Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘animals’

If you are a swan, Andrew, be a swan.


Commentary by Jonathan Turley | February 24, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/02/23/if-you-are-a-swan-andrew-be-a-swan/

I am returning today after speaking at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs about my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Last night, I was approached by a student named Andrew who asked whether he should just remain quiet at his college, where professors routinely slam conservatives and teach highly ideological views as gospel.  I went on a walk this morning around dawn and spotted this swan. I immediately thought of the young man who came up to me after my talk.

Andrew, when you find yourself surrounded by ducks, don’t try to be a duck.

There are three simple reasons. First, you will make a uniquely poor duck, and the flight South will be exhausting. Second, none of the other ducks are likely to believe that you are really a duck. Finally, and most importantly, you are not a migratory bird.  You only go through this life once and either live it on your own terms or live an inauthentic life.

We have discussed how the current orthodox and intolerant environment in higher education has resulted in a culture of self-censorship. (hereherehere, and here). Surveys show conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor. Even the largely liberal faculty at leading schools report self-censoring to avoid being targeted.

This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.

What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.

Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.

During the Harvard debate, I raised the gradual reduction of conservatives and libertarians in the student body and the faculty.

The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Only  5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).

So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.

Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.

While Professor Kennedy dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one-third of the voters still identify as Republican.

The student body shows the same selection bias. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative, but the latest survey shows that number at 9 percent.

Some faculty members are wringing their hands over this continued hostile environment. However, the faculty as a whole is unwilling to restore free speech and intellectual diversity by adding conservative and libertarian faculty members and sponsoring events that reflect a broad array of viewpoints.

Given my respect for Professor Kennedy, I was surprised that he dismissed the sharp rise in students saying that they did not feel comfortable speaking in classes. Referring to them as “conservative snowflakes,” he insisted that they had to have the courage of their convictions.

This ignores the fact that they depend upon professors for recommendations, and challenging the school’s orthodoxy can threaten their standing. Moreover, a recent survey shows that even liberal students feel chilled in the environment created by Harvard faculty and administrators.

In other words, these are ducks surrounded by ducks who are still afraid of quacking out of turn.

Even a mute swan is actually not mute and are known to trumpet when other animals (including humans) threaten their nests or cygnets.

In other words, Andrew, if you are a swan, be a swan.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Grant Atkinson Op-ed: Fauci Agency Spent Over $1M to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords so They Couldn’t Bark: New Report


Commentary By Grant Atkinson  October 6, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/fauci-agency-spent-1m-poison-beagle-puppies-cut-vocal-cords-couldnt-bark-new-report/

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been propped up by the left as a savior throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. If leftists wrote a Marvel superhero movie, former President Donald Trump would be like Thanos, and Fauci is supposed to be some sort of Avenger who saves that day. The problem with that picture is that as far as I’m aware, Avengers are not supposed to brutally murder puppies and mutilate their bodies.

According to a watchdog group called the White Coat Waste Project, that is exactly what the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases did under the leadership of Fauci.

“Documents obtained by WCW through the Freedom of Information Act show that Fauci’s division at the National Institutes of Health ordered cruel and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on dogs and other animals that cost taxpayers $1.68 million,” the group said in a Tuesday news release.

This follows an August report that NIAID sent $424,455 in taxpayer money to the University of Georgia in September 2020 for research that would infect beagles with parasites so that an experimental drug could be tested on them.

In that research, documents obtained by WCW show at least 28 beagles were set to be infected with the parasites for three months. Afterward, they would be euthanized and their blood would be collected. The research was supposed to be completed by January 2022, but it is unclear whether the beagles were euthanized, according to the Daily Caller.

According to the new report from the Daily Caller, additional animal research took place between October 2018 and February 2019. These experiments reportedly included 44 beagle puppies aged 6-8 months who were given experimental drugs through either injection or force-feeding.

Afterward, WCW said the dogs were killed and dissected, supposedly for “research.”

In addition, NIAID paid for the abused puppies to have cordectomies, meaning part or all of their vocal cords were removed. WCW said Fauci’s division paid for these procedures so the puppies “couldn’t bark in the lab while they were being abused.”

NIAID defended the horrific treatment in its documents by saying the experiments were conducted to “provide data of suitable quality and integrity, in order to support applications to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies,” according to the Daily Caller.

In July, WCW told KABC-TV that human drugs were being tested on puppies because of a 1930s law requiring drugs to be tested on animals before humans.

However, when KABC reached out to the FDA for comment, the agency said it “requires that an FDA-approved medical product must be demonstrated to be safe and effective,” but “does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.”

This implies that NIAID’s reckless animal testing was conducted by choice, not out of obligation.

The timing of this new information is particularly ironic for Fauci. On Monday’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson revealed Fauci had candles in his own home depicting himself as a saint.

“Tony Fauci isn’t just the high priest of Fauci-ism. He’s also a true believer himself,” Carlson said.

The very next day, Fauci was revealed to have overseen experiments brutalizing innocent puppies. Somehow, that doesn’t seem to be very “saint-like” behavior.

“People are naming puppies after Anthony Fauci, but he’s actually dogs’ and taxpayers’ worst nightmare,” WCW vice president of advocacy and public policy Justin Goodman told the Daily Caller.

“From poisoning puppies here at home to funding gain-of-function experiments in China, the government’s highest-paid employee has proven he can’t be trusted to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly. With NIH director Francis Collins retiring, Fauci should be the next one to go.”

Grant Atkinson, Associate Reporter

Grant is a graduate of Virginia Tech with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He has five years of writing experience with various outlets and enjoys covering politics and sports.

Sickening: Senator Who Voted Against Protecting Babies Sponsors Bill To Save Kittens


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published March 16, 2019 at 8:44am

Please don’t get me wrong. I like kittens. Cats, well, maybe not so much; I don’t see why you would keep and feed something that won’t even come when you call it and whose only trick is the ability to go to the bathroom in a pile of sand. But kittens, they’re adorable. I think we can all agree on that. I think we can also agree on the fact that kittens are less important than babies. No matter how cute the kitten, no matter how meme-worthy it is, human babies take precedence.

So, why is it that Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon introduced a bill that would save the lives of kittens used in research less than a month after helping Democrats successfully block legislation that would protect babies born alive during abortions?

According to NBC News, Merkley’s law was designed “to prevent the Department of Agriculture from continuing deadly experiments on kittens.”

“The agency has been breeding kittens in Beltsville, Maryland, and infecting them with a parasite that can cause toxoplasmosis, a foodborne illness. Scientists harvest the parasites from their stool for two to three weeks, and then euthanize and incinerate the cats,” they reported.

“The USDA’s decision to slaughter kittens after they are used in research is an archaic practice and horrific treatment, and we need to end it,” Merkley said in a statement.

There were plenty of great soundbites from advocates of the bill, including one individual from a watchdog group who called it “taxpayer-funded kitten slaughter.” (If there’s some sort of award for political blurb of the year, I would urge the judges to please consider that one seriously.)

“The USDA’s archaic kitten experiments are out of step with 21st-century research practices and animal welfare recommendations,” Hannah Shaw, founder of animal advocacy group Kitten Lady, said.

“Continuing to breed and kill perfectly healthy kittens for toxoplasmosis research is unethical and unnecessary, and I’m grateful to Senator Merkley for introducing the KITTEN Act to stop it once and for all.”

When it comes to animal welfare, however, Merkley is a bit less concerned about Homo sapiens.

The Oregon senator, as TheBlaze noted, was just one of the Democrats who blocked the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The bill would have extended protections for babies born alive during an abortion procedure, something that’s increasingly important now that we’ve seen states such as New York and Vermont pass bills which allows greater latitude when it comes to late-term abortions. (Oh, and there was that whole Ralph Northam kerfuffle we’ve all seemingly forgot about, too.)

In a statement, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins discussed the cruel paradox in Merkley’s votes.

“What do cats have that newborn babies don’t? Democrats’ support,” he wrote.

“In one of the sickest ironies no one is talking about, Senate liberals picked this moment — 17 days after they voted to kill America’s perfectly healthy infants — to fight for the humane treatment of kittens. Maybe the DNC’s strategists are out to lunch, or maybe the Left really is this shameless, but I can’t wait to see some of these politicians standing on debate platforms next year telling the American people that when it comes to protecting living things: We chose cats over kids.”

“‘The KITTEN Act will protect these innocent animals from being needlessly euthanized in government testing,’Merkley told reporters, ‘and make sure that they can be adopted by loving families instead.’Does he even hear himself? They should be treated and adopted? That’s exactly what Americans have requested for living, breathing babies. Democrats said no. Killing a child is a ‘personal decision,’ they said, and Congress shouldn’t get in the way.”

But then, the Democrats have decided to plant their flag upon abortion rights: Any sort of restriction upon the ability of a woman to get an abortion on demand and for the baby to be killed — no matter what — is automatically an interference in a decision that should only be made by a woman and her doctor.

Felines, however, are another story. They need protection. So goes the modern, tone-deaf Democrat Party, unwilling to protect babies born alive during an abortion but ready to expend political capital upon kittens.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Tag Cloud