by Sue Beaulieu, Staff Writer for Gamefowl News

What is this? Peter Singer - father of the animal rights movement, philosopher, professor, lecturer - has endorsed the use of monkeys in research to treat Parkinson's disease? Has the earth truly tipped over on its axis?

"Professor Death", so nick-named for his views on pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and pro-infanticide, has conceded that inducing Parkinson's in non-human primates is justified because it will benefit thousands of human patients. Has Singer truly defected to the side of reason and common sense or is this just more AR hypocrisy?

The protest group SPEAK, which is trying to halt construction of a new animal research laboratory at Oxford, is not happy about Singers' supposed change of heart. SPEAK, the Voice for the Animals is a British animal rights campaign that aims to end animal experimentation and vivisection in the UK. Originally named Stop Primate Experimentation at Cambridge (SPEAC), this group managed to stop construction of the Cambridge primate research facility in 2004.

SPEAK's Oxford spokesman is Mel Broughton who has served time in prison for possession of incendiary devices with intent to bomb Huntingdon Life Sciences, Europe's largest contract animal-testing laboratory. Other activists who have been named publicly are Robin Webb, who runs the Animal Liberation Press Office; and Amanda King, who was involved in the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs campaign.

Although SPEAK publicly sanctions legal avenues of protest, acts of intimidation, incitement and violence have accompanied the campaign, usually claimed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Robert Cogswell, co-founder of SPEAK is on record as saying that the organization does not condemn the actions of the ALF.

These actions included arson of the Hertford College boathouse, an attack on Corpus Christi College sports pavilion, sending threatening letters to building firms connected with the construction project, the vandalism of other firms connected with the university, and threatening violence against Oxford University staff and students.

A current BBC2 documentary Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing, features both Peter Singer and Tipu Aziz. Aziz informs the audience that he was one of an international group that discovered an area of the brain that had previously never been associated with Parkinsonism. The disease occurs when this part of the brain is overactive. By reducing the activity, Parkinson's symptoms are greatly reduced. He also stated that 40,000 people worldwide have been treated and found relief from Parkinson's disease (Click Here). (Despite the best efforts of ARTs {Animal Rights Terrorists}, I might add! How many more people could have been treated if medical research progress had not been hindered by them? Or if other spokespeople for the AR movement would have admitted that animal research is necessary and beneficial? Instead the ARTs chose to terrorize researchers and their labs.)

The Parkinsons' research team only used 100 monkeys at a few laboratories. Singer admitted that in this case, animal use was justifiable. Gee, that's generous of him considering that his life's work has inspired a movement that has done all it can to prevent animal research and testing and prevent its beneficial results to millions of people.

The following are just a few of the breakthroughs that resulted from animal testing: Antibiotics, anesthetics, vaccines, insulin for diabetes, open heart surgery, kidney dialysis and transplants, treatments for asthma, leukemia and high blood pressure. Though some valuable research may be achieved without animal testing, it is absolutely necessary for solving serious medical problems like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and malaria. Click on Timeline of Progress for more breakthroughs.

by Sue Beaulieu, Staff Writer for Gamefowl News

Peter Singer, a former Oxford lecturer, wrote Animal Liberation in the early 70's. Primarily an "expose" on factory-farming, this was a defining text for the modern animal rights movement and it led thousands to become vegetarians. On one hand, he argues that causing pain to both humans and non-human animals is morally and ethically wrong.

The lack of intellect is, however, a different subject altogether. Animals, disabled people, those who are mentally challenged, the elderly, unborn or new-born babies, (and people who suffer from diseases and conditions that may have been cured from medical breakthroughs via animal research were it not for the ARTs) all fit into this category. When these animals and people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, in Singers' world, it's permissible to end their lives. This broad and sweeping argument can justify human euthanasia and eugenics on a grand scale by those who consider themselves to be gods. The camel will not and has not remained content with just his nose in this tent.

This pretzel logic leads Singer to proclaim that HIV research would be more useful if it were carried out on brain-damaged humans rather than chimps. Did Singer originally believe that Parkinson's patients could fill this bill?

Singer blames Western Judeo-Christianity for society's belief in the sanctity and superiority of human life - a belief he does not condone. Singer, an atheist, believes that “The major religions are an obstacle because they teach that humans alone are made in the image of God, humans alone have an immortal soul, God gave us dominion over the animals, and those ideas are an obstacle to treating the animals as we may treat humans." And . . . so???? What is wrong with that? Why does anyone care what Singer thinks anyway?

Ironically, and as a result of 30+ years of AR social engineering, in many instances humans are NOT treated as well as animals!

The AR philosophy taught people hatred for their own species. Singer compares specieism (discrimination against animals) to racism, sexism or other isms that people use to divide other people into specific groups. He proclaims all of this is unethical --THAT IS UNLESS THE ANIMAL RIGHTS FANATICS (or atheists like Singer) indulge in this human attribute! I call this the "Do as I Say, Not as I Do" AR mentality. In fact, they have created the ultimate "Us (ARs) and Them (Animal owners)" duality.

This clear cut division has been made by the "hidden enemy." They consider themselves to ALWAYS be right. Their ideas, their actions, their beliefs are always self-justified. By trying to "liberate" animals, they have bound and gagged people. Our Constitutional rights have been cruelly strangled by bogus animal cruelty/forfeiture cases. Innocent people are judged guilty in civil court while denied the right to trial by jury. Laws are written and enforced under the guise of protecting animals, when in reality they are used to control and punish people.

How many lives have been lost due to the AR movement? How much beneficial research have they destroyed? How many medical discoveries have been delayed or lost? How many lives have been ruined by their intrusiveness?

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12.

by Sue Beaulieu, Staff Writer for Gamefowl News

Utilitarianism--The New Evil by Doug Hagin.

"If you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?"

This was written by Dr. Richard Dawkins, another Oxford intellectual, best known for his hatred of Christianity in particular and religion as a whole. Dawkins wrote a book titled The God Delusion, and is a staunch believer that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control will lead to human overpopulation and mass starvation.

Dawkins, like Seger, is also a well known as a proponent of granting human rights to apes. According to Dawkins, there is no such thing as a soul, and that makes humans and apes equals. They are both animals, mere physical creatures. Once God is removed from the equation, the value of human life is automatically diminished.

Nobel Prize winner, James Watson, the first director of the Human Genome Project can be added to the ranks of Singer and Dawson. Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist John Sulston, who has also worked on the Human Genome project, had this to say, "I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world." Sounds rather like Hitler's "cleansing program" doesn't it? Via DNA research and cloning, they would like to create humans in their own image who will do their bidding without question.

These mad scientists would like humans to be bred, like dogs and cattle, for certain attributes. Bringing a defective human into the world is what they consider a true sin. These are the elite intellectuals who lecture at prestigious universities like Oxford and Princeton, who have won Nobel Prizes and who are very influential in global political circles.

by Robert E. Meyer is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Our Declaration of Independence clearly states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Think about this. Atheists and Humanists are obsessive about asserting their collective "rights." Skeptics want to deny that rights come from God. Naturally, secularists will be quick to point out that the Declaration states that the power to govern comes from the consent of the governed. That's true, but if individuals didn't have unalienable rights to begin with, there would be nothing negotiable to concede to the state in order to empower their rightful duty to govern.

Whatever a government can give, it can take away on a whim, simply because governments are corrupt and have the power of coercion. But unalienable rights are God given. Our thoughts and words have power and we have the ability and the right to think for ourselves and resist the collective thoughts of atheists, humanists and secularlists!

When a seagull swoops down to the river to grasp a fish, and the eagle wrests it away from the gull with its talons, we don't declare the gull a murderer or the eagle a thief. A certain agency is necessary for a being to either be morally culpable or to possess rights.

Where do abstractions such as rights, morality, meaning, self-awareness, etc., come from, in a universe that is nothing more than mindless matter in motion? Philosophically speaking, the atheist throws out the baby and keeps the soiled bath water, then tries to explain how the bath water itself is purposeful.

by Peter Singer

Madonna adopted a one-year-old boy from Malawi, a landlocked African nation of about 13 million people bordering Mozambique, Zambia, and Tanzania. David’s father, Yohane Banda, said he had not understood that his son no longer belonged to him and might never return to Malawi. Madonna says that that is not what Banda said earlier, although she does not speak his language. Human rights advocates began court action to demand his return.

David’s mother is dead. After her death, his father, a villager who grows vegetables and gets other work when he can, was unable to care for him, and placed him in an orphanage. David was living with about 500 other children. Largely due to Malawi’s HIV/AIDS epidemic, the country has a million such orphans. Malawi is one of the world’s least developed countries, with an infant mortality rate of 94 per thousand and a life expectancy at birth of 41 years. Of the adult population, about one in seven has HIV/AIDS.

Singer points out that David will be cut off from his cultural roots, he will learn English and not be able to speak his father's language. He will be a black child in a mostly white world and will always be thought of as Madonna's orphan. Singer sloshes around and fails to make any meaningful point with this article. I got the impression that he was critical of David's adoption by Madonna.

But from the other side of his mouth, Peter Singer has stated that affluent nations have a duty to increase their refugee intake greatly. He suggests that such nations begin a yearly doubling of refugee quotas until immigration has reached a "saturation" level. He praises Madonna's charitable efforts towards Malawi, but doesn't seem to want to pitch in and help. He points out all the negatives but never offers any solution.

AIDS and poverty are rampant in Malawi as they are elsewhere. Perhaps Singer could encourage PeTA, HSUS, et al. to donate their millions of dollars towards programs that will benefit humanity rather than degrade it.

Heavy Petting by Peter Singer

Singer concedes that sex with animals is still definitely taboo, yet he advocates sex with animals in his teachings. However, he has left no filthy stone unturned in his quest to write an extensive paper about the subject. He references Midas Dekkers, Dutch biologist, naturalist and author of Dearest Pet Google It Here, who assembled a wide range of pornographic illustrations of man/animal sex acts. What is the point of this unnecessary drivel?

Singer wants to criticize our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals. I state for the record, that humans who fail to differentiate themselves from animals will share the same rights as animals and in the process, will receive less concern and protection than animals are given. These people will be used and controlled in every way -- corralled, penned, butchered, slaughtered, raped, sold into prostitution, bred for certain traits, culled for flaws, marked and tagged, used as beasts of burden, for medical experimentation -- and all without their consent.

Editors note: Don't kid yourselves. The Animal Rights movement puppet masters never wanted to elevate the rights of animals; they wanted to take away human rights. Also CLICK HERE for even more on Singer.

Anytime you see text in "Blue" it's a link to a relevant URL we hope you look at. We don't put them in there just for color effect.

This site does not advocate or endorse any activities that are in violation of Federal, State, or Local laws.

In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, GFN is distributed free, without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.