Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 5, the World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization
1. Introduction.
2. Humanity and the bizarre proclamations of Cambridge and its surrogates.
3. One example from decent human beings.
4. Prior segments of this analysis.
1. Introduction.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show with my presence.
A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplice.
This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. Humanity and the bizarre proclamations of Cambridge and its surrogates.
In our last report, we responded to the bizarre claim by the City of Cambridge’s and its surrogates that Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation has some sort of right to ignore heartless animal abuse of the animals residing of the animals on its land.
This sick claim ignores the fact that the heartless animal abuse that Cambridge is claiming the DCR can ignore originates in the DCR and Cambridge.
But even allowing for the blatant falsity of claims of innocence of the actual heartless animal abuse, the argument itself is sick.
This sort of sick argument is normal in Cambridge when what Cambridge is doing really rotten stuff, and too many politically correct will simply swallow the sick arguments because they are told that Cambridge and its surrogates are saintly and do not make errors.
3. One example from decent human beings.
This photo was posted of facebook by the World Animal Foundation.
But then again, Cambridge and its surrogates disavow themselves from normal human decency. They are above that sort of stuff.
4. Prior segments of this analysis.
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
Segment 3. “The DCR did it.” This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior, Standard con game, pass the buck. The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems. One very big one is reality. Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html
Segment 4. “DCR did not do it either’. This segment analyzes Cambridge’s claim that the DCR has some sort of right to claim no duty to protect the animals in the care of the DCR. It includes the graduation of copycats of the DCR / Cambridge outrages to rape and murder in the same location. And analyzes the bizarre claim. It defers until later the reality that Cambridge and the DCR really are responsible for the outrages they claim to be neutral on.
