You'll find Henry Cohen stating that the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to farm animals. Then drop down to the USDA Symposium and the speech by Dr Lewis Smith stating that farm animals are outside the act but they are attempting bringing them into the act.
Hello all,
As you can read below the Animal Welfare Act when it was written (1966) was NEVER supposed to include FARM ANIMALS but these socialism supporters with the animal rights extremists organizations are trying to apply it to farm animals (livestock) and bring them under it as they try to destroy our Animal agriculture industries. Like I've been saying Socialist Progressives started trying to destroy America in the mid 1960's, the same damn socialist supporting radicals as Cloward and Piven to cause the economic collapse of America and at a federal level they're using the Democratic Party to do it.
Read it for yourself below.
Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.
The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the "crisis strategy" or the the "flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities strategy," the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants - more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism.
The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, put the Cloward-Piven strategy to work in the streets. Its activities led directly to the welfare crisis that bankrupted New York City in 1975.
Veterans of NWRO went on to found the Living Wage Movement and the Voting Rights Movement, both of which rely on the Cloward-Piven strategy and both of which are spear-headed by the radical cult ACORN.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor. By providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Cloward and Piven wanted to fan those flames. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system. The collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation. Poor people would rise in revolt. Only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands. So wrote Cloward and Piven in 1966. Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:
The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.
The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926-2001) and Frances Fox Piven
The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system.
THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
Henry Cohen*
I. Overview
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA)[1] is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to “promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors.”[2] The AWA also requires the Secretary to “promulgate standards to govern the transportation in commerce, and the handling, care, and treatment in connection therewith, by intermediate handlers, air carriers, or other carriers, of animals consigned by any . . . person . . . for transportation in commerce.”[3] The Secretary has delegated these duties to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in the USDA.By requiring standards to govern the treatment of animals by dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities, the AWA protects animals that are sold or transported in commerce,[4]exhibited in “carnivals, circuses, and zoos” (but not “retail pet stores, state and country [sic] fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, and purebred dog and cat shows”),[5] or experimented upon in laboratories, except that the AWA covers only about five or ten percent of laboratory animals. The reason that it covers only about five or ten percent of laboratory animals is that it defines “animal” to exclude rats and mice bred for research,[6] and rats and mice reportedly constitute 90[7] or 95[8] percent of animals used in research.[9] The AWA also does not cover farm animals,[10] of which more than 9 billion are slaughtered annually in the United States.[11]
The AWA requires every research facility to establish an Institutional Animal Committee of at least three members, at least one of whom shall not be affiliated in any way with the facility and who is intended to represent “general community interests in the proper care and treatment of animals.”[12] Federal research facilities must also establish Institutional Animal Committees.[13] The Committee’s responsibilities include to review practices involving pain to animals and to file a report that shall be available for inspection by APHIS and any funding federal agency.[14] The AWA also provides for the licensing of dealers and exhibitors, excluding “any retail pet store or other person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income . . . from the breeding and raising of dogs or cats on his own premises and sells any such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility.”[15] It also prohibits research facilities from purchasing dogs or cats from unlicensed dealers or exhibitors.[16]
The AWA effectively prohibits most commercial animal fighting, with a limited exception for bird fighting,[17] and prohibits dealers and exhibitors from selling or otherwise disposing of any dog or cat within five business days after they acquire it, except that this requirement does not apply to operators of auction sales.[18] It also requires public and private pounds and shelters, and research facilities licensed by the Department of Agriculture, to “hold and care for” any dog or cat they acquire for not less than five days.[19] Sanctions for violations of the AWA include license suspensions and revocations, civil penalties, and misdemeanor criminal penalties.[20]
This article will examine the original statute that became the Animal Welfare Act, and all its amendments, but does not note every provision in it, or every exception to every provision that it does note. It focuses on the statute itself, and not on APHIS regulations or case law. It will also examine the main provisions of recent bills that have been introduced in Congress but not, or not yet, enacted.
II. History
A. The 1966 Beginning
The statute addressed its first goal by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to issue licenses to dealers,[22] with “dealer” defined as any person who, for compensation, transports, buys, or sells dogs or cats in commerce for research purposes;[23] by prohibiting dealers from selling or buying dogs or cats to or from unlicensed dealers;[24] and by prohibiting dealers from selling or otherwise disposing of any dog or cat within five business days, or such other period as the Secretary specified, after acquiring it.[25] The statute also required research facilities that use dogs or cats to register with the Secretary,[26] prohibited research facilities from buying any dog or cat from anyone but a licensed dealer,[27] and prohibited unlicensed dealers from selling any dog or cat to a research facility.[28]
To address its second goal, the 1966 statute directed the Secretary of Agriculture to “promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers and research facilities,”[29] and required federal entities with laboratory animal facilities to comply with such standards.[30] The statute defined “animals” so that the standards applied to all the animals named above: dogs, cats, monkeys, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits.[31] The congressional committee reports that accompanied the statute did not explain why these particular species and no others were granted protection.
IV. Conclusion
The Animal Welfare Act’s failure to cover the more than 9 billion farm animals slaughtered annually in the United States, and failure to cover 90 or 95 percent of animals used in research, makes it an exaggeration to say that the United States has a general animal welfare act. The AWA is more like the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,[101] the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance, and Protection Act,[102] the Endangered Species Act,[103] or the Humane Slaughter Act,[104] all of which protect a limited number of species in particular ways. Like these statutes, the AWAbenefits some animals, but it does not prevent the most widespread violations of animal rights, including unnecessary experimentation and horrible factory-farm conditions, from being inflicted on most animals whom Congress could protect under its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
Below is a statement made during The proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture at USDA Center, held on September 12, 1996 in Riverdale, Maryland
Dr. Schwindaman:
We will continue on with Dr. Lew Smith who is with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Dr. Smith is the National Program Leader for Animal Nutrition.Dr. Lewis Smith, National Program Leader for Animal Nutrition, USDA, ARS:
Things have changed slowly, and in some cases things have not changed at all. I can remember back in the sixties, because I was with the Agricultural Research Service then. There was considerable concern among the scientists about the impact of how all those changes were going to affect farm animals. I need to point out that the majority of our research is with production farm animals, and as of yet, they are outside the Act although we do research and accept grants from agencies within the Act. I am only going to talk about the last ten years within the Agricultural Research Service because that's when things started to happen related to humane care in farm animals and how the we dealt with some of the concerns and issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment