Rush Limbaugh Goes Anti-Gun With Humane Society Ads
By Bill Brassard | NSSF Aiming for Accuracy
We
hope Rush Limbaugh pulls his support for the Humane Society of the
United States. In case you missed it, "El Rushbo" recently recorded two
advertisements that, unfortunately, lend credibility to a group that is
the most well-financed anti-hunting force in America.
For
now we will give Mr. Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt, believing he
simply was confused about what HSUS stands for, as are many Americans,
including a number of hunters and shooters who mistakenly contribute to
HSUS and thereby inadvertently strengthen a group that works against
them and their hunting traditions. Mr. Limbaugh may have thought HSUS
was the group that ran the local shelter for dogs and cats (Rush makes
note of his cat, Pumpkin, in one of the ads). Well, HSUS is not your
local humane society. Please remember that.
In response to Mr. Limbaugh's misguided support of HSUS, the sporting community has sent a number of letters to him, including one signed
by 28 pro-hunting, pro-conservation groups, including NSSF, gently
chastising him for getting cozy with an organization that has been
connected with nearly every major piece of anti-hunting legislation.
The letter seeks to educate Mr. Limbaugh about the vital role that
hunters, trappers and anglers play in conserving America's wildlife and
wild places.
“Every
year, billions of dollars are pumped into conservation and local
economies by American hunters, anglers, and trappers through the
purchases of their licenses, equipment and clothing, and through their
expenditures on hotels, travel, and dining.”
The letter points out to Mr. Limbaugh how his endorsement assists HSUS in advancing its agenda:
"Your
decision to produce these advertisements for HSUS, and the implied
endorsements that come with them, are a real coup for their cause. With
America’s most prominent conservative spokesman on board, they have the
opportunity to make in-roads in to a new cross-section of our country."You
are helping them to mainstream their image in the minds of reasonable
people. Your collaboration furthers the anti-hunting and anti-fishing
agenda of HSUS, which will undermine the great success of conservation
and threatens the economies of small towns and rural states across our
nation."
While
we hope Mr. Limbaugh realizes his mistake and reconsiders his support
for HSUS, we hope just as much that this episode of mistaken humane
society identity serves as an "teaching moment" for all Americans,
especially those who approve of hunting, which by the latest surveys is
about 78 percent of the public.
Since
you remember best what you read last, we'll say again that the HSUS is
not affiliated with your local independent animal care agency. That's
what HSUS wants you to think, though. The wolf in sheep's clothing.
Don't fall for it.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
All animals are non human.
Dave S.,
Evolutionary biology exposes your error here. A human being is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (also known as "great apes"). We are, therefore, a species of animal.
So, when I say "nonhuman animals " it is simply to clarify that when we distinguish between a cow, for example, and a human being, we are not identifying an insuperable difference; simply a different species of animal. This is important because we generally assume that the word “animal” means not human, which is nonsensical.
A correction is necessary. The Humane Society of the United States isn’t “anti-hunting” or “anti-eating flesh.” They are pro-logical consistency. For example, as my original comment was meant to illustrate, we inconsistently condone violence during the “sport” of killing deer, while stridently opposing violence – especially for “sport” – in any other context.
The error is in the faulty beleif in evolutionary biology. I didn't come from apes and this fact is borne out by the elusive "missing link." So, all animals are non-human. But I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, here.
I need further explanation of your correction. When JP Goodwin, HSUS Grassroots Coordinator says, "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." And Wayne Pacelle says, "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." and "Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.", you don't think HSUS is anti- meat and anti-hunting?
You don't believe in evolution , therefore, you must believe that we currently exist in one of the, perhaps the singularly, greatest conspiracy in history. Shocking, indeed.
No, again, HSUS is not "anti- meat ." In some instances, true cases of need, for example, consuming animal bodies isn't ethical unjustifiable. They are pro-logical consistency. Not consuming flesh when there isn't a need, but merely a "want," is but one example of a wrong that follows from this consistency. Given that veganism is healthy at all stages of the life cycle, according to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), our consumption of flesh is defitionally unnecessary.
Dave S, you should consider the animal rights discourse in detail prior to assuming you understand the position.
Survival of the fittest is real. To that point, we have evolution . But it certainly is not the origin of the species. The fastest rabbit will outrun the coyote, so he will breed and develop more fast rabbits. That is the only evolution that occurs.
Yes, HSUS is anti- meat , as evidenced by the quotes by its leaders. And it is anti-hunting, again, as seen in those quotes. If the ADA is correct, then why is it that new research released this week indicates that animal fats in the diet will prevent dementia? Why is it that vegetarians' brains shrink? Why is it that babies born to vegetarians have underdeveloped central nervous systems? And why is it that a UK study released two weeks ago show that vegetarians are at a higher risk for colo-rectal cancer than meat eaters? Why is it that Bill Walton blames his short pro basketball career on his decision to be a vegetarian and he told his son (now an NBA player) to eat meat?
Alex M, you should consider the animal rights discourse in detail prior to assuming you understand the position.
So you do believe that we currently exist in the singularly greatest, and far reaching, conspiracies in all of history?
The American Dietetic Association is the world's leading expert of food and nutrition . I could cite Carl Lewis, who, prior to Michael Phelps, was considered the "greatest Olympian in history," who argued that his most successful year was when he went vegan. We could of course consider the most recent study linking the consumption of red flesh to cancer and decreased life span. If we're to begin citing evidence of negative health effects and diet , the consumption of flesh and reproductive excretions would certainly prove dangerous. But this isn't necessary. It's nonsensical to argue that a vegan diet does not provide optimal nutrition.
Therefore, until you respond to my comment clarifying your absolutist remark that "HSUS is anti- meat ," in which I explained to you where you are wrong, we cannot continue.
In more recent news, Dr. Greger exposed his faulty thought process by blaming the H1N1 virus on large hog farms. To date, there have been no pigs that have been sickened by this virus and there have been no hog farm workers that have been sickened by this virus. Even in the town of La Gloria, where it has been speculated to be the source of the virus, there have been no pigs with the virus nor workers with the virus. Even Wayne Pacelle, in one of his blogs this week said, “HSUS is ready to be an honest partner...” It’s great that Wayne is willing to admit that that he has been dishonest in the past, but by virtue of his dishonesty, how is anyone to believe that he is being truthful when he says he is now ready to be honest? So, when HSUS says that they are not anti- meat , and their actions say otherwise, I am going to have to believe HSUS is anti-meat.
Alex M, you should consider the animal rights discourse in detail prior to assuming you understand the position.
So I can take from the entirety of your comment that you disagree with the ADA's assessment, but you cannot state objectively that they are wrong; merely personal accounts and assumptions act as evidence. Therefore, can't we assume a level of preeminence from the worlds leading expert on food and nutrition , the ADA, and act on that assumption?
I say "optimal nutrition" because 'optimal' is defined as most desirable or satisfactory, which the ADA, in their argument that one can receive all the necessary nutrition from a plant based diet , would suggest. If I can receive all the nutritional value I require, the diet is by definition "optimal."
You still have not disproven my comment. HSUS is not "anti- meat ." They oppose causing unnecessary suffering, which, by definition, is the situation when we compose flesh products. You are simply ranting tangentially Dave S at this point. You have to show how HSUS is absolutely opposed to consuming flesh for your claim that they are "anti-meat" to hold up.
Yes! Excellent! Although to say I disagree with ADA's assessment is a little strong, but as you said, I cannot objectively state that they are wrong, just like you cannot objectively state that they are right. The science is simply too weak. ADA can't provide the objective data to support anything conclusive and are obviously concerned enough to offer a companion paper on supplementing a vegetarian diet .
ADA states that a vegetarian diet is adequate, which is defined as barely sufficient or suitable. Hardly the same definition as optimal.
You still have not proven your comment "HSUS is not anti- meat ." However, I have fairly effectively proven that you cannot believe HSUS. You may offer any statement from anyone representing HSUS, but with all the dishonesty and propaganda that HSUS has been associated with and has admitted to, how can anyone possibly be expected to believe them? What you may consider a tangential rant is, in fact, an overwhelming burden of dishonesty of which you simply cannot refute. So, the burden of proof is not mine - it is yours. You have to prove that HSUS is not lying when they say they are not anti-meat. JP's words and HSUS's actions certainly do not help your case.
Should we believe what HSUS says because HSUS said they would take care of Michael Vick’s dogs and accepted donations for that service when they weren’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all and then suggested that they should all be put down? Or should we believe what HSUS says because they accepted $34 million for Hurricane Katrina victims and could only show $7 million actually went to that cause and they couldn’t account for the rest? Or should we believe what HSUS says because they kept videotape footage of animal abuse away from officials for three months so they could release it at a time when it would provide the most impact for their vegan agenda? Or how about Dr. Michael Greger lying to Congress about the San Bernadino County DA asking HSUS to keep the video? Or how about HSUS lying about a “boycott” of Canadian Seafood in which 78% of the restaurants named as supporting the boycott were not participating at all and most of them were unaware that HSUS was using their name in an international campaign?