agenda-driven activists would think so. Apparently, often overlooked in the First Amendment is the phrase that Congress will make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If a valedictorian wishes to acknowledge God in an address to students, isn't that free exercise of religion something government must not prohibit? If citizens wish to place a nativity scene on local government property, isn't that free exercise of religion to be protected, and not curtailed? If a judge wishes to display a tablet of the Ten Commandments near a courthouse, isn't that free exercise of religion to be defended by government, not squelched? The very individuals and groups who chant "separation of church and state," and claim the First Amendment as rationale, are trampling on the protection of the free exercise of religion, guaranteed by the First Amendment. Besides, the First Amendment deals exclusively with the Congress of the United States, the federal government. It in no way applies to states, counties, or local municipalities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments reinforce that. The Tenth Amendment states:
For over a hundred fifty years, Christian principles remained a strong and vital aspect of government - after all, the country was founded on Christian principles - and the "wall of separation between church and state" was interpreted only as supporting the First Amendment. But in 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court, for the first time, announced that "a wall of separation between church and state ... must be kept high and impregnable." Of course, aside from judicial activism, there is no basis whatsoever (in the Constitution) for such a contention. I understand, that in the early days of our nation, there were state-endorsed religions. This practice was not only accepted, but encouraged. The Constitution was formulated to accommodate state-based religions. It's interesting to note that the first public schools in this country were established for the purpose of teaching Christian principles and values. By their position, those on the left not only repudiate Christian connections to government today, but at this country's founding, as well. They seem oblivious of the fact that our Declaration of Independence refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and it brashly asserts as its founding principle that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." If our rights, in the view of the left, don't come from our Creator, then just where do they come from? And, their answer is: from government. So, the left wishes to empower bureaucracies in the federal government to decide what rights we have, and what rights we do not have. In other words, the left wishes to transform America, heretofore a bastion of freedom, into just another nation, where an all-powerful elite rule over a powerless populace. History has shown this to be a formula for disaster.
Fred Gielow is the author of "You Don't Say," and is involved in property rights activities at: http://www.youdontsay.org/. *****
Multiculturalism and diversity By Fred Gielow February 1, 2006 I suspect many Americans are quite comfortable with the ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, and think the millions of Mexicans and others who dash across our Southern border, illegally, will quickly plunge into the "melting pot" and become productive, law-abiding U.S. citizens. I believe the facts don't support that view. Diversity is the idea that those vastly different from us and those with vastly different values, language, and life styles can comfortably move next door to you. You must change to accommodate them; not the other way around. Multiculturalism is even worse. A report from the United States Industrial Council Education Foundation provides a description: "Multiculturalism … does not simply seek to assimilate or integrate cultural or racial minorities into the fabric of American society, but rather, to destroy the fabric entirely and to place the alternative 'cultures' it champions in positions of cultural and political supremacy." One educator, addressing a National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) conference, was rather blunt: "Multicultural education demands the removal of the American system… If we want power, we're going to have to take it… Multiculturalism is about creating a revolution…" Of course, the liberals are leading the charge for multiculturalism and diversity. They are the ones who wish to replace the morality and vision of our Founding Fathers with a humanistic vision for America. Religious principles: no. Do what you want: yes. Ten Commandments: no. Abortion, drugs, sex, pornography, no restraints: yes. So how did we ever get to this point? In his article, "Multicultural Madness," Whistleblower, February 2005, page 16, David Kupelian explains, by quoting New York University literature professor Carol Iannone: "Quite simply, … America lost its grasp of its own historic character, and embraced "diversity" as a national goal. In the name of equality and nondiscrimination, we invited mass immigration from every part of the globe, and made no demands on the newcomers to become Americans. In fact, we gave up our American core, adopted multiculturalism and declared all cultures equal. We invited the new groups to celebrate themselves, while we cravenly permitted libelous denigration of our own past. Like fools, we prated that diversity is our strength, when common sense and all of history tell us that strength comes from unity. Absolute nondiscrimination meant we no longer enforced standards, made judgments, distinguished between good and evil, friend and foe. We grew lazy, stupid and careless – about our borders, about national security, even about previous terrorist attacks against us. We worried over our "hate crimes" and our "racial profiling," while men resided in our midst who seethed with murderous fury even against our children, and plotted our destruction. Now we have a fifth column, fear further assaults, and labor under a draconian security regime that is changing the nature of our lives." Kupelian continues (pages 18-19): "After several decades of public education that reflects not the values of the nation's founders, but those of '60s radicals and reformers, millions of Americans are just plain confused. The farther we stray from the rock of unchanging spiritual principles, the easier it is to get swept away by clever appeals to our feelings – including the need to prove to others that we are "tolerant." Increasingly, that means "tolerant" of evil. … Out of pure hatred – the same rage and rebellion institutionalized in communism, Nazism and all the other "isms" that have paved the world's roads with corpses throughout the last century – haters of Truth scheme to extinguish this shining light [the American experiment]. So they concoct an absurd, fantastic ruse – that cannibal societies are as worthwhile as Western ones, that animals should have the same rights as human beings, that white people are inherently racist and oppressive, that sexual perversion is perfectly normal and noble, each passing year bringing new and more bizarre delusions to be held up as truth." How much stranger still, that we've bought it.
Fred Gielow is the author of "You Don't Say," and is involved in property rights activities at: www.youdontsay.org. ***** You Don't Say... Environmentalism secrets By Fred Gielow April 1, 2006 If you think environmentalism is all about saving the Earth, protecting the whales, stopping pollution, and the like, here's some news. It's not! Listen to what environmental advocates themselves have to say:
Writer John Meredith summarizes: "The radical environmental movement is destroying America. It is turning our society, once based on individual freedom and responsibility, into little more than mindless followers of regulations established at the whim of unelected special-interest groups." Walter Williams has the last word: "While the Soviet Union has collapsed, communism is not dead. It has [been] repackaged under a new name: Environmentalism. Communism is about extensive government regulation and control by elites, and so is environmentalism."
Fred Gielow is the author of "You Don't Say," and is involved in property rights activities at: www.youdontsay.org. ***** Media bias By Fred Gielow March 1, 2006 A little over a month ago, I participated in what was billed as a "debate" with the managing editor of the Sun-Sentinel newspaper at a breakfast meeting of the Tower Forum in Ft. Lauderdale. I chose to consider it a "discussion" rather than a debate of the topic we were assigned: "Bias in the media: What's the impact?"I started out by asking those in attendance if they thought the mainstream media were for or against John Kerry. Everyone shouted out "For!" I asked: For or against abortion? The response was mixed, but mostly "For." For or against the war in Iraq? It seemed unanimous: "Against!" For or against gay marriage? "For!" For or against America? The response was mixed, but I believe more registered "Against" than "For." In any event, it was quite clear the audience perceived a strong bias in the media, and indeed, the managing editor conceded this point, early on. The "debate," then, seemed to settle into a pattern. I described examples of blatant mainstream media bias and the managing editor would say, yes, there is bias, but not at the Sun-Sentinel. At one point, I mentioned the book Disinformation, by Richard Miniter, and the revelation that WMDs have, indeed, been discovered in Iraq: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas), over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas, bombs loaded with mustard and sarin gas, among other weapons. I then posed the question: "Why is it that such startling information has not been headlined in the major media? Why is it so many in the press have not even mentioned these astonishing findings?" The response was: The managing editor didn't consider the information newsworthy. I was amazed. My closing remarks were: "In his book, Bias, Bernard Goldberg states: "The old argument that the networks and other media elites have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters." But, what is the impact of media bias? It is, arguably, a war lost in Vietnam, thanks to media manipulation of the "news." It's ruined reputations — like Joe McCarthy's. It's an election that might have turned out the other way, if bloggers weren't around to reveal the truth. It's a war in Iraq, where the media may be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And, it's thousands upon thousands of journalists and writers coloring their reporting, slanting their words, and influencing American thinking. In other words, the impact of media bias is immeasurable." ***** |
|
