WHY HSUS DOESN’T WANT “TRANSFERS” OF ANIMALS
How does “HSUS” aka H$U$–a “Show us the $$$$” Animal Rights Conglomerate, Work Against Pets+Owners? Even Against Would-be NEW Owners? Buyers? Sellers? Trainers? Kennels? Innocent People? Old and Young? Groomers? Pet Stores? Pet retailers?
Hey Everyone: H$U$ wants to end the Pet Trade, meaning you can’t buy or sell, find, offer, display, transfer, or maybe rescue any more animals. HSUS is trying to end all non native species of fish, birds, amphibians, and some mammals, even animals that have been owned and sold for centuries. HSUS is doing that in Congress RIGHT NOW. yes-0–YES……right now. May 2009. They did it last year as well! They failed last year! But they never, never stop……..
HOW + Why?? By HSUS getting hundreds of LAWS passed, by pretending they are “helpful” when they are actually taking away people’s rights. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Oh HSUS will tell YOU to crackdown on alleged puppy kennels–but we are telling YOU to crackdown on H$U$ because you won’t be ABLE to buy a bird, fish, dog, cat, cow, chicken, etc, because HSUS doesn’t want animals owned, just like PETA. HSUS is a big liar, they mislead the public, and worse. Do not believe anything HSUS tells you. Their credibility is zero, zilch, nada, they have been caught lying for 25 years and will continue lying.
[this is why the shirts are made]
HSUS passes Anti-Pet laws—often disguised as “so-called” HELPING-TYPE laws, usually BASED on alleged “abuse”—even if there is no abuse……(HSUS has almost 200 laws for this year) then uses those laws, nationwide—— for:
1) Cases it plans to bring forward, where such cases are all ready to be filed in Courts, then….
2) HSUS uses those cases in their planned lawsuits, based upon the LAWS they pass, then
3) HSUS uses those lawsuits as legal precedence (if they succeed) in various courts, in the incremental process by animal Rights extremists, to bring down both interstate commerce and pet ownership, kennels, pet stores, dog breeders, along with difficulties for agriculture and other animals.
Oh sure this takes awhile, which is why no one notices, and not everyone who cares is a lawyer, right?
We have reason to believe that HSUS takes evidence illegally from pet owner raids, thus triggering a potential suppression of that evidence? But HSUS thinks it can get away with it? HSUS cannot even account for all the millions it TOOK IN from Katrina–and has never ponied up the proof that it did? check petdefense on wordpress https://petdefense.wordpress.com
HSUS is a major sponsor of HR669 to OUTLAW ALL NON NATIVE SPECIES, CURRENTLY BEFORE CONGRESS? They tried last year as well. Only this year they have twice as many proposed laws. NEXT year will likely be 350 proposed laws. SHOULD WE sit around like sitting ducks, or should we get MAD?!
We can guarantee that the CA Prop 2 (battery cages) will come back to haunt us in pet ownership, or farming. HSUS will probably find some other ways to outlaw farm animals or make a huge problem for farming–after all HSUS right NOW is trying to outlaw all “non-native” species including birds, herps,guineas,ferrets, turtles and many other common species in the USA that have been owned for 50-100 years.
Ownership in the law, is of the highest legal nature, and as a concept, usually means the ultimate control over the item owned. It also usually refers to having the control legally over such item (property) and also the right to use it for as long as is allowed in the law, and in many instances, to bring a lawsuit where the owner’s rights are affected. Guardianship does NOT necessarily mean any of the same things, which is why animal rights prefers it over “owner.”
CA law has statutes that show one of the main incidents of ownership in property, is the right to TRANSFER it (Bias v Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14,16). Or, “A common characteristic of a property right, is that it may be disposed of, transferred to another.” (Douglas Aircraft Co. v Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317)
Thefore we can see why Peta wanted to take possession/ownership of different animals because after they owned them, they could just dispose of them in the garbage dump (after killing them via lethal injection)—and they suffered no consequences. [Actually it appeared there was fraud in the procurement of the animals but we don’t know if they were hit for that.]
And, we can see why HSUS doesn’t want animals TRANSFERRED to others because that’s an element of OWNERSHIP.
The obvious next step for HSUS is to claim if animals can’t be sold or transferred, then that means THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.
YES there are shirts for sale. NO you cannot “copy” it to sell ( since it is already copyrighted) but you can repost this entire posting to other people.