Yet another reason Clinton is better than Obama: Humane Society ratings

As if all the good things Hillary Clinton has done--and all the really bad things/people/places/associations Obama has--weren't enough, here's yet another reason Clinton is so vastly superior to that smug idiot. According to the Humane Society's scorecard on animal protection, Clinton scores a perfect 100%, while Obama rates a paltry 60%. Am *I* surprised? No.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
Anyone who supports the fur industry with its appalling treatment of animals, as the Obamas do, must be scumbags anyway, so I really wouldn't expect much from him/them when it comes to animal-related concerns.

Here are the Humane Society's explanations for their ratings:

Hillary Clinton Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection

The Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard on animal protection scored Clinton 100+ out of 100, based on:

• Clinton co-sponsored the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S.1915): To bar slaughtering horses for human consumption. Bill had 34 co-sponsors.
  
  
• Clinton voted for the Horse Slaughter Amendment (9/20/2005): to stop export of horses for slaughter.
  
  
• Clinton co-sponsored the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act (S.382): To criminalize dogfighting & cockfighting. The bill had 51 cosponsors & passed unanimously on 4/28/2005.
  
  
• Clinton co-sponsored the Downed Animal Protection Act (S.1779): to ban "downed" (unable to walk to slaughter) cattle, pigs & sheep in human food. Bill had 26 cosponsors.
  
  
• Clinton signed the Funding Letter to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee: seeking funds for the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, & federal animal fighting law. The letter was cosigned by 44 senators & sent on 5/25/2006.
  
  
• Clinton took leadership on animal protection.
  

Source: Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard, www.fund.org Jan 31, 2007


Barack Hussein Obama Scored 60% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection

The Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard on animal protection issues scored Obama 60 out of 100, based on:

• Obama did not co-sponsor the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S.1915): To bar slaughtering horses for human consumption. Bill had 34 co-sponsors.
  
  
• Obama voted for the Horse Slaughter Amendment (9/20/2005): to stop export of horses for slaughter.
  
  
• Obama co-sponsored the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act (S.382): To criminalize dogfighting & cockfighting. The bill had 51 cosponsors & passed unanimously on 4/28/2005.
  
  
• Obama did not co-sponsor the Downed Animal Protection Act (S.1779): to ban "downed" (unable to walk to slaughter) cattle, pigs & sheep in human food. Bill had 26 cosponsors.
  
  
• Obama signed the Funding Letter to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee: seeking funds for the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, & federal animal fighting law. The letter was cosigned by 44 senators & sent on 5/25/2006.
  

Source: Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard, www.fund.org Jan 31, 2007

In addition to the above, Senator Clinton has also supported many other animal-oriented issues, including:

• Sponsoring legislation to crack down on puppy mills.
  
  
• Requesting more funds for the USDA to step up enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal animal fighting law.
  
  
• Taking a leadership role in efforts to stop the overuse of antibiotics in farm animals.
  
  
• Supporting the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act.
  

and much more.

So if you're concerned about animals, know your candidates! You can give your vote to the heartless scumbag fur-supporting Obama who rates a miserable 60% or to the animal-friendly Clinton who rates 100%. Easy choice, in my opinion.

A letter to the LA Times

I've received permission from its author to post the following letter she wrote to the LA Times after they endorsed Obama. I thought it was excellent and wanted to share it with others. I hope anyone reading it who, like me and the letter's author, are shocked at the LA Times' endorsement of Obama will take the time to send their own letter to the Times expressing your feelings. Here it is (and I've edited out the author's last name):

"To LA Times:

I take issue with the fact that the LA TIMES endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President.

Obama has a total of two years experience in the Senate and has proven time and again that he is NOT ready to lead on Day One as Senator Clinton is.

Even your own endorsement points out that Obama's not voting for Iraq was the right move. You're kidding right? You realize he was not even in the Senate at the time so therefore he could not have voted one way or the other. You state that he claimed he was always against it, but in 2004, he said he "agreed with George Bush", so really, what you are saying is that HE LIED. Obama has voted the SAME as Hillary each and every time when it comes to Iraq. If he did not want to support the war, then why did he continually vote to fund it?

Obama claims he was against the war - BUT - it's always easier to claim you were against something that is NOW unpopular when in fact you did not have to make the decision.

Obama's true weakness is his lack of experience and substance on the issues.

His words are not actions, they are only good speeches. Obama claims to be supportive of Gay and Lesbian rights. Yet, he traveled around South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, the anti-gay gospel singer, pro-claiming that he was a Christian. How does this fit in keeping current with GLBT issues? Does anyone really believe Obama will fight for gay rights?

I take issue with the fact that your newspaper believes that Obama has the corner on "Change." Electing the first woman President, who stands up fully for Democratic values is a HUGE change.

If Obama wants to CHANGE Washington, then why does he side with the biggest Washington Insider of them all, Ted Kennedy, and 50 or so Ex-Clinton aides - is that really "Change"

Your endorsement is a direct slap in the face to all women who are more than qualified to step into a position on day one, yet are overlooked by the younger, less experienced candidate.

Most appalling is the Times lack of research on the background of this candidate and stance on OTHER issues, instead of a singular issue. His own newspaper, the Chicago Tribune points out the ramifications of a potential Obama Presidency in their remarks:

"Obama's association with alleged influence-peddler Tony Rezko. If Obama had dealt with the Rezko issue forthrightly long ago, it might rank in public memory with Clinton's remarkable success in cattle futures.

Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.

On e more time, Senator:

You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent. But given that you've not been accused of any crime or ethical breach, your Rezko history is not a deal-breaker."

Because the news media has failed in examining this candidates background, it is my firm belief that the Democrats will lose the Whitehouse if Obama is elected. Once Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko comes out into the open, we will all be left wondering why we didn't know this in advance.

Change is a word that requires Action. Hillary Clinton is the Agent of Change that will bring about that Action.

Regards,

Nancy [name removed]

P.S. I am cancelling my subscription to the Los Angeles Time due to this endorsement."