October 21, 2019

If Democracy Dictates Immorality, Does That Make it Right?

I read, mostly with disgust, an opinion piece from a newspaper reader disagreeing with a Portland (Maine) Press Herald editorial that stated that animals (in this case a dog) are not at par with the legal rights of people and that regardless of how any individual perceives the role of their pets, “…that’s not enough to make their emotional preferences anything that can be reliably considered in a court of law.” All but three states see pets as property not a member of the family, i.e. as one might see their son or daughter as a member of the family.

The editorial claims that the woman involved in the divorce, who wants joint custody of the dog, is “…trying to evolve part of the law.”

In the rebuttal to the PPH editorial, the author, who thinks a dog involved in a divorce, should be granted “custody” in the same fashion as courts decide the custody of children, specifically infants and mentally incapable adults. The author states: “The existing property law, treating beloved companions like things, will not “do for now.”

But here’s the real meat and potatoes of our post-normal society in which we live and, for some of us, are being subjected to, or forced to live with, because we live in a corrupt “democracy” (socialist-democracy) that has matured to a point where regardless of any moral or historic perspective on the role of animals in a society, because a society has reached moral bankruptcy, progressivism demands the laws be changed to reflect these changes. Not all of us agree in that perspective or the tactic to force society to amend its laws simply to cover the perverted perspectives of far too many pet owners.

In the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, on the sixth day God created everything in the waters and fowl of the air. And then He created all the rest of the animals, which include what today, man has decided to make into pets. In verse 26, Moses’ inspired words from God read, “Let us make man in our ]image according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over everything that creepeth and moveth on the earth.

There has been many discussions as to what the Scriptures mean when God gives Man “dominion” over all animals and creatures and to “…let them rule” over them, but a good forensic examination of the original Hebrew and Greek, as well as historic accounts, not only from the canonical Scriptures but well-referenced history writings, gives us great examples of how animals clearly did not exist equally as man, nor was that Yahweh’s intention.

In Old Testament Days, it was required of the followers of God (Yahweh) for daily sacrifices that included the killing and burnt offerings of animals to Yahweh. On special occasions, sometimes hundreds and thousands of the “unblemished” picks from sheep and cattle herds were sacrificed (killed).

In Matthew 8: 28-34, we read how Jesus (Yeshua) cast demons out of two men and sent them to a flock of swine a distance away. After the demons entered the pigs, the flock of pigs ran straight into the ocean and drowned.

We know in the Great Flood, Yahweh instructed Noah to collect “two of every kind” to be saved on board the ark. Noah and his family were saved because Noah obeyed Yahweh. All the rest of God’s creation were destroyed…and that means the animals aside from the “two of every kind.”

The apostle, Thomas, uses asses to accomplish Yeshua’s work. Yahweh instructed Thomas to speak to two mules and tell them what they were to do in order that Thomas would reach his destination on his way to India. Not only did the mules understand Thomas but they spoke back to Thomas.

In today’s post-normal, immoral and perverted society, Thomas would have probably been jailed for animal abuse…that is after he was admitted to the nut house.

If it was Yahweh’s intention that when he created all the creatures of the sea, the fowl of the air and all the beasts and crawling things, they were to be treated like, or with the same legal and constitutional rights as His creation of man, surely he would not have called man to kill the animals for sacrifices, nor to grow them and consume them as food? And would he have cast demons into pigs and then made them run and drown if animals (pets) had the same legal rights as humans?

Yes, perverted, extreme animal rights people like to quote Scripture (mostly out of context or simply out of ignorance or bastardized Scriptures) to promote their agendas and twisted narratives. Don’t be fooled. Yahweh is much more direct in his commandments. He wouldn’t have given man “power to rule over” animals if he intended them all to be protected, given rights, and to dwell in our homes.

The bottom line here is that simply because members of a society have been seriously mislead about their and their pet’s role in life, is not reason to demand “…to evolve part of the law” simply to accommodate their choice of a seriously misled existence.

Animals have their role. Animals, I would suppose by virtue of “dominion” and “rule over” have become pets for some people. It goes beyond the realm of intended existence to believe pets should be given the same rights as man and to demand the laws be changed to foment this misdirected lifestyle.

However, like most immoral things in this backward society, it’s only a matter of time before this perversity becomes total normalcy in a downward spiraling society absent the moral backbone of our Creator.

We choose to not follow Yahweh’s leadership.

Share

Dominion Over Animals and Pets

Genesis 1:26 – “Furthermore God said, Let us make man in our image according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over everything that creepeth and moveth on the earth.”

However, if you don’t believe in Creation you might have a tough time understanding what the Creator meant and intended by giving man, also his creation, “dominion” over the beasts (notice he didn’t say pets) and over EVERYTHING that creeps and crawls on the earth.

Misguided animal lovers and animal rights activists have it all wrong. Some might think from some of my previous comments about perverted animal lovers that I might take the side of demented people, as described in this article, about the notion that no animal should be “owned” for any purpose, from growing to eat or owning as pets. I never said you shouldn’t have pets. What I was suggesting is that the extent to which far too many carry their actions with pet ownership, as well as placement of animals in the hierarchy, have been seriously misplaced.

Our post normal society thinks nothing of killing unborn babies and yet you will be locked up if found “abusing” an animal. No, we shouldn’t abuse animals but we also shouldn’t be disobeying the Word of Yahweh in that “Thou shalt not kill!”

This same society thinks nothing of shoving into the mouths of our children all kinds of poisonous foods that are killing us and yet we may choose to malnourish our children and spending our money to make sure our pets get high-quality foods and medical care.

I’m not sure that Yahweh intended animals to become pampered pets…perhaps not even pets at all. Although He gave us “dominion” so that we could find uses, including the eating thereof, one might question the extent to which we have provided human surroundings and care for them.

I might say, enjoy your pets but not at the expense of humans.

Share

Wolves Impacting Humans

Share

We Must Stop Protecting Snowflakes

I was reading this morning of how a Maine legislator had proposed a seat belt law for dogs in passenger cars. The snowflake who proposed the law said he did it at the request of a constituent and removed the proposal at the request of the constituent…WINK-WINK!

Evidently there were two basic reasons for thinking of something so stupid. One was, of course, for the protection of the animal. Big deal. The second was to prohibit dogs from sitting on the laps of drivers as they cruise down the highway at 95 miles an hour, or attempt to manipulate around city traffic when the drivers are so inept at driving they can’t do it safely without a dog sitting on their lap. Perhaps the dog is a better driver. I know they are smarter.

But consider the truth in the matter. Dogs are but an animal…never intended to be as a person, living with a person and doing all person things – let me repeat that – doing all person things. Certainly dogs are not an endangered species. As a matter of fact, 99% of them should be killed and clean up the stinking, rotten messes they leave behind, along with their diseases. So, certainly we don’t need to protect the dogs.

On the other hand, there are the creatures that would choose to have a dog in their car and sitting on their lap. Aside from the risk involved with innocent people being caught up in the dog perversion of an owner not capable of separation anxiety by leaving the nasty thing home, let the dog and owner crash and burn. The man species is in danger of breeding itself into oblivion.

Cruel? Yes, but perhaps – but I doubt it – people might begin to understand how sick and perverted they are when it comes to their pets. Naw! What am I thinking. All they will think is how terrible I am to suggest such a thing and that I die from a million dog bites.

I walk alone.

Share

Wolf snatches puppy in ‘scared’ Swedish town

After a baby Jack Russell was snatched from his front yard by a wolf in central Sweden, the man who was dogsitting the puppy has told The Local that his town is growing scared about the number of attacks in the area.

Source: Wolf snatches puppy in ‘scared’ Swedish town – The Local

Share

Animal “Rights” is About Abolition, Not Animal Cruelty, Says Responsible Pet Owners Alliance of Texas

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance Press Release Words can hurt you if you ignore these extremists!  They’ve been telling us their agenda to end all interaction with animals for years, but few believed them. Animal “rights” groups profess to work for improved animal treatment while their ultimate goal is to abolish the following: 1) breeding and ownership of pets; 2) use of animals in biomedical research; 3) raising farm animals for food, clothing, by-products such as insulin; 4) use of animals in education and entertainment, including zoos, aquariums, circuses and rodeos; and 5) all forms of hunting (including field trial competition, trapping and fishing), according to Capital Research Center.  http://capitalresearch.org Gary Francione and Tom Regan, “A Movement’s Means Create Its Ends,” were quoted in Animals’ Agenda: “There are fundamental and profound differences between the philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights …  Thus welfare […]

Source: Animal “Rights” is About Abolition, Not Animal Cruelty, Says Responsible Pet Owners Alliance of Texas | Canine Chronicle

Share

Pope Francis Wants to Be Remembered as a ‘Good Guy’

Oh, OKAY! What a nice guy. Says people’s “values are twisted” citing data that indicates people spend for too much money on pets. He said that people prefer programming their dog or cat to love them but don’t want human reciprocating love. No kidding? WHAT A NICE GUY!

In a one-on-one interview this week with Argentinian journalist Juan Berretta, Pope Francis talked about his life prior to his election as pope, as well as what it has been like to fill the shoes of the “prince of the apostles.”

Source: Pope Francis Wants to Be Remembered as a ‘Good Guy’

Share

PETA Kills 88% of Dogs and Cats

Here we go again. A report filed by Infowars, states that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 88% of the dogs and cats they had taken in to “care for.”

PETA is a puke because they are lying hypocrites. As the article points out PETA hauls in millions of dollars, over $51 million last year, by promoting no animal killing and for “ethical” treatment of animals. (Ethics is what you do when nobody is looking, right? Ooops! Somebody peeked.)

So, here is where I am going to have everybody hating me. PETA supposedly took in 2,626 pets last year and killed 88% of them. Good for them. This country is overrun with dogs and cats. Oh yes, some people take very good care of their pets, yada, yada, yada but far too many people don’t. If people really loved their pets, they would do more to make sure that we aren’t overrun with nasty, rotten, disease-ridden pets. But they don’t. As a matter of fact, it is because of organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, that there are so many pets to begin with.

Let’s get rid of a few hundred thousands and better control and take care of the ones we have.

Share

Holy Cow! Holy Dog! Holy Cat! Holy Shithawk!

Humane Watch is calling out the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) for exploiting a nonexistent statement they claim the Pope made: “Dogs can go to heaven.”

But missing from the article and the criticism of HSUS for attempting to raise lots of money in order that people can go to heaven with their pets, is the big fat question of why the Pope thinks he knows what the Creator will allow or not allow in heaven? Who does the Pope think he is, gOD?

Share

Kitty Cats Missing – Searching for Explanation

In a small mid-Maine town, at least six people’s cats have come up among the missing, according to the Bangor Daily News. The owners of the cats are searching for both cats and an explanation for a seemingly odd and mysterious vanishing. I don’t think it’s all that odd.

Among some of the theories being talked about in this article as to what or who to blame, are foxes and mountain lions, and yet no mention of any member of the canine species other than the fox.

Of course there could be some pervert living in or visiting the neighborhood who has some kind of cat fetish, dead or alive, or maybe even an acquired taste for the little felines. However, it is, more than likely, the result of some larger predator/killer that’s hungry and/or very opportunistic.

There are no fewer than two sure bets when it comes to wild critters: they will always be hungry and they will always have to compete with man, mostly for space but also for food. There’s not a lot that can be done about space, although we try. Yeah, some say that man is swallowing up these critters’ habitat and that encroachment is ruining the dietary plans of some of these animals. While true, to some degree, I wonder if anyone has ever conducted a study that shows how man’s encroachment on the forests, fields and deserts, has increased usable habitat and foraging opportunities for wild animals, including birds? I’ll bet there’s a tradeoff, especially when you consider there are many more species of wild animals in this country than at any other time in recorded history.

All wild animals compete for habitat and food, whether with their own kind or another wild animal. In its most basic form, rational thinking will tell us that if there’s a food shortage, competition increases. On the same token, if the population of certain species increases, so does the competition for food. God forbid both happen at the same time.

Wild animals are, for the most part, opportunistic hunters/foragers. Let’s face it, our own human instinct is to go where we can get something we like to eat in the easiest possible manner available to us. Wild animals are no different.

If, as humans, we provide protection and food for wild animals, either intentionally or not, we will have visitors, some of which we might wish we didn’t have, as may be the explanation for missing cats.

Generally speaking, if wild critters have all the room they need and all the food to eat within that space, we as busy humans seldom, if ever, see them. It’s when circumstances change that six people will lose their cats, all in short period of time.

It sounds from reading the article that most of these kidnapped cat owners let their pets outside and unattended. This has probably been the norm and none have ever had much cause to think otherwise. If the cats became dinner fare for some predator/varmint, chances are something in the region changed that forced the wild critters to go seeking prey elsewhere.

We, as humans, can’t do much about changing natural circumstances that alter the behavior of wild animals, but we can do something about being responsible for managing specie populations to reduce these kinds of conflicts but more importantly to provide for healthy wildlife.

There will always be anomalies when dealing with the natural world, and this one occurrence may be just that. When it becomes a common event, chances are habitat is dwindling but more than likely populations are increasing. This happens mostly due to over-protection of a species. Over-protection is irresponsible behavior and does little good for the animal species and as a result, we see increases in the negative kinds of human/wildlife encounters. We also will usually see animal disease and starvation.

One example of what Maine citizens can do is not get caught up in the emotional rhetoric being provided by the Humane Society of the United States and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine, who want to effectively ban all methods necessary to properly and responsibly manage the black bear population.

As things stand at present, Maine has a very large and growing population of black bears. The ONLY humane methods of keeping those populations in check is through hunting and trapping. If those are removed, negative encounters between bears and humans will increase. Some of those encounters are sure to be tragic and, of course, unnecessary.

I’m not sure that kitty cats are at the top of the list of dietary delights for Ursus Americanus but taken to hunger due to a loss of food and/or population growth and competition, a bear will eat most anything it can get its paws onto……including humans.

Maine citizens should be thanking hunters and trappers for the healthy wildlife we all enjoy. In combination with intelligent wildlife management science, and the implementation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, an historically proven method of responsible wildlife management, all Maine citizens get to enjoy the results.

Nobody wants to see our own and/or our neighbors pets disappearing. One way to help ensure this doesn’t happen is to make sure that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife never have their hands tied up to a point where it prevents them from doing the best jobs they can in caring for our wild animals. Don’t let politics and private agendas dictate scientific wildlife management.

Share