Fake News Has Become A Hit With Self Promoting Animal Rights Activist Who Are More Interested In Donations, Rather Than Actually Protecting Animals
As long as you can create a headline, then that's all you'll need to pay a few bucks and send out a press release that contains no details and lacks any substance.
By releasing this fake news press release, it a blatant attempt to make you, or your company seem more important than you actually are, and of course the more important you can make yourself out to be the more money you'll receive in donations.
Our favorite fake news provocateur over at Animals Hope and Well Foundation was at it again when Marc Ching sent out yet another "I take full credit" where none is deserved Press release.
Marc Ching claim as being one of the leading Non-profit organizations is as meaningless as his "Historic Animal Activist Marc Ching" press release headline, one that I remind you he wrote himself when he declared he closed down the Gupo dog meat market, which by-the-way is still, very much, open for business.
How Marc Ching founder of Animal Hope and Wellness, his two-person Animal Rights Organization with a few YouTube videos claims to be a leader of anything is beyond me.
When Marc Ching claimed to have saved 1,000 dogs and never once shied away from that narrative when he was being interviewed in magazines and on Television. The moment the DailyMail article explained what really happened to those poor animals how quickly Marc Ching changed his tune when he defended himself by saying "We are only a small two person operation and none of the big organizations stepped up to help"
The only thing big about Marc Ching is his ego. In Marc Ching's world when hundreds of dogs die because of his fly by the seat of his pants plan as expected failed he cried it's the 'big ARA's organizations' fault.
Marc Ching's latest attempt at trying to fool the media and public, is claiming he somehow had a great deal to do with Congressman Alan Hastings introducing The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2017 H.R. 1406.
Thankfully no one pays attention to the pronouncements from an egotistic halfwit such as Marc Ching, because only one site covered it and they are friends with Marc Ching or his other 'grab for glory' accomplice the Social Compassion In Legislation (SCIL)
Mr. HASTINGS. announced The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2017 H.R. 1406 this way
Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to introduce the Dog and Cat Meat Prohibition Act of 2017, legislation that will prohibit the slaughter and trade of dogs and cats for human consumption in the United States. It might surprise you to learn that consumption of dogs and cats is still legal in 44 states in our nation, where there are no laws prohibiting the purchasing, shipping, transporting, selling, or donating of dogs or cats to be slaughtered for human consumption.
This bill will prohibit these actions and impose penalties to ensure that individuals involved in the dog or cat meat trade are held accountable. The United States' position on this cruel and brutal practice should be unequivocal: dogs and cats should not be killed in this country for the consumption of their meat. It is with utmost importance that the United States unifiesanimal cruelty laws in all 50 states and explicitly bans the killing of dogs and cats for human consumption.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this body will expeditiously pass this measure. Doing so will reaffirm America's commitment to the humane treatment of our most beloved companions.
it is astonishing how Marc Ching can claim credit for something he had nothing to do with and for Social Compassion In Legislation (SCIL) to take credit for basically sucking up to Hastings to get him to sponsor another useless bill, which we will show exactly how useless later on in this story.
It would actually be wonderful if Mr. Hastings actually worked on getting H. Res. 30 (formally HRes 752) passed sometime this decade, before getting congress sidetracked on this toothless wonder.
In an effort to justify their claim to be a part of this new legislation Marc Ching sent allabouttheanimals.org the photo shown on the right. First, this photo was taken in 2016 and secondly, Marc Ching really needed to use the little girls room.
While doing our due diligence for this story we did take note of a few things
Marc Ching, AHWF and SCIL unsurprisingly have almost equally inflated egos, so in essence they are a match made in heaven... or at least in La-La-Land.
SCIL has claimed to being the vanguard voice sponsoring landmark legislation since our founding in 2007. Of course, there track record doesn't come close to their boisterous claims.
For being the 'Vanguard' their organizations fund raising leaves something to be desired. Their IRS 990 forms since 2012 shows they have raised a total amount of approximately $6,800
In essence the group consist of an assemblage of bored rich Southern California women who helped pass silly non-earth shattering legislation such as:
Fixing a glitch in California's Pet Lover’s License Plate
Pay for a “Ban The Trap” billboard
Allow pet dogs to accompany diners in outdoor dining areas
Vanguard Voice this is not.
SCIL is not your typical ARA, they are a 501 C4 which is classified as lobbying or campaigning non-profit, basically it means they won't actually have to do anything that involves work, because God forbid they screw up their nail polish or pedicure.
I am not diminishing their work or even Marc Ching's work, but what I am against is the fact that these two groups misrepresentation in taking credit or over exaggerate their so-called accomplishments when no such credit ios warranted.
I believe their main reason for their hyperbole is an effort to receive donations or celebrity status, when in reality they have done very little in moving real animal rights forward.
In fact, in our opinion they are doing more harm than good. There are those who are against protecting animals, now do to to over-exaggeration of their accomplishments, these groups will now be able to claim that they helped in the effort to pass H.R. 1406 knowing, that in reality they passed nothing more that a mirage.
The reality of The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2017 H.R. 1406.
Marc Ching, AHWF and SCIL are holding H.R. 1406 as an example of being a landmark legislation and thereby confirming their own greatness: The physicality of H.R. 1406 would be considered the classic 90-pound weakling who gets bullied at the beach.
According to this bill if someone gets caught transporting, or selling dogs or cats for human consumption what will ultimately happen to them? On paper they could face a jail term of up to 1 year (NON-Mandatory and classified a low level misdemeanor) and/or they can get fined up to $2,500.
Knowing the laws and reporting on these types of stories, no prosecutor will ever bring such a misdemeanor case in front of a jury. Knowing the most this vile person shall receive as punishment is a year in jail and/or a $2,500 fine, the cost of a trial would not be worth the conviction.
Every DA will simply offer a plea deal that will have that person copping to a lesser charge, paying a small fine and the DA knowing he will have his guilty charge, will call it a day... Period, end of story... The court is adjourned!
To put it in perspective, H.R. 1406 punishment when compared to other offenses that are far less of an outrage as dog and cat meat eating is almost laughable. Here are some examples that you could be facing federal jail time for, which of course in the real world, rarely if ever happens:
First time getting caught with a joint (Marijuana) - 1 Year MANDATORY!
Plagiarism (yes, it is a law) up to 1 year in jail and/or up to a $50,000 fine
Using a fake ID or lending your ID to someone under age, up to 3 years in jail and fined up to $2,500
Something Marc Ching's cult should be aware of, Cyberbullying or email harassment is punishable by up to 2 years in jail.
So the bill that AHWF and SCIL are claiming to be 'landmark legislation' is nothing of the sort, when shown in the light of reality.
H.R. 1406 has as much bite to it as a 95-year-old grandmother who has misplaced her dentures, unless you believe that the slaughtering of a dogs or cats are equal to a 17-year-old trying to get into a bar using his friends ID or getting caught with a blunt in your pocket?
Punishment is meant to be a deterrent. A restaurant will easily make $2,500 a night, catering to Chinese nationalist who believes that there is nothing wrong with eating dogs or cats. So the threat of losing one night's receipts isn't really a deterrent, especially if the Police would need to place the restaurant under surveillance for a few days just to gather enough evidence to even make a case to present to the DA.
When Marc Ching and his rich social justice warrior women want to receive credit then maybe they can actually change the law that would in point of fact be meaningful. Wildlife Planet has been advocating all animal abuse cases be charged as felonies, with no possibility of being dropped to a misdemeanor.
The problem with Animal abuse bills such as H.R. 1403 is simple, the law considers animals to be "property" with the same rights as your lawn furniture. As such, any person would not be facing jail time for stealing your lawn chair and trying to eat it, would they?
I am sure many ARA's remember the woman pictured to the right. For those who are unfamiliar, she was a vile Texas veterinarian who shot and killed a cat with a bow and arrow and then took this picture, posted it on her Facebook page and went about bragging about "Her first kill."
Not many actually know what penalty she faced, but take a good look at this picture and then try to imagine hearing the D.A. say "We do not have enough evidence to charge her with any crime," because that is exactly what happened.