Here are two quick videos that say it all about the importance of the 2nd Amendment, and why gun control is such a bad idea.
First a quick definition of the 2nd amendment, by Penn and Teller, one bad word at the end, but for once in is used perfectly to describe the true nature of gun control nuts.
Then of course, who can forget one of the most famous supporters of the Constitution and especially the 2nd amendment but Charlton Heston:
And what bugs me most about this whole push for gun control, is that law makers are telling women to run to a call box, use a pen, or blow a whistle in the event of rape. What gives them the right to dictate to women what they should use to protect themselves? I thought it was all about "my body, my choice", so what if "my choice" to defend "my body" is a gun? Shouldn't law makers be in support of that choice?
I wish I was lying, but they prefer killing animals instead of adopting them out to good homes. As far as I can tell, they want all animals to run free. They obviously don't value humans. Think I'm wrong?
What PETA does not tell you is that it doesn’t much like pets — which it sees to view as a form of animal slavery. Nor does it tell you that it euthanizes — kills — some 85% of the animals it rescues. As an organization, it tends to believe an animal is better dead than living with a human being. As far back as 2008, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) to have PETA officially reclassified as a “slaughterhouse.”
.........
These statistics are available through Virginia’s Sunshine Law and, as incredible as some may find it, since 1998, of 31,815 animals (mostly dogs and cats) admitted to PETA shelters, only 3,159 were adopted — and 27,751 were killed. That’s 9.7% adoption rate and an 87.2% kill rate — a ghastly record for an organization purporting to work on behalf of animals. What it indicates is a view that if an animal isn’t free and in the wild, it is better off dead. But wait, it get’s worse. Since 2006 the PETA adoption rate has dropped precipitously, the kill rate risen dramatically. In 2006, of 3,061 animals admitted to PETA’s shelter, 12 (0.39%) were adopted, 2,981 (97.49%) were euthanized. Last year — 2011 — some 1,992 animals were admitted, 24 were adopted (1.2%) and 1,911 (95.9%) were killed. And this is just Virginia.
I have blogged about this before, so it is not new. It's amazing how people want to believe that these organizations actually save animals, and when you present the facts to them, they refuse to believe it. They are like the deluded people who still believe in global warming, no matter how many scientists tell them that the earth has not warmed for 15 years. Is it stupidity or just a desire to feel like they are supporting a cause that makes them feel good, like they are doing something for society?
You can not "do something" for society if you refuse to look at the real facts. PETA kills dogs and cats and any other animal they "rescue" from science labs. Worse, they support violence. Fire bombing a science lab, is justified by these activists because animals are meant to be free. Well tell that to the people living in the Arctic who have to live with one of the most vicious predators on earth, the polar bear. They at least have the reason of survival to kill. PETA kills because they think the animal is better off dead than with a loving family. Remember how they wanted to kill Knut? They are sick.
Still think I'm lying about PETA? Watch this all the way through.
Bad Language Warning!
One of PETA's own executives is only alive because of insulin, but it's okay for her to benefit from animals because she has a mission? What a hypocrite. They are fine with violence, because their cause is "pure" and "noble". BS.
Do not ever give this puppy/kitten killing organization any money, ever again. Don't let their protests fool you. Make them inject that next puppy with the killing drugs they are so fond of administering. Maybe we should start raiding their premises to save all those cats and dogs from the freezer.
PETA kills puppies and kittens, they don't save them.
Water should be a human right! Yes, you heard me, a human right, so says Maude Barlow, Chairperson, of the Council for Canadians. So forget about global warming. H2O is the new flavour of the month/century.
Not content to rely on the global warming scare tactics, the lefties are protesting water. I've searched their site to see what they are doing about it, other than bleating to the UN trying to get a resolution passed, I can't find any evidence that they have actually dug one well in Africa.
What the site seems to promote, is well, Maude Barlow. It's all Maude, all the time.
“The farms surround Lake Naivasha. They deplete its waters and poison them with pesticides,” said Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “They are sowing the seeds of economic and environmental devastation that, unless stopped, inevitably will yield a harvest of poverty, water deprivation, and violence.
So right, let's target businesses who are employing people, who can then feed their families. She has help.
Access to clean, fresh water is essential for people and nature, and the UN is starting to take note. In September 2007, at the 6th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Canadian Louise Arbour, presented her report outlining states’ obligations under the right to water.
Madame Arbour’s report called for stronger regulations governing water companies, including penalties for corporations that commit human rights abuses and restrict people’s right to water.
Maybe Maude should look closer to home. Oh wait, she has!
This is what they want to do to Alberta!
Nationalize Oil - Gordon Laxer, Parkland Institute Director and member of the Board of Directors of the Council of Canadians. The Current for May 3, 2007 (CBC Radio)(scroll down the page to "Listen to The Current: Part 1")
Well that should go over well with Albertans, a NEP II, lovely.
How about food for people? With global warming, they must be really concerned about food, nope, last news release about food was in January of 2006. Guess they are too busy advocating about water to care that people are starving.
MEXICO CITY - If you’re seeing your grocery bill go up, you’re not alone.
From subsistence farmers eating rice in Ecuador to gourmets feasting on escargot in France, consumers worldwide face rising food prices in what analysts call a perfect storm of conditions. Freak weather is a factor. But so are dramatic changes in the global economy, including higher oil prices, lower food reserves and growing consumer demand in China and India.
Here's a suggestion lefties, go up to the Arctic, harness that melting polar ice, maybe the polar bears can help you, and send it to Africa, problem solved. What's that? You only advocate, you don't actually DO anything? How about signing petitions?
Like this one:
Right, that's what I thought! Try finding out who the Council of Canadians get their money from, it's sure not in their Annual Report, which reads more like a press release than financial statements. Guess lefties know nothing about accounting, only advocating. Oh, they do has lessons for teachers, so they can brainwash our kids. Nice.
Polar bears are said to be the next to be put on the endangered species list by the US. All the evidence points to the fact that the polar bear population is increasing, but that doesn't stop the environmentalists. Here is Penn and Teller's take on the endangered species law. (Language warning)
Conservation groups such as the Sierra Club backed Markey's proposal.
"It doesn’t make sense to open prime polar bear habitat to oil drilling when the animal is under consideration for federal protection," Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said in a statement. "It’s like locking your car doors and leaving all the windows down."
But Markey has his critics as well.
"The push to list polar bears under the Endangered Species Act is not really about protecting wildlife," Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in a statement. "Rather, the goal is to implement regulatory controls on energy use that global warming alarmists have failed to convince Congress to enact."
So is it really about those "poor" polar bears, or is it about environmentalists and how they hate corporations. How about we send those environmentalists to the middle east or african countries, I suspect they would be happy to be back in the 18th century.
