Interesting Plan Of Attack Suggested
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Thanks to authors like Saul Alinsky (“Rules For Radicals”), David Horowitz (“The Art of Political War…”) and David Kahane (“Rules for Radical Conservatives”) the leftist’s approach of attacking their intended victims, while positioning themselves as the moral arbitrators of goodness and rightness is a clearly clarified tactic. This line of attack was again demonstrated with an e-mail that arrived recently in my computer mailbox from someone identified as Charlie Arnot of the Center for Food Integrity.
The e-mail sought to vilify the push-back coming in various agricultural states where animal agriculture was presented on television and in YouTube presentations with spy footage from an animal rights secret video of animal abuse…or at least the edited presentations which portray what the advocates for not having animal agriculture exist want to have the public believe is animal abuse.
According to Mr. Arnot’s line of thinking, legislation, which would protect a person’s property from unauthorized entry and videotaping, is going to undermine consumer trust in today’s food system. Evidently it is now a right of the public to encourage trespassing zealots, to prowl for damaging video footage to splash across whatever screen they can make their way to in order to line their coffers with donations and forwarding their anti-animal owners agenda. Make no mistake, they would claim, animal owners (including -- or especially -- agricultural producers) are guilty of mistreatment – we just have to catch them in the act with our own version of candid camera…
In classic Saul Alinsky strategy, the Arnot piece even went on to equate the need for filming animal abuse in the same fashion as it is to the public’s right to have willful elder or child abuse put on video for display.
When animal abuse is found, it should be dealt with in accord with the extremely strong measures that current law already provides. Having the ability to have prosecution of these wrongs doesn’t include a free license to portray every animal owner as an abuser waiting to be caught doing something wrong on video tape.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t fit into the animal rights agenda to have video tapes of well-cared for livestock, fed and cared for in accord with sound management principles (because that’s actually the way farmers and ranchers make a living).
Maybe in the spirit of open, transparency we should require all the strategy meetings and financial documents of animal rights organizations to be broadcast and made available in order for their next ulterior plans to be made public knowledge? That way we, as the public, would be assured that they aren’t doing anything nefarious…our confidence that they aren’t money-grubbing, manipulative, storm-troopers would be relaxed.
Coming out of the 2011 Nevada Legislature and having had the opportunity to participate in a number of legislative hearings where Nevada’s animal rights champions maneuvered their increased government-control agenda through the process (mostly geared to sensationalizing and legislating their anti-pet owners schemes) it is clear that they believe themselves entitled and emboldened to come after all animal owners.
Determining and implementing a response to this assault may need to take the form of pursuing solutions which further enhance protection of private property owners from animal rights voyeurs. It is also becoming more evident that we need to institute strong legislative intentions in state laws which maintain animal ownership principles and recognizes necessary protections for animal owners to persevere their property rights while pursing sound animal care management activities.
Thanks to authors like Saul Alinsky (“Rules For Radicals”), David Horowitz (“The Art of Political War…”) and David Kahane (“Rules for Radical Conservatives”) the leftist’s approach of attacking their intended victims, while positioning themselves as the moral arbitrators of goodness and rightness is a clearly clarified tactic. This line of attack was again demonstrated with an e-mail that arrived recently in my computer mailbox from someone identified as Charlie Arnot of the Center for Food Integrity.
The e-mail sought to vilify the push-back coming in various agricultural states where animal agriculture was presented on television and in YouTube presentations with spy footage from an animal rights secret video of animal abuse…or at least the edited presentations which portray what the advocates for not having animal agriculture exist want to have the public believe is animal abuse.
According to Mr. Arnot’s line of thinking, legislation, which would protect a person’s property from unauthorized entry and videotaping, is going to undermine consumer trust in today’s food system. Evidently it is now a right of the public to encourage trespassing zealots, to prowl for damaging video footage to splash across whatever screen they can make their way to in order to line their coffers with donations and forwarding their anti-animal owners agenda. Make no mistake, they would claim, animal owners (including -- or especially -- agricultural producers) are guilty of mistreatment – we just have to catch them in the act with our own version of candid camera…
In classic Saul Alinsky strategy, the Arnot piece even went on to equate the need for filming animal abuse in the same fashion as it is to the public’s right to have willful elder or child abuse put on video for display.
When animal abuse is found, it should be dealt with in accord with the extremely strong measures that current law already provides. Having the ability to have prosecution of these wrongs doesn’t include a free license to portray every animal owner as an abuser waiting to be caught doing something wrong on video tape.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t fit into the animal rights agenda to have video tapes of well-cared for livestock, fed and cared for in accord with sound management principles (because that’s actually the way farmers and ranchers make a living).
Maybe in the spirit of open, transparency we should require all the strategy meetings and financial documents of animal rights organizations to be broadcast and made available in order for their next ulterior plans to be made public knowledge? That way we, as the public, would be assured that they aren’t doing anything nefarious…our confidence that they aren’t money-grubbing, manipulative, storm-troopers would be relaxed.
Coming out of the 2011 Nevada Legislature and having had the opportunity to participate in a number of legislative hearings where Nevada’s animal rights champions maneuvered their increased government-control agenda through the process (mostly geared to sensationalizing and legislating their anti-pet owners schemes) it is clear that they believe themselves entitled and emboldened to come after all animal owners.
Determining and implementing a response to this assault may need to take the form of pursuing solutions which further enhance protection of private property owners from animal rights voyeurs. It is also becoming more evident that we need to institute strong legislative intentions in state laws which maintain animal ownership principles and recognizes necessary protections for animal owners to persevere their property rights while pursing sound animal care management activities.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/29/2011 6:27 AM 
Categories: Animal Rights
Tags: Agriculture Animal Agricultural Production Animal Care
Categories: Animal Rights
Tags: Agriculture Animal Agricultural Production Animal Care
At some point in our animal ownership lives a realization will happen that we are under attack just because we have, own, and foster animals!
We are being attacked from every possible angle; legally, morally, and personally.
We need to fend off these attacks by being involved in the process.
Not everybody can be an observer, not anymore.
We need watchmen, for sure, but we need those who will respond as well.
I’m not advocating any violence, but I am advocating the use of your knowledge, the grit that makes you who you are, and your rights and obligation to defend it.
Doug’s message is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is an imminent danger call.
If you want your rights, you need to let everyone know… and loudly!
Reply to this