Stormbringer Sets PETA Straight

A great blogger - Sean Linnane - aka Stormbringer puts the PETA folks in there place regarding their Thanksgiving ads.

WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS . . .

Latest PETA Propaganda Outrage Offends Sight as well as Sensibility

A new ad by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals featuring a turkey with the head of a dog, reads, "Kids: If you wouldn't eat your dog, why eat a turkey? Go Vegan."

The immediate goal is to stop shoppers from buying turkeys for Thanksgiving, but PETA admits it is targeting children like other advertisers.

"It's important to teach kids because they are young enough to have open minds that animals are not food. They do feel pain," said Bryan Wilson, a PETA spokesman.

This just goes to show once more how stupid vegetarians are in general, particularly the whacko extremists at PETA.

First of all, there's a world of difference between Dog - a.k.a Man's Best Friend and long time companion since the caveman days - and a bird so stupid that in captivity they have been known to look up when it rains, staring open-mouthed in wonder until they drown.

Let's establish something straight right here from the git go: Man occupies the top of the Food Chain for a reason, and the animals are here on this Earth to serve us. In the case of the turkey, that service includes with stuffing, gravy and cranberry sauce and potatoes on the side.

Dog, on the other hand, serves us by showing extreme loyalty, and working hard to protect us and also to keep us warm on cold winter nights. My dogs are more than human, they are G-O-D spelled backwards. In fact, the more people I meet, the more I love my dogs.

There is a special symbiotic relationship between dogs and humans that is unique throughout the Animal Kingdom. Not even cats are as close to their human masters as are dogs. The bond between Humankind and Dogkind is extraordinary, it's a beautiful thing. Dog will stand by his Master 'till the dying day. In fact, Dog will stand by his Master, follow him to the ends of the Earth, face off against any danger with absolute total disregard for his own safety, and willingly DIE for the Master if the situation so warrants it. History is replete with stories of hero dogs rescuing young children, fending off wild animals, saving the day time and again.

I have scoured the internet and have yet to find a single occasion of a turkey ever doing anything that even comes close, short of saving us from starvation during the Pilgrim experience, and all they did then was just be there. They don't even do tricks.

This is what I have to say to the environmental nutjobs at PETA: to compare a bird-brained bird to our loving and loyal companion Dog is a piss-poor analogy.

Everybody knows that Turkey was placed on this Earth, right alongside Chicken, Cow, Pig, Goat, Sheep and sometimes Horse, Deer and Snake, and of course all the tasty Fish in the Sea, for Man to eat. Preferably deep-fried (in the case of the Turkey, Chicken and Fish), barbecued (in the case of Pig) or on a grill over a bed of hot coals. Aristotle tells us that this is the Natural Order of things.

Dog's place is by Man's side as the meat is placed upon the grill, to snack on morsels tossed his way and to gnaw on bones and leftovers, his reward and indeed his birthright for undying loyalty and protection, and in some cases for duties rendered as hunting companion in bringing in the animals that we feast upon.

As a soldier in the Far East, I have actually eaten dog, on more than one occasion. It was tasty the way it was prepared, but quite honestly the concept of eating our companion species was somehow disturbing. Oddly, I have eaten monkey on several occasions and this did not bother me in the slightest. So much of the concept that we are somehow related to the monkeys; the Vegans might be - I personally am more closely related to the wolves and the bears.

If there is such a thing as Evolution, then the eternal relationship between Dog and Man is the closest thing to physical evidence we have of this radical theory. Vegans, on the other hand, are living proof that the theory that embraces Survival of the Fittest has somehow, somewhere gone horribly awry. Vegans can only exist because the hunters and warriors of the Human Tribe have established safety zones to make it possible for them to live off the bounty of Agriculture - in the natural environment they would perish. Vegans have to make propaganda like this to recruit to their ranks because everybody knows if they didn't they would soon breed themselves out of existence.

For PETA to compare our loving, loyal canine companions to a thing that looks like it comes from Outer Space - and actually did come out of an egg just like Lady GaGa - is sick and twisted. To focus their perverse agenda upon the impressionable minds of our young in an attempt to convert and recruit to the unholy Cult of Vegan-ism is borderline criminal.

The Good Old Days

Image via Wikipedia

Yaron Brook and Don Watkins penned this excellent piece over at Forbes.

America Before The Entitlement State

Reacting to calls for cuts in entitlement programs, House Democrat Henry Waxman fumed: “The Republicans want us to repeal the twentieth century.” Sound bites don’t get much better than that. After all, the world before the twentieth century–before the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society–was a dark, dangerous, heartless place where hordes of Americans starved in the streets.

Except it wasn’t and they didn’t. The actual history of America shows something else entirely: picking your neighbors’ pockets is not a necessity of survival. Before America’s entitlement state, free individuals planned for and coped with tough times, taking responsibility for their own lives.

In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalism’s legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid – and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority.

But in a culture that revered individual responsibility and regarded being “on the dole” as shameful, formal charity was almost always a last resort. Typically people who hit tough times would first dip into their savings. They might take out loans and get their hands on whatever commercial credit was available. If that wasn’t enough, they might insist that other family members enter the workforce. And that was just the start.

“Those in need,” historian Walter Trattner writes, “. . . looked first to family, kin, and neighbors for aid, including the landlord, who sometimes deferred the rent; the local butcher or grocer, who frequently carried them for a while by allowing bills to go unpaid; and the local saloon keeper, who often came to their aid by providing loans and outright gifts, including free meals and, on occasion, temporary jobs. Next, the needy sought assistance from various agencies in the community – those of their own devising, such as churches or religious groups, social and fraternal associations, mutual aid societies, local ethnic groups, and trade unions.”

One of the most fascinating phenomena to arise during this time were mutual aid societies – organizations that let people insure against the very risks that entitlement programs would later claim to address. These societies were not charities, but private associations of individuals. Those who chose to join would voluntarily pay membership dues in return for a defined schedule of benefits, which, depending on the society, could include life insurance, permanent disability, sickness and accident, old-age, or funeral benefits.

Mutual aid societies weren’t private precursors to the entitlement state, with its one-size-fits-all schemes like Social Security and Medicare. Because the societies were private, they offered a wide range of options to fit a wide range of needs. And because they were voluntary, individuals joined only when the programs made financial sense to them. How many of us would throw dollar bills down the Social Security money pit if we had a choice?

Only when other options were exhausted would people turn to formal private charities. By the mid-nineteenth century, groups aiming to help widows, orphans, and other “worthy poor” were launched in every major city in America. There were some government welfare programs, but they were minuscule compared to private efforts.

In 1910, in New York State, for instance, 151 private benevolent groups provided care for children, and 216 provided care for adults or adults with children. If you were homeless in Chicago in 1933, for example, you could find shelter at one of the city’s 614 YMCAs, or one of its 89 Salvation Army barracks, or one of its 75 Goodwill Industries dormitories.

“In fact,” writes Trattner, “so rapidly did private agencies multiply that before long America’s larger cities had what to many people was an embarrassing number of them. Charity directories took as many as 100 pages to list and describe the numerous voluntary agencies that sought to alleviate misery, and combat every imaginable emergency.”

It all makes you wonder: If Americans could thrive without an entitlement state a century ago, how much easier would it be today, when Americans are so rich that 95 percent of our “poor” own color TVs? But we won’t get rid of the entitlement state until we get rid of today’s widespread entitlement mentality, and return to a society in which individual responsibility is the watchword.

Related articles

• Entitlement Programs: A Plan to End Them (pjmedia.com)
• The United States of Entitled Americans (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)

WWJD?

Thursday, November 10, 2011

What Jesus REALLY said....

I've heard the "occupy" protesters from the Occupy Wall Street Movement saying that Jesus Himself taught that they were to give their goods to the poor - just like the Occupy Protesters are demanding.

Can I clarify what was and wasn't said?

Jesus did tell them they should give their goods to the poor.

He did NOT tell Caesar that he should take their goods from them and then give it to the poor.

Neither did Jesus tell the poor that what belonged to the rich was theirs and they should demand it.

Nor also did he tell the rich that they were sinners for being rich.  He did tell them that if they became so attached to their worldly goods that they couldn't help others that they were going to have a hard time in the afterlife.  But he didn't tell them it was a sin to be rich.

Neither did he condemn the rich for being rich. Neither did he envy the rich.  In FACT, at one point, Satan stood atop the temple an told Jesus he would give him all the world and its riches if he would fall down and worship Satan.  Jesus said, "no thanks" - quite the opposite message from the OWS crowd who want it all but want to do nothing for it.  Maybe they could just fall down at Satan's feet and worship him....

Neither did he even condemn the Romans for their occupation.  In fact, as they crucified him, he said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."

He taught them to do good, keep the commandments and to repent and they would be saved.

He also taught them to be wise stewards over their money and to invest it wisely, to take careful account of it and to not waste it and to get a good rate of return.  He also taught them to become knowledgeable in the ways of the world and wise in their actions.

He also taught us to magnify - make use of - our talents.  He did not teach us to squander our abilities and demand a handout. 

If anything, the Occupy Wall Street crowd  preaches, teaches and does the opposite of everything Jesus taught.

Just a thought.

(Got it here - Simply Because It Is)

Fiscal Armageddon

Image via Wikipedia

The United States’ total debt is about to surpass $15.21 trillion, marking the first time in modern history that the debt surpassed the nation’s economy. The country is joining a short list of nations, including Greece and Italy, whose debts are larger than 100 percent of their economies.

Read the rest on Newsmax.com: Sen. Grassley: US Teeters on Brink of Fiscal Armageddon
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Mob Rule

Image via Wikipedia

Neal Boortz posted a piece today that looks at the Occupy Movement. This is a little excerpt:

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE

There you are … marching down the street chanting “This is what democracy looks like.”  The trouble is you don’t realize just how right you are; and that would be because you’re basically ignorant as all purified hell about just what democracy really is.  You didn’t know that our founding fathers abhorred the idea of a democracy, did you?  And there’s not one of you who could correctly guess the number of times the word “democracy” appears in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, or the constitutions of all 50 states.  The answer?  Zero.  Not once.  And not one of you would know – it would take actually studying our history – that the word “democrat” used to be an epithet.  If you were to read “Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation” by Joseph Ellis, you would learn that “democrat” referred to “one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.”  As it was then, so it is now.
But back to your protests and your “This is what Democracy looks like” signs.  Democracy is best defined as mob rule – majority rule.  Define it as you might, but it will always be three wolves and one sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.  Have you ever heard of the “Rule of Law?”  That’s what our founding fathers gave us.  That was supposed to be our operating system, so to speak.  Sure .. we chose representatives to represent us in local and federal governments using democratic processes, but they, as we, are then required to abide by the laws of the land .. and that includes the Constitution.   But this rule-of-law thing doesn’t really appeal all that much to Barry’s Brats, does it?

• The law says you can’t camp out overnight in the parks, you ignore it.  Mob rule over the rule of law.  Democracy. 
• The law says you need a permit for demonstrations and marches on public streets?  You ignore those laws.  They just don’t suit your purpose.  Mob rule over the rule of law.  Democracy.
• The law defines and protects property rights.  But you and your fellow occupiers want to destroy some private property – trash some ATMs – bust out some bank windows – trespass into private businesses.  You have the numbers, so to hell with the law.  Mob rule over the rule of law.  Democracy.
• Hundreds of workers at the Port of Oakland lost a day’s pay so that you could throw your little anti-capitalist temper tantrum and shut down the port.  You broke the law in doing so, but what the hell.  Mob rule over the rule of law.  Democracy.
• People have the right to the wealth earned through their labors and through the sacrifice of portions of their lives.   You want that wealth seized and given to people who neither worked for it nor earned it.  There are more of you than there are of them.  So hand it over.  Mob rule over the rule of law.  Democracy.
• Dozens of people who work in the area of Zuccotti Park in New York City, the gathering place for Obama’s Children, are now out of work.  Your protests have so disrupted those businesses that some have closed and others have cut back on hours and workers.  Doesn’t matter.   You are the 99%, right?  Those business owners are the evil 1%.  Mob rule over the rule of law.  Democracy.

So … turns out you’re right.  This IS what democracy looks like.  Mobs of unthinking people destroying private property, denying people their livelihoods, attacking police, trashing public parks … and spreading no small amount of sexually transmitted diseases in the process.  Unthinking mobs.   Lookin’ good, Barry’s Brats!

Read the rest of this article here.

Related articles

• Democracy Versus Mob Rule - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative (gds44.wordpress.com)

The Smoking Gun (or Who Created this Mess?)

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis

By PAUL SPERRY, FOR INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a "broad-based frustration" among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

"You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place," he complained earlier this month.

But what if government encouraged, even invented, those "abusive practices"?

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

Read the rest of the story here.