By Robert L. Rush

In Berkeley, the mordant underbelly of the commie beast, a law was just passed designating pet owners as "guardians". When asked about the new law, a Berzerkley city councilwoman replied that the intent was to "get away from the idea that animals are property". She went on to say that this was the first step in recognizing the rights of pets as living beings, noting that women and children were once considered property. Never mind that these failed experiments in socialism have wreaked havoc upon society and caused the wholesale degradation of traditional values, these vanguards of the liberal apocalypse now wish to extend this agenda beyond our species, until humans and non-humans share equal footing on the evolutionary ladder.

Where will this madness end? Can we really extend equal rights to the animals of the earth without discriminating against the vegetable kingdom? Will besmirching broccoli become a hate crime? How can anyone who has witnessed the slaughter of the wheat fields not be moved to action? And what about our inanimate brothers? True, air and water have already been afforded special protections, but what of the noble rock, which is routinely trod upon, mined, crushed, drilled, blasted, ground, melted, and exploited in untold other manner? And I will spare you the grisly details of the ongoing genocide against the viruses and bacteria with which we co-habitate this fair planet.

WAKE UP AMERICA! If animals want rights, I say let 'em earn 'em. With rights come responsibilities, a inherent duty to contribute something to society; unlike the common housecat...who, like it's human counterparts in the welfare culture...lists it's primary occupations as eating and sleeping. If animals want rights, let 'em pay taxes like the rest of us (although in the commie utopia envisioned by their advocates that would mean the race horse would have to split his earnings with the rodents under the grandstand).

The obvious questions raised by this debate are what rights do animals have and who gets to decide? For if you believe that self-determination is the most fundamental right of all, this leads inescapably to the ludicrous proposition of extending to the family dog the right to vote ('though I daresay your average cocker spaniel could likely figure out the butterfly ballot).

The time has come to put an end to all this nonsense. There are already sufficient terms to describe a person who owns animals. My personal preference is "rancher". As I see it, there is little use to owning an animal, except to cook it and eat it. During my travels in the Orient it struck me as ironic that some cultures in that region, where starvation is epidemic, disdained the eating of animals, while other cultures considered anything that moved fair game; yet the former cultures considered themselves "enlightened" (albeit in a heathen context). For my money, steak on pay day is a religious experience. And don't kid yourself...if cows had invented guns first they'd be eating us.

Now I know this article will elicit a lot of finger pointing and name calling from the animal rights extremists asserting that I am some sort of heartless savage seal clubbing animal hater. I want to assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. I love the spotted owl...tastes just like chicken.

Because it's Right

Because it's the Truth

Because I said so!

The opinions expressed on this site do not represent those of the author or of any person living or dead. This is a political parody site intended as satire. Anyone finding themselves in agreement with the opinions expressed on this site is encouraged to immediately seek professional help .