Report: Federal agencies spent millions of taxpayer money torturing cats

From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

A new report published by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, highlights more than $1 trillion worth of taxpayer money spent on projects that he argues wastes and abuses taxpayer money.

Tucked in the report are three programs funded by federal agencies using millions of taxpayer dollars to experiment on cats.

The details are explicit and gruesome.

$11 million on Department of Defense “Orwellian cat experiments”

The US Department of Defense spent nearly $11 million on “Orwellian cat experiments” that have nothing to do with training the U.S. military or national defense.

“When George Orwell wrote 1984, he couldn’t have imagined the bizarre, dystopian reality we find ourselves in today where tax dollars are being spent to shock cats into having erections and defecating marbles. Yes, you read that correctly,” the report states.

Through the DOD’s, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), $10,851,439 of taxpayer dollars were allocated to the University of Pittsburgh to conduct “grotesque and extremely invasive experiments on cats.”

This involved slicing open the backs of male cats to expose their spinal cords and inserting electrodes to send electric shocks “to make cats have an erection.”

The cats were then subjected to “even more electric shocks, sometimes for up to 10 minutes at a time, before having their spinal cords severed to paralyze their lower bodies,” the report states. “And just for good measure, the shocks continued for another 10 minutes. All this, in the name of ‘science.’”

In another DARPA-funded experiment, balloons were inserted into the cats’ colons and marbles into their rectums “to force these poor animals to defecate the marbles via electric shock.”

“Nothing says ‘national defense’ quite like torturing cats to poop marbles,” the report notes. “If we can’t stop the government from shocking cats into defecating marbles, then what can we stop?”

$2.24 million on feline COVID experiments

The report also notes that under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, since 2022, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the U.S. Department of Agriculture allocated $2.24 million in grants to Cornell University to conduct feline COVID experiments.

Through a University of Illinois NIAID subgrant, Cornell received $1.59 million over the past two years in addition to a $650,000 USDA grant, bringing the total to $2.24 million, the report notes.

The experiments led to the suffering and death of 30 cats, according to the records of the experiments, the report notes.

The experiments involved injecting healthy cats with COVID-19, observing them suffer and then killing them in groups of four. The cats were not given any type of vaccine or treatment but killed as early as two days after being injected and left isolated in cages.

NIAID funding for the program is slated to continue through 2025; the USDA’s through May 2026, the report notes.

“It’s a mystery as to why the U.S. government continues to fund these barbaric types of studies, especially when the knowledge gained is either useless to society or could be learned without torturing an animal,” the report states.

$1.5 million to torture primarily female kittens

The National Institutes of Health spent more than $1.5 million to torture primarily female kittens in an extreme example “of waste and cruelty,” the report found.

“If you learned that your money is being used to electro-shock young kittens, torturing them for hours on end, and to the point that they vomit, would you believe it?” the report asks. “Since 2019, $1,513,299 worth of taxpayer money has been going to these medieval-type experiments. This is not some distant, dystopian future; it’s happening right now at the University of Pittsburgh, courtesy of a grant from the NIH.”

According to the report, primarily female kittens between four and six months old were strapped to a hydraulic table, spun 360 degrees, flashed with bright lights, injected with copper sulfate, had holes drilled into their skulls, to be “shocked, and abused without resistance.”

According to NIH, the purpose of the experiments is to study how different species, like cats and monkeys, respond to motion sickness. Understanding responses to the test “could have implications for human health, potentially aiding in the treatment of conditions like vertigo or helping us understand the effects of space travel on the human body,” the report states.

The report cites primary sources and includes photographs of the animals and diagrams of the machines used.

Up Next

Alberta government must do more to avoid red ink

Don't Miss

FORCE, FORCE, FORCE! – The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump Tells Supreme Court He Wants To Resolve Tik-Tok Controversy

Crime / 2 hours ago

Illegal Migrant Indicted For Gruesome Burning Death Of Woman On Subway

Alberta / 8 hours ago

Alberta government must do more to avoid red ink

Business

Trump Tells Supreme Court He Wants To Resolve Tik-Tok Controversy

Published on December 28, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

President-elect Donald Trump filed a brief Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block a law requiring that the social media platform TikTok either be sold or shut down by Jan. 19.

In April, President Joe Biden signed legislation allowing the ban of the Chinese-owned social media platform unless it is sold to a non-Chinese company within the year. Despite the company’s attempts to challenge the legislation as the shutdown date approaches, a panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously on Dec. 6 that the ban would be upheld, citing TikTok as a potential national security risk due to the Chinese government’s involvement with the app.

In his new filing, Trump argued against the ban, seeking to resolve the issue “through political means once he takes office.”

“President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal-making expertise, the electoral mandate and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government — concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged,” the brief said.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to hear TikTok’s challenge against the ban, with oral arguments set to begin Jan. 10. In its emergency application to the high court, the social media platform argued that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which is the basis for the ban, will not only “shutter” the U.S.’s “most popular speech platform the day before a presidential inauguration,” but will also “silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern.”

Despite attempts to ban the app through executive orders, Trump publicly opposed legislation targeting TikTok, stating that the move to ban the social media platform could potentially benefit Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

“If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!” Trump posted to Truth Social in March.

In addition to his request to handle the issue once in office on Jan. 20, the brief noted Trump’s large following on TikTok, arguing that it allows him to “actively” communicate with supporters.

“President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific and influential users of social media in history,” the brief said. “Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech.”

TikTok additionally filed a brief Friday to the Supreme Court claiming the law being used to aid the ban was a violation of the First Amendment.

“The government has banned an extraordinary amount of speech; demands deference to unsubstantiated predictions a future risk will materialize; and gets facts wrong when it bothers to provide them,” the brief said.

“Congress’s unprecedented attempt to single out petitioners and bar them from operating one of the nation’s most significant speech venues is profoundly unconstitutional,” the brief continued.

Alberta

Alberta government must do more to avoid red ink

Published on December 27, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

As Albertans look toward a new year, it’s worth reviewing the state of provincial finances. When delivering news last month of a projected $4.6 billion budget surplus for fiscal year 2024/25, the Smith government simultaneously warned Albertans that a budget deficit could be looming. Confused? A $4.6 billion budget surplus sounds like good news—but not when its on the back of historically high (and incredibly volatile) resource revenue.

In just the last 10 years, resource revenue, which includes oil and gas royalties, has ranged from a low of $3.4 billion in 2015/16 (inflation-adjusted) to a high of $26.1 billion in 2022/23. Inflation-adjusted resource revenue is projected to be relatively high in historical terms this fiscal year at $19.8 billion.

Resource revenue volatility is not in and of itself a problem. The problem is that provincial governments tend to increase spending when resource revenue is high, but do not similarly reduce spending when resource revenue declines.

Overall, in Alberta, a $1 increase in inflation-adjusted per-person resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year, but a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. Over time, this pattern has contributed to historically high levels of government spending that exceed ongoing stable levels of government revenue.

And while the Smith government has shown some restraint, spending levels remain significantly higher than reliable ongoing levels of government revenue. Put simply, unpredictable resource revenue continues to help fund Alberta’s spending—and when resource revenues inevitably fall, Alberta is at high risk of plummeting into a deficit.

Indeed, Finance Minister Nate Horner continues to emphasize that we are “living in extremely volatile times” and warning that if oil prices fall below $70.00 per barrel a budget deficit is “very likely.” According to recent forecasts, the price of oil may hit $66.00 per barrel in 2025.

To avoid this fate, the Alberta government must do more to rein in spending. Fortunately, there’s plenty of options.

For example, the government spends billions in subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select industries and businesses every year. A significant body of research shows these subsidies fail to generate widespread economic benefits. Eliminating this corporate welfare, which would generate significant savings in the budget, is a good place to start.

If the Smith government fails to rein in spending, and Alberta incurs a budget deficit, it will only mean more government debt on the backs of Albertans. And with Albertans already paying approximately $650 each in provincial government debt interest each year, that’s something Albertans simply can’t afford.

With a new year set to begin, the Smith government continues to warn of a budget deficit. But rather than simply prepare Albertans for more debt accumulation—financed by their tax dollars—the government should do more to avoid red ink. That means cutting wasteful government spending.