|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Order Michael Finch’s new book, A Time to Stand: HERE. Prof. Jason Hill calls it “an aesthetic and political tour de force.”]
Liberals have long been considered the camp that champions animal rights (see: PETA), but that is no longer true today.
President Donald Trump and his administration have been leading the charge to curb the inhumane treatment of animals, starting in 2019 when the President made animal cruelty a federal crime.
Consider more recent action from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA had planned a phaseout of animal testing during President Trump’s first term, but those efforts were thwarted by the Biden administration. Now that President Trump is back in the White House, under EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, the ban against animal testing is being restored.
Similar moves are quietly happening across other federal agencies, including at the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.
In April, the FDA announced that it will replace animal testing with more effective, human-relevant methods, such as AI-based computational modeling.
In May, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya announced that the agency’s controversial Clinical Center in Bethesda—which was used for Anthony Fauci’s beagle tests—was being shut down.
(Over 2,000 beagles died during Fauci’s experiments, with each puppy costing between $1,000-$1,500, for a total of approximately $3.2 million in wasted taxpayer money.)
It’s about time.
Dogs in laboratories are kept in empty steel cages, often alone. They may be subjected to repeated surgeries; implanted with devices; force-fed drugs, pesticides (like Fauci’s beagles), or other substances; and then observed for harmful effects such as heart failure, cancer, or even death.
While a few fortunate dogs may be adopted afterward, most are killed.
Cruel, of course. But also worthless and unproductive.
As extensive evidence has shown, dogs are not good stand-ins for humans, and results from dog experiments can be misleading or inaccurate.
Which is why the Trump administration has moved on to AI, real-world human data, and other, more accurate, methodologies.
But there’s something else.
President Trump—who understands the American people better than any politician in modern history and has defied the political odds since he came down that escalator in 2015—understands that today, most Americans, including Republicans, simply do not approve of using dogs for experiments and animal cruelty in general.
The data agree.
A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of U.S. adults surveyed either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals.”
Another recent study found that 66 percent of Republicans support legislation requiring companies to use non-animal testing methods.
The sentiment goes beyond animal testing.
Eighty-eight percent (88 percent) of Americans support penalties against animal fighting.
Here is another area the Trump administration is leading under the directive of Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
Last month, former NFL player LeShon Johnson was convicted of operating a large dogfighting venture in Oklahoma. One hundred ninety dogs were taken, the largest number ever seized from a single individual in a federal dog fighting case.
“This case underscores the Department of Justice’s commitment to protecting animals from abuse,” said Bondi.
“The FBI will not stand for those who perpetuate the despicable crime of dogfighting,” added Patel.
The Trump administration is right to crack down animal fighting, which is one strand of a multi-faceted criminal ecosystem, oftentimes accompanying drug trafficking, money laundering and even human trafficking.
Bottom line: The politics of ending animal cruelty have changed and Republican leaders in the states would do well to follow President Trump’s lead.
Ban puppy mills. Phase out animal testing. Maintain and increase penalties against animal fighting. Take the easy political win, grab a couple positive headlines in the local paper, and hey, saving a few thousand puppies feels pretty good, too.
There are lots of islamic terrorists to run those tests on.
Much as I’d love to watch that, I doubt we’ll ever experiment on the Muzzies, as the data won’t help us at all: their nature has nothing in common with that of human beings.
People who abuse animals through pain, confinement, torture, experimentation, like the creeps at NIH and the Fauci Cabal, should be made to undergo the same tortures. And it’s generally the sick libs who engage in these practices.
Conservatism is intrinsically against animal cruelty, because it recognizes the worth of all creatures, and sees them as part of creation. Political leftists are lacking a creation theology that would justify their feigned passion for animal rights.
Does Trump know his beloved allies Qatar and other Muslims he cozies up to hate dogs and tend to starve and abuse dogs? Strange mix of issues, Pander to Qatar but
protect dogs
Don’t allow PETA to adopt or steal any pets since PETA has killed most of them while yammering to us all about Compassion and running around in stupid Costumes or going Naked and using Graphic Pictures and aiming junk like A Cows Life at the School Kids
Animals have no rights.
And if you begin to argue that they do then you will have to also argue that it is immoral and evil to kill and eat cows, pigs, chickens, turkey, fowl, fish, deer, and every and any kind of animal. And must be outlawed.
And to be morally consistent you will also have to argue that hunting animals is also immoral and evil and must also be outlawed.
What a low rent level of idiocy you finally sunk to. Fortunately, someone forgot to include you when they handed out animal rights. You basically sound like a leftist.
Perhaps you have finally realized your 3rd grade philosophy is not going to catch on.
You are our premier member of Abortions R Us. And since you don’t believe in human rights your idiot Mom should have thrown you in a bon fire, followed by herself.
If she had we wouldn’t have to put up with your pusillanimous opinions.
That presumes that human beings are natural vegetarians, which we are not!
However, that said, there are ways to take an animals life which do so in a way radically limiting suffering. Such are the dictates of Judaism’s kosher slaughtering mandates and in doing so these show a regard and appreciation for a life given for purposes of feeding human beings.
The abject torture of animals seems more in agreement with you in assigning little intrinsic value to their lives as you have also previously professed about abortion.
You are consistent but you egregiously fail to show yourself as having any kind of moral compass except that which fulfills your “rational” wants and desires. Rather than a moral, rational human being, you sound like an apex predator. Oh such are the moral confusions of the objectivist.