Why The ASPCA, Anti-Cruelty Society, PETA, And Others Must Stop Investigating Animal Abuse

If the ASPCA, Anti-Cruelty Society, PETA and others want to help abused animals, they must immediately stop conducting their own investigations and instead become advocates for a proper and widespread response to animal cruelty by public law enforcement.

This is a repeat of some information previously provided, but it is critically important for understanding why these organizations should not be investigating or responding to animal cruelty.

.................................................................................................................................................................

Violent crimes can happen any time, any place. Only public law enforcement is available 24 hours a day most everywhere to respond. No one else is as capable of responding to crimes in progress.

Crimes in progress, especially violent crimes, must receive an appropriate, timely response.

If domestic violence, for example, is not responded to by public law enforcement, and if responding to domestic violence is left in the hands of special teams and private nonprofit organizations, there will be an explosion of domestic violence. If police do not respond appropriately to in progress domestic violence calls and if the public relies upon private organizations and special teams to do investigations, practically every domestic violence offender will never get arrested and the crime will grow exponentially.

This is how it is when it comes to dog fighting and animal cruelty. When these crimes are in progress, the public law enforcement response is poor, with few exceptions. The acceptance that animal cruelty and dog fighting can be investigated after the fact while accepting a poor response when the crimes are in progress means almost all animal cruelty and dog fighting offenders never get arrested.

Victims of violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, cannot wait for special police teams or animal organization humane investigators to respond.

Dog fighting and animal cruelty are poorly responded to when in progress, and rarely responded to appropriately when on viewed by public law enforcement. The advocacy needed for this to change has been nonexistent for decades now. If violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, are not responded to properly when in progress, and if they are ignored when police on view these crimes, then the crimes grow unchecked.

What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Animal organizations and so called animal advocates should have long been at the forefront ensuring proper police responses. Every effort that diverts from this being achieved benefits animal abusers and dog fighters.

Most humane investigators do not have law enforcement powers, which makes their investigations toothless at best. Those that do have law enforcement powers - whether they are employed by private sector nonprofit organizations or are assigned by police departments to investigate animal cruelty -  do little more than give larger public law enforcement an excuse to continue doing little to nothing about animal cruelty and dog fighting. Token police teams assigned by a police department or by an animal organization to investigate animal cruelty are little more than public relations ploys that enable police departments and other public law enforcement to continue poorly responding to animal cruelty related crimes.

It is often ineffective, even harmful, when animal abuse and dog fighting are investigated by special police teams or by humane investigators fielded by non profit animal organizations. Many are the times where animal abusers and dog fighters move their animals to another location after getting paid a visit by a humane investigator or another investigator.


Humane investigators can play a role in helping animals. They can assist people that have animals that are not properly cared for in the many instances where animal care needs to be improved but does not rise to the level of criminal animal cruelty or abuse. They must stop conducting criminal investigations they have no business conducting.

No animal organization has any business investigating animal cruelty. They have created a false impression that something meaningful is being done about animal cruelty and dog fighting. The more the public thinks they are the answer to animal cruelty, the more money pours their way in donations.

If animal organizations want to help, they must become advocates for police to respond appropriately and in a widespread manner to animal cruelty and dog fighting. They can also assist police departments in removing animals from crime scenes if needed and by providing shelter if needed for the animals until a judge decides if the seizure is justified. Because this does not keep the illusion going that certain animal organizations are the answer to animal cruelty, this does not happen.

The dysfunctional status quo means dog fighters have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested for dog fighting. Few animals abusers are arrested despite animal cruelty being a common occurring widespread crime. Animal cruelty is an easy crime for police to enforce, if things ever change for the better and there is a widespread appropriate police response to animal cruelty, in that the physical evidence of the crime is most often visible and easy to document.

Sadistic people continue burning, starving, torturing, fighting, beating, and mutilating animals with rarely anything being done to stop them.

No anti domestic violence or anti drunk driving organization conducts their own criminal investigations. Instead, they advocate for police to respond broadly and appropriately to those crimes. If they investigated these crimes on their own and did not hold police accountable, domestic violence and drunk driving would be out of control.

What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Animal organizations must advocate to make this happen. Everything else, token anti animal abuse police teams, humane investigators, nonprofit animal organizations' anti cruelty investigations, and so forth, are only ineffective window dressing that maintains a dysfunctional status quo.

The priority for all crimes, animal cruelty, dog fighting, domestic violence, battery and so forth, is for a timely and appropriate police response when these crimes are in progress. Failing to respond appropriately to in progress crimes and crimes that are on viewed by law enforcement, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, means missing the most critically important opportunities for stopping these crimes.

Is it ethical for a private nonprofit organization to investigate any crime, including animal cruelty, when the public already pays through their taxes for public law enforcement to perform this task?  If public law enforcement is not properly doing their job in responding to a crime, including for animal cruelty, then it is the responsibility for an organization concerned about animal cruelty to ensure that that there is a better police response. No organization should use the poor police response as the excuse for why they should be the ones investigating a crime. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The poor police response is exploited by a number of animal organizations, who use this opportunity to present themselves as the answer to animal cruelty. By presenting themselves as the answer to animal cruelty, they create a false narrative that generates money and publicity for themselves.

No animal organization, even if they were far more successful and competent than they are now at responding to animal cruelty, can come anywhere close in effectiveness to what public law enforcement can achieve.

To repeat the same message said for decades now to these organizations, only to fall on deliberately deaf ears -  help animals, stop investigating animal cruelty and instead be advocates that fight for the police to respond appropriately.

Social Media's Attack On Religious Freedom And Free Speech

Social media corporations have been the greediest profiteers of hate, bigotry and incitement towards violence. After receiving a backlash, and under fear of finally being regulated, they have now become the greediest non government destroyers of free speech and religious freedom.

Religious freedom, a concept they fail to understand, includes not only the freedom to worship a religion, but also the freedom to criticize, reject, and challenge religious ideas and beliefs.

Social media corporations are not mere platforms, and must stop being treated as such.

Ideas critical of how plastic pollution is responded to by some of the organizations that claim to be against plastic pollution meant a permanent block by one social media giant with no avenue to contest their block. The social media giants explanation for the block reads as follows: "Your message couldn't be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive".

Under the broad umbrella of the term abusive, social media corporations grant themselves unlimited powers of censorship. Social media corporations fail miserably at screening out content that promotes hate, bigotry and violent incitement. They arbitrarily block content and close accounts that have nothing to do with hate, bigotry and incitement to violence without providing any real avenue to contest such decisions.

Social media corporations must be regulated like utilities. They never should have been allowed to become monopolies. They are poorly regulated and must be reigned in. They are incapable of self regulation, and should no longer be afforded this opportunity.

Also, a special tax must be levied upon them in order to fund an independent organization responsible for final determinations regarding when content promotes hate, bigotry and incitement towards violence and must be removed, and when social media arbitrarily blocks content that someone or some organization finds objectionable but that does not promote hate, bigotry and incitement towards violence

Regulate the monopolies like a utility. Tax them to create an independent organization that makes final decisions regarding content. The days of social media giants making freedom of speech and religion decisions behind closed doors, accountable to no one, with no legitimate avenues of appeal made available, must end.

Why Dog Fighters And Animal Abusers Are Rarely Arrested

Why Dog Fighters And Animal Abusers Are Rarely Arrested

Violent crimes can happen any time, any place. Only public law enforcement is available 24 hours a day most everywhere to respond. No one else is as capable of responding to crimes in progress.

Crimes in progress, especially violent crimes, must receive an appropriate, timely response.

If domestic violence, for example, is not responded to by public law enforcement, and if responding to domestic violence is left in the hands of special teams and private nonprofit organizations, there will be an explosion of domestic violence. If police do not respond appropriately to in progress domestic violence calls and if the public relies upon private organizations and special teams to do investigations, practically every domestic violence offender will never get arrested and the crime will grow exponentially.

This is how it is when it comes to dog fighting and animal cruelty. When these crimes are in progress, the public law enforcement response is poor, with few exceptions. The acceptance that animal cruelty and dog fighting can be investigated after the fact while accepting a poor response when the crimes are in progress means almost all animal cruelty and dog fighting offenders never get arrested.

Victims of violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, cannot wait for special police teams or animal organization humane investigators to respond.

Dog fighting and animal cruelty are poorly responded to when in progress, and rarely responded to appropriately when on viewed by public law enforcement. If violent crimes are not responded to properly when in progress, and if they are ignored when police on view these crimes, then the crimes grow unchecked.

Some make the argument that police have more important things to worry about than animal cruelty and dog fighting. Police are supposed to respond to crime. Ignoring an entire category of crime, and a violent one at that such as dog fighting and animal cruelty, is harmful in a multiplicity of ways. Poor enforcement of crimes against animals is harmful for the animals that are made to suffer, for the children that become immune to cruelty by watching or committing animal cruelty, and for society at large by allowing cruelty and criminal violence to go unchecked.

Responding to animal cruelty does not mean other crimes get ignored. How in progress calls are responded to depends on the nature and severity of the crimes that are occurring. When no priority is given to dog fighting and animal cruelty, violent offenders fight, abuse, beat, burn, mutilate, starve and torture animals. It is that much easier for them to take the next step and do the same to people.

The broken window theory of crime is very much in play, but too often is dismissed when the crimes that should be enforced are considered inconvenient.

It is often ineffective, even harmful, when animal abuse and dog fighting are investigated by special police teams or by humane investigators fielded by non profit animal organizations. Many are the times where animal abusers and dog fighters move their animals to another location after getting paid a visit by a humane investigator or another investigator.

What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Every effort that diverts from this being achieved benefits animal abusers and dog fighters.

Most humane investigators do not have law enforcement powers, which makes their investigations toothless at best. Those that do have law enforcement powers - whether they are employed by private sector nonprofit organizations or are assigned by police departments to investigate animal cruelty -  do little more than give larger public law enforcement an excuse to continue doing little to nothing about animal cruelty and dog fighting. Token police teams assigned by a police department or by an animal organization to investigate animal cruelty are little more than public relations ploys that enable police departments and other public law enforcement to poorly respond to animal cruelty related crimes.

Humane investigators can play a role in helping animals. They can assist people that have animals that are not properly cared for in the many instances where animal care needs to be improved but does not rise to the level of actual animal cruelty or abuse. They must stop conducting criminal investigations they have no business conducting.

No animal organization has any business investigating animal cruelty. They have created a false impression that something meaningful is being done about animal cruelty and dog fighting. The more the public thinks they are the answer to animal cruelty, the more money pours their way in donations.

If animal organizations want to help, they must become advocates for police to respond appropriately and in a widespread manner to animal cruelty and dog fighting. They can also assist police departments in removing animals from crime scenes if needed and by providing shelter if needed for the animals until a judge decides if the seizure is justified. Because this does not keep the illusion going that certain animal organizations are the answer to animal cruelty, this does not happen.

The advocacy needed to ensure a proper police response to animal cruelty and dog fighting is virtually nonexistent. Victims of drunk driving and domestic violence are fortunate that the advocates that fight for proper police responses to those crimes are not the same as the advocates that claim to speak for abused animals.

Dog fighters continue to have little to fear. They know there are few in law enforcement that will do anything to stop them.

Dog fighters have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested for dog fighting. Few animals abusers are arrested despite animal cruelty being a common occurring widespread crime. Animal cruelty is an easy crime for police to enforce, if things ever change for the better, in that the physical evidence of the crime is most often visible and easy to document.

The 911 record of the police response to animal cruelty and dog fighting is public record. A number of so called animal advocates and animal organizations and so called investigative reporters refused to look at that record and see for themselves how often animals are abused, fought, mutilated, starved, beaten, tortured and so forth, with hardly ever receiving a timely or appropriate police response.

Children, teenagers and sadistic adults continue burning, starving, torturing, fighting, beating, and mutilating animals with rarely anything being done to stop them.

For decades animal organizations and animal advocates were begged to be advocates for animals by fighting for a proper police response to animal cruelty. Certain animal organizations were begged to stop conducting investigations. No anti domestic violence or anti drunk driving organization conducts their own criminal investigations. Instead, they advocate for police to respond broadly and appropriately to those crimes.

What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Everything else, token anti animal abuse police teams, humane investigators, nonprofit animal organizations' anti cruelty investigations, and so forth, are only ineffective window dressing that maintains a dysfunctional status quo.

The priority for all crimes, animal cruelty, dog fighting, domestic violence, battery and so forth, is for a timely and appropriate police response when these crimes are in progress. Failing to respond appropriately to in progress crimes and crimes that are on viewed by law enforcement, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, means missing the most critically important opportunities for stopping these crimes.

Wall Street Divorced From Reality

No one knows yet where the coronavirus pandemic will lead. The stock market acts like all is well and the pandemic is nothing but a minor crisis. Maybe the pandemic will prove to be no worse than a bad flu outbreak. No one knows yet. Having made the stock market the only game in town means propping it up no matter what. Perhaps the next step to keep the rally going will be for the federal government to print trillions of more dollars and outright buy stocks.

The coronavirus pandemic may prove far more damaging to human health and world economies than stock markets indicate. Hopefully not, but only time will tell the true story. Not stock markets.

In developing countries, lockdowns mean food shortages. Millions of impoverished people in developing countries are going hungry from the food shortages caused by lockdowns. The world's religious, political and economic structures are not strong enough to prevent or withstand pandemics, droughts, wars and all the human caused environmental destruction.

The state of the world is not reflected in stock markets. The real measures of wealth, including healthy environments, biodiversity, religious and political stability and freedom, are declining. The stock market rising in the middle of a pandemic is yet another indicator of how divorced it is from reality.

A Plan To End Social Media's Hate Dissemination And Free Speech Clampdown

No major media outlet gives hate, bigotry and violence the platform that social media corporations provide. Newspapers, television, cable and other media outlets are responsible for content and cannot use the excuse that they are mere platforms. 

The screening that social media corporations now say they apply - their anemic response to having become the world's greediest disseminators of hate and bigotry - is arbitrary and inadequate. It also fails to distinguish between legitimate criticism and hate dissemination. 

A tax should be levied on these corporations. The money collected should be used to fund an independent organization beholden to no one that will be responsible for reviewing and removing hate, bigotry and incitement to violence. Social media corporations must cease having the authority for self policing. The fox must not guard the henhouse. 

At the very least, and until this is put in place, social media corporations should be compelled to provide access to actual people that do the screening and reviewing. People that can be reached by a toll free number and by computer. Until now, it is impossible to contact an actual person at these social media giants to receive an explanation as to why certain hate content is not removed. Also, why certain content is arbitrarily removed because someone complains, but the actual content that was removed provides legitimate criticism that has nothing to do with hate, bigotry and violence. 

Religion's Prison

There is a world of difference between demonizing people because of their religion or ethnicity, which is wrong, and criticizing their religion itself, which is not.  A basic human right, written into law in the United States, is freedom of religion. People in the United States can reject religion, change religions, and criticize religion without fear of punishment or death.

There is no punishment for apostasy in free societies.

There is no punishment for blasphemy in free societies.

Free people are not held in bondage by apostasy and blasphemy laws.

Criticizing and mocking a religion may be distasteful, but it is a basic human right.

There are people on YouTube that mock a religion. These people do not call for hate or violence towards the practicers of that religion. It is their right to try and convert, change, or dissuade people. Religion exists in the world of ideas. People have the right to challenge ideas, ideologies and religious beliefs. Without that right, we remain stuck in the most violent years of the middle ages.Yet they face censorship and threats of violence.

Religion can be a force for good, or it can be a force for evil. When religion encourages violence, hate, and bigotry, then it is a force for evil. When religion controls all aspects of  a person's life, it is then a harmful cult.

There are those that do not understand the difference between bigotry and hate for the people that follow a religion, and criticizing the religion that they follow. The former is wrong and must be resisted. The latter is a basic human right.

Religion and faith are not necessarily one and the same. Religion is too often used to brainwash people and make them sheeplike followers.

It is unfortunate and wrong when children from any religion are raised divorced from the secular world, without exposure to the rich wealth of ideas that mankind has discovered over the centuries,

As long as religious imperialism runs rampant, as long as people must fear for their lives from people that shove their beliefs violently down the throats of others, as long as blasphemy and apostasy are crimes worthy of death or another punishment, this world will be held in bondage.

Not by coronavirus, but by a religious ideology that free people are increasingly told to never challenge.