If Iowa’s animal lovers want to raise our basic standards upward from the appalling bottom heap, we’ll simply have to join forces in some type of get-out-the-vote campaign (i.e. Facebook would be a good start!) urging 4th District voters to banish the feeble-minded college dropout and instead elect former IA First Lady Christie Vilsack. She’s not only insightful and intelligent, she honest-to-God cares about Iowans, their pets, their jobs, and overall well being.

[...] This info definitely drives home the point. It is right in line with my thinking and I was eager to post a link back to it on the blog I oversee. Thank you. [...]…

“We must remember the victim herein was not a person,” the victim may not have been a person, but it cannot be refuted that the aggressor became physically violent at another person when confronted about his actions?! Is this not enough to clue in a man supposedly educated in law to the understanding that it is a very small line indeed by which this man did not commit an act of violence against another person? Let me throw some psychology your way I wouldn’t want this man to go out of his way to have understand the psychology behind such abusive actions.

According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse.

Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.

If there is anything that I can personally do to have these incompetent persons removed from their office please do let me know. I will be writing a letter as suggested and will have several others do the same. This is utterly disgusting.

You’re not the first to note Steve King’s “mental instability.” It’s still so hard to believe we have man in congress who doesn’t even know how to separate issues. (Then again, he does have nothing more than a high school diploma.) Abortion is one issue; animal torture and cruelty is quite another. Unfortunately, too many Iowa voters check the box next to his name because it somehow makes them feel “intelligent” for actually having recognized a candidate’s name. Oh….the irony!

At least we do have a terrific candidate running against him in this year’s election. Matt Campbell is highly qualified and could bring much needed representation to a district that’s been without it for years. Thanks again for writing!

Why is it that we still treat animals as inferior beings? If I had my way I would make sure that animals have better rights than humans because at the end of the day they are at the mercy of individuals and more often than not are completely defenceless.

Also, this judge should have born it in mind that the vile perpertrator of this crime is of no use to society. Research shows that people who commit cruelty against animals are more likely commit cruelty agains humans. Do we really want people like this in our midst? I think not.

I urge everyone who reads this to join animal rights organisations because at the end of the day if more people voice their opinions then the people who are in charge of law making will be forced to sit up and take note.

We can make a difference. Lets do it!

When it comes to the “rights” of all lives, he is the epitome of hypocrisy. He continually gets reelected by one-issue voters — either abortion rights activists or gun rights activists. Note that King always uses the word “abortion” vs. “right to life” because his concept of “right to life” is subjective. (With both human beings and animals.) He does not represent the right to life, and were it up to him, abortion would be illegal for whites but mandatory for all other races.

And yes, he’d likely even brag about the fact that he and he alone wrote and sponsored the bill all by himself.

And then boasting about it, as if this poor creature’s life didn’t matter.

God, I’m tired. And hey, King — I am 100% against abortion, from the moment of conception, unless the mother is going to die. I feel that way for the same reason why I could never kill an innocent animal searching for shelter. All life is precious. So tell ME — what’s your problem? Just like killing?