Feld Entertainment’s Federal Racketeering Case to Proceed Against ASPCA, HSUS and other Animal Rights Groups and their Lawyers
http://www.ringlingbrostrialinfo.com/
This is a 'small' part of PETA's page. It pertains to any domestic animal, even your household pet!
http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx
"They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to. Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to houses, yards, or cages for their own safety."
Penn and Teller - P.E.T.A. - Penn and Teller, tell the info that PETA would like to keep quiet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=inFtOMx8nDU
Wiki has that episode Original air date as April 1, 2004. -- shows that PETA has not changed.
Wiki background on PETA - one of it's bases is the philosophy of "Peter Singer" who believes that animals are equal to humans, to the point of believing in Zoophilia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA
Humane Society of the United States does not support that but they show back up, here. Think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Soc ... ted_States
"In 1961, HSUS investigator Frank McMahon launched a probe of dog dealers around the country to generate support for a federal law to prevent cruelty to animals destined for use in laboratories. The five-year investigation into the multilayered trade in dogs paid off in February 1966 when Life published a photo-essay of a raid conducted on a Maryland dog dealer’s premises by McMahon and the state police.[21][22]
The Life spread sparked outrage, and tens of thousands of Americans wrote to their congressional representatives, demanding action to protect animals and prevent pet theft. That summer the U.S. Congress approved the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (later renamed the "Animal Welfare Act of 1966"), only the second major federal humane law passed since World War II.[23]"
So, they are involved in "Proposed Changes to Animal Welfare Act/APHIS/USDA", too.
proposed-changes-to-animal-welfare-act-aphis-usda-t8429.html
The comment period has been extended to August 15, 2012 -
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4697<br /><br />__________ Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:52 pm __________<br /><br />
ZRabbits":245d74cn said:
Piper":245d74cn said:
ZRabbits":245d74cn said:
Very interesting read. Unfair report? Gee, Feds and Environmental Groups told me I was "confused and misinformed" on my research of the 4th Deadliest Superfund site in the Nation in my neighborhood. I guess Harmon was right also for HSUS to pull that tactic. I proved I was right. 10 years later, it's all coming back on them.
Karen
I know I am going completely off topic, but have to ask. Karen do you mean, Tom's? Dead fish and more? If so, I agree. It was one of my major references, several years ago. If you are referring to another site, I am very interested.
No, this is nuclear and in Camden County. Unfortunately you won't find much on it because it's under a consent order. After what I divulged as a Private Citizen, everything went undercover. All info has been removed. All the names of the Democratic Players and their Environmental Pacs, NJ Environmental Federation, CARE, Sierra Club and the NJ DEP have been protected under this federal consent order. But, the citizens get pay for it all. And I was deemed crazy.
I know full well about Toms as well.
Just like this group allegedly protecting animals, another farce.
All frauds, just pacs, feeding off of innocent citizens for donations and power. That is all.
But if you want more, just PM me.
Karen
- Thank You, I am interested in the RICO and the Animal Right/Pet Store items right now. May I take a rain check. Will be getting back to research on the Super Fund sites, in the near future.
- It is hard to have a lawsuit, if there are no damages. A lot of the backing, to add / count damaged animals - as normal and wanted, is from the very same companies that have helped damage their DNA. I could see them trying to keep it quiet, but instead they are supporting anything that is against scientific discovery, a scientific discovery that might track aberrations and develope a baseline for animal (or human) aberrations, including in the genetic code.
-- This ties into the RICO lawsuit, as to their motives, but I doubt that it could be an item(s) that could be brought into court, at this time.
- If people do not keep, breed or eat animals, there is no damage or at least the (law) damages will be less. If 'all' human fetus' are given the same status as an person that was born naturally but with an handicap -- no damages there either.
- Rain Check?
