Freedom of choice in California? Heading for the crapper. Dog ownership stripped down to conditional custody of sterile animals You're just there to pay the bills. Do ya feel lucky now, dude? Do ya? This ain't about "breeder's rights" in California. Hell, no. Lloyd Levine, the Democratic Assemblyman and animal extremist tool from Van Nuys, may be struggling to keep the spotlight focused on those nasty dog and cat "breeders" but he just took aim at the homes, and pets, of well over 15,000,000 dog owners and 13,000,000 cat owners in California. Levine thinks they aren't smart enough to make veterinary care decisions. So he wants the State of California to do it for them: surgical sterilization at 16 weeks of age.

So get ready to deal with it.

No exceptions for California pet owners. None. Zero. No way, no how.

What's that? You don't want your dog or cat to undergo surgery? You're worried about --

the cost?

the anesthesia?

the health impact of castration?

Maybe you like your dog or cat just fine "as is"?

You just want a little time to think it over?

You like to make your own decisions about the dogs and cats you live with?

You think 16 weeks is a tender age for major surgery?

Tough shit.

Lloyd Levine thinks he knows how to manage your pets better than you do.

Where's the money going to come from, Lloyd? Who's going to pay for all of this blood-letting, anyway? My vet charges $600 to spay a dog. So can I send Lloyd Levine the bill? Huh?

There are no funding provisions attached to Levine's AB 1634 . California pet owners are on their own. They have to either find the money to spay or neuter their dogs and cats, or face a $500 fine for each intact animal they're convicted of owning.

That leaves low-income dog and cat owners between a rock and hard place. Will economically stressed, fearful owners be forced to turn their pets in to shelters? Will they simply release them in public parks? Who's gonna pay the bill for sheltering (and probably killing) all of those pets that currently have homes? Any thoughts on that, Lloyd?

Let's run Lloyd Levine's numbers. Shall we?

Because this part is interesting.

Lloyd's Van Nuys neighborhood shows a median household income significantly below the California average. His assembly district also has a significant minority population.

Actually, let me rephrase that. "People like Lloyd" are in the minority in his Assembly district.

Levine claims he's been working on a mandatory spay-neuter proposal for ten years. But what makes me think he didn't have the residents of Assembly District 40 in mind when he sponsored this proposal?

Maybe its the way it discriminates against them.

Levine already announced his candidacy for the California Senate. He has his eye on SD 23, currently held by (also term-limited) Sheila Kuehl. Lloyd Levine thinks he might be movin' on up in the world, it seems.

Is Lloyd counting chickens before they hatch?

Levine sure as hell won't be the only one running for SD-23. Expect outgoing Members of the Assembly Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood), or even newly minted members Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) and Mike Feuer (D-West L.A.).

Could be. Outraged, pet loving Dems are already on the move. At least one local observer doesn't like his chances for Kuehl's seat at all.

The San Diego Union-Tribune, no friend to Lloyd Levine, editorialized in a piece titled "Drastic Overreach: Pet sterilization plan should be scrapped"--

"It's dismaying that Levine's bill passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee thanks to unanimous support from the panel's Democrats. We hope that every Assembly Democrat takes an independent, fresh look at AB 1634 and not just go along with Levine because of that “D” after his name.

Pet overpopulation is a complex issue. Decisions on how to deal with it shouldn't be driven by partisanship. "

They're right.

Gross interference in the lives and civil liberties of law-abiding citizens is NOT a Democratic value.

Laws that disproportionately penalize the poor? NOT a Democratic value.

Furthering the agenda of special interests and extremists? So NOT a Democratic value.

Sticking it to 60+ percent of the voting population?

Geez, I hope someone somewhere at Democratic Party Central realizes how NOT a Democratic value that is.

Lloyd, baby. Wake up and smell the dog!

Does Lloyd Levine think California dog owners are stupid? Too stupid to make good decisions about their dogs? Under Levine's AB 1634, all California dogs get the knife Those gonads have got to go. Under Democrat Lloyd Levine's master plan mandating sterilization of all dogs over four months of age in the state of California, people with intact dogs don't have a prayer. Their ability to make veterinary care decisions about the animals they live with is going to be excised with a scalpel. The Animal Council calculates that the Levine plan will require the re-write of 536 municipal and county animal control ordinances, leaving dog owners and enforcement personnel alike scrambling to comprehend the new regulations. Demon rum, cocaine, and dogs: Is there a connection? In Lloyd Levine's mind, there sure is. Levine justified his proposal by expressing obstinate faith in a legislative concept that has failed, over and over again. The leaky faucet thing. Again. "This legislation will be the equivalent of turning off the spigot on a leaky pipe,” said Assembly member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). “If you’ve got water leaking into your basement, you can bail all you want, you can get buckets and friends with buckets, but until you turn off the pipe, you’re going to continue having water leaking into the basement." Yeah. Right. Just like Prohibition fixed alcoholism . Not. Unforeseen consequences What everyone but Lloyd Levine remembers from high school is that Prohibition promoted organized crime and the increased use of cocaine and opium. It cost boatloads of money, and accomplished nothing. Substance abuse rampages on. Want to discuss the war on drugs, anyone? Where demand exists, supply follows. A mass castration of responsibly owned dogs will not break the cycle of impulsively-purchased puppies that are later surrendered to shelters, and shelter populations are already falling fast in California. Inhumanely transported, sickly, very young puppies from Mexico and elsewhere are already a serious problem in California. Will the problem grow, following implementation of AB 1634? "Compassionate choices" in the Golden State Levine's recent press release promotes his empathy for those facing difficult end-of-life scenarios and his support of their ability to make decisions for themselves. Lloyd Levine is pro-choice, in a pro-choice state. In fact, the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California gave him a "100%" thumbs up rating. So why the hell does Levine think its okay to interfere with people making veterinary care decisions about their dogs and cats? I'm not getting Lloyd Levine, and I'm not alone. The blogosphere war cry? Lloyd Levine, call your office. Democrats and Nanny-state Nonsense: the downside of smug elitism "Democrats who control the [California] Legislature are more eager than ever to micromanage our lives, in the smug and elitist certainty that most people are too dumb to do what's best for them. . ." Smug and elitist? Absolutely. But is Levine's mandatory sterilization plan "micromanagement"? Or is it way too much involvement in the civil liberties of law abiding citizens? Maybe Lloyd doesn't see much of a difference. "I guess the government is trying to be the nanny, or the parent, or the supervisor," acknowledged Assemblyman Lloyd Levine ... . "And you know what? Sometimes the nanny is right, sometimes the parents are right — oftentimes the parents are right." With all of the requirements, regulations and fees placed on the owners of intact dogs, AB 1634 will make it almost impossible to own a dog in the state of California without agreeing to have it surgically sterilized at four months of age. So what does that mean? It means no more small, hobby breeders in California. They won't be able to function with AB 1634 in place. No more hunting dogs, and no more true working dogs. Those dogs are typically intact, and bred by their owners. Dogs with special skills will be mostly gone within a generation, leaving only sterile pets in the state of California. Dog breeding will become the exclusive domain of large-scale commercial breeders that can afford to invest in the many permits and fees AB 1634 will require. Run, Lloyd, run! What makes Lloyd Levine run? He's term limited, but something tells me he's got a plan for his future. He's young, he's ambitious, and he's a career politician. What makes him think that such a draconian, useless proposal--one that strips civil liberties from law-abiding citizens--is acceptable? Is this where the Democratic Party is headed? Let's hope not. There's room for all kinds of dogs and dog owners in the Golden State, because California really is a place where the freedom of choice matters. Lloyd Levine, don't bother with calling your office. Call your constituents.

They want to know why you think they're not smart enough to make decisions about their own dogs.

Call, Lloyd, call!

Or just keep running. And hope you've got enough speed.

Am I not a Democrat? Or is the only room on the bus for middle class, middle-aged white people ? Sure, Dems have placed Barak front-and-center. But this dedicated dog owner is looking at the issues, not the figureheads. Not the mouthpieces. Pet ownership: just for "people like us"? Best Friends Animal Society's forum included an interesting exchange recently. Readers will recall that Best Friends Animal Society, the animal rights group that believes that yes, indeed, there are dangerous dog breeds, is one of Democratic Party strategist Joe Trippi's most visible clients. One participant wrote, describing her post-Katrina experience working with low income pet owners: I came to meet people who loved their dogs with all of their heart. People who would share their last piece of food left with their dog. People with very little money, but a lot of love to share. . . They fed their dog cheap grocery store dog food because they ate cheap food. . . Does this mean that they don't love their dogs? That they aren't strongly bonded? NO! In some cases, they love them more than we can imagine because for many people, that is all they have. That sounded like people doing the best they can in difficult circumstances to me. But apparently that wasn't good enough. In fact, that writer took some serious flak from--get this--"a past board member of one of the largest humane organizations in the country": THIS POST IS JUST SCARY! Yeah, to my way of thinking these people should not have animals! These are the people who's animals wander the streets, sick and maimed, breeding indiscriminately and contributing to the horrendous pet overpopulation that we have in this country. "These people?" Now, what kind of people would that be? Poor people? Southern people? Rural people? People with working dogs? Dare I say it. . .black people? Economic thresholds for dog ownership: How high is "up"? Democratic NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr.--the self-described animal rights activist that wants to ban pit bulls from the City of New York--had a bad week. Again. Challenged on Vallone's proposed tethering restrictions which would require dog owners in NYC to invest in expensive fencing, his aide offered: "If you don’t have the economic means to care for a dog, you shouldn’t have a dog. If you don’t have the space to house a dog humanely, you shouldn’t have it." Wince. Marie Antoinette would have appreciated the concept. Its a variation on her ever-popular "let them eat cake" idea. But New York's many loving dog owners, the ones that don't have a lot of money in the bank, should start worrying. The roughly eleven million NYC-area residents that live in apartments and small houses with tiny backyards had better think carefully about that "enough space" idea, too. That would be eleven million traditionally Democratic Party voters, by the way. How much money and how much space are you going to require before you start taking people's dogs away from them, Mr. Vallone? What's next? Minimum bank balances? Minimum square footages? Certain dogs, certain neighborhoods . . .certain. . .people? City Councilman Mark Wojcik of Troy, New York did some very specific finger-pointing when he told the reporter for the Troy Record that. . . "You can drive through certain areas of Troy at any given time and see pitbulls all over the place." Wojcik then elaborated. . . "We want to make it as hard as possible for anybody who has a pit bull in this city." So let's be clear: its not the dogs. Its the people. Councilman Wojcik wants to use dog laws to profile and persecute "certain" people, living in "certain" areas of Troy. The War on Poverty War on the Poor . Operators like HSUS's Adam Goldfarb provided opportunist legislators with a slick new vocabulary. Stereotyping certain dog owners as gangmembers, drugdealers and criminals allows them to make derogatory racial implications and still keep their hands clean.

And some legislators aren't shy about using their new vocabulary to target low income, minority dog owners. Cheri Bryant Hamilton did it in Louisville. Laws just for the "bad areas"

How would enforcement of Councilman Vallone's anti-tethering proposal go down? Because an ordinance like his is impossible to enforce uniformly and fairly, enforcement would have to be sporadic. Based on [anonymous, telephoned in] complaints. Now, since Democratic NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. and his crew appear to believe that the only people who would tether a dog in excess of three hours are crackhead animal abusers (and not simply people with a puppy that will systematically devour the contents of the livingroom if he gets a chance, for example) . . . Guess who will be targeted first? Not the Upper West Side couple that leaves their dog locked in the bathroom while they're at work for 8 or 10 hours. Or the Park Slope family that crates their dog all night because she pees on the carpet. Nope. It will be the owners of a "certain" kinds of dogs, living in a "certain" parts of the city. Hypocrisy. . .elitism. . . uh, Houston? This is a major problem. Is dog ownership going to be the perk of a mostly white, mostly middle-aged, mostly middle class, pearls-and-little-white-gloves set? What a vision of the future. Looking past the carcasses of dogs surrendered to shelters because their owners can't afford to fence their yards. Looking past the distraught people that had to give up their pets, and the children that learned way too early in life that justice for "certain people" is not available. . . What will we be looking at in 20 years or so when that mostly middle class, mostly middle aged group is mostly dead and buried? Who's left owning a dog then? Anyone? Diversify or die Diversity counts. In fact, its essential. Defining dog ownership through exclusively middle class values and references will kill good dogs, and deprive caring families of their companionship. The Peter Vallones of the world don't give a shit. Am I still a Democrat?

Where is the Democratic Party in all of this? Defending the little guy?

Or solidly backing the impoundment and death of blameless family dogs that belong to "certain people", living in "certain neighborhoods"? At the end of the day, will the Democratic Party stand for the preservation of our dogs, and our ability to responsibly own them? Or not?

Progressive Dems Stand Up For Us Little Guys? Ha! Preferred progressive netroots attitude: "Let 'em eat cake."

Good gawd. "Liberal" Democrats might as well be Republican operatives, based on the preferred political posture on fave Dem hang outs. Roughly 45% of households in the U. S. include a dog, and lots of them are having trouble finding housing, buying insurance, and more. How many times can you tell folks you don't give a shit about their problems? How long before voters connect the dots and decide life as a Democrat doesn't make sense any more? Daily Kos crowd: "Suck it up, ya buncha sissies."

Your civil rights aren't my problem.

The general dKos response to the routine discrimination many dog owners face when it comes to purchasing homeowner's insurance: "get a new damn dog".

Now why didn't JFK think of that? Why didn't Kennedy just tell James Meredith to forget about Ole Miss and get a new damn university? Maybe Rosa Parks just needed to find herself a new damn way home, too. Right? So much trouble could be avoided if people would just sit down and shut up--like dKos thinks a good Democrat should. Bill Richardson sells his soul to special interest groups. Yound and restless Dems counter with: "Yeah? . . .So?" As advertised, Bill Richardson--the Democratic Party's Great Latino Presidential Hope--tipped his hand back in December with his "Ten Point Animal Protection Package". The package calls for $ 3.6 million in taxpayer funds to get tossed into an Animal Rights pork barrel critical need to oversee the state of animal welfare, etc., in the Land of Dis Enchantment. During an address to a joint session of the New Mexico legislature on February 14, Richardson reportedly confirmed his intolerance of doggy testicles and other reproductive equipment when he announced support of New Mexico H1106 . The "Pet Owner Responsibility Act" mandated surgical sterilization for all dogs over six months of age in the state of New Mexico. Pro choice? maybe not so much a Democratic value Ironic that so many Dems are ready to go to the mat defending the rights of women to make reproductive choices, yet they have no problem denying the same people the right to make veterinary care decisions about their dogs. Slicing and dicing dog parts over the objections of the people who live with and care for the dogs? Not a problem for many Dems, based on comments like "the law is overkill in some areas but understandable. . .pet ownership is a privilege, not a right."

uhhhh. . .Wrong!

Dems surrender civil rights without a peep

What slows down bigots and political opportunists like NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. , or City of Denver Assistant Attorney Kory Nelson, aka Denver's Doctor of Death, and keeps them from simply sending the stormtroopers to haul my blameless dog out of my house and kill him is his status as my property.

My last defense against that kind of fascism is my ability to protect what is mine. Upheld by bazillions of court decisions. Protected by the Bill of Rights. Located in the U. S. Constitution.

So before anyone starts with that "you-can't-own-your-dog-he's-not-a-rock-or-a-chair-that's-slavery" bullshit, you had better think over what, exactly, you're tampering with.

On the other hand, though, there are a couple of Democrats who appear to get it. For example. . . .

Gun-toting, meat-eating, dog-loving Brian Schweitzer

The Governor of Montana earned himself a national reputation as a new-age Democrat. Takes his dog to work, too! Hell, he's even got a sense of humor.

As battle lines formed, Brian Schweitzer placed himself firmly on the side of the angels, and against the further erosion of our right to privacy, as the legislature of the state of Montana overwhelmingly adopted Montana Senate Joint Resolution Number 19, decrying the loss of civil rights and liberties suffered under the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.

Res. 19 exhorts agents and instrumentalities of the State of Montana not to"record, file, or share intelligence information concerning a person or organization. . .if the action violates constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties. . . "

Does it get any better?

Well. . .

In the brilliant blue City of New York, New York New Yorkers aren't going with the "get a new damn dog" recommendation, either. In fact, Democrat Pete Vallone is set to take a beating on what could be the blunder of his career.

After all, does anything say "eat shit and die" to a voter more concisely than a politician that blends racial profiling with a policy set to kill the family dog?

"Get another damn dog?" I'm thinking that's not going to be a winning strategy for grassroots Democrats. How long before New Yorkers take their 31 electoral votes and shop for someone who, ahem, represents them?

Kossacks hellbent on pissing off Democratic voters So, does it matter if some of the Democratic Party's most visible personalities, not to mention their netroot cheerleaders, are more than a little fuzzy on civil rights?

In between the gloating over Dub-yuh's inability to do anything right and the high-fiving over Barack Obama, do Kossacks have any time for the people who actually vote?

That "pet ownership is a privilege, not a right" crap should send Kossacks screaming and falling over each other in a frenzy to put some distance between themselves and the miscreant that came up with it.

Unless they're planning on surrendering their dogs, too.

So are you? Are you ready to surrender your dog in the name of the Democratic Party?

yeah.

I'm talkin' to you.

Equal Rights! We're all for Equal Rights! Truth and justice for all. . . Isn't that the way it goes? Equal rights for women, gays and lesbians, blacks, hispanics, the disabled, pit bull owners, religious minorities, Asian-Americans. . . Oooops--hold on a sec. We seem to have lost someone. What pit bull owners already know: Some people are way more equal than others. You may not have realized it, but this country is busy constructing a brand-new set of second class citizens. Law-abiding owners of certain dogs are rapidly vanishing from the Equal Rights radar screen. What's up with that, anyway? Here's a little sampling of what pit bull owners are looking at-- Privacy? not for pit bull owners Eden, North Carolina, Police Chief Gary Benthin's genius plan was to maintain police files on citizens who have committed no crimes--including their photographs, physical descriptions and places of employment. Why? Because they own pit bulls. Housing? No place at the inn I Find Properties.com , a rent-to-own specialist in Las Vegas, Nevada, pretty much summarizes the prevailing attitude in their FAQ section :

Can I have pets ? You can have any animal(s) unless:

• You are getting into a condo. Some condo associations have weight restrictions. . . .
• You own a pit-bull. We have no issues with pit-bulls. We love pit-bulls! We don't care how well behaved your pit-bull is. Even if your pit-bull uses the toilet and serves tea with a bow-tie, we can't help you. . .

Here's an experiment for you: Substitute the racial or ethnic group of your choice for the words "pit bull" in the above statement. How's it feel? Muzzles (n.pl.): no right to live without Welcome to Hannibal Lechter's domain. In a world where image is everything, its hard to imagine a more devastating form of discrimination than mandatory muzzling. Places like Boston make pit bull owners muzzle their dogs and put "beware of dog" signs on their homes (lettering no less than 2" high). There are other restrictions on pit bull owners, too. "Its not the dogs, its the owners" Talk about a mantra that backfired in a big way. The "its the owners" concept allows self-serving, dog-hating bigots like NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens) to trash both dogs, and their owners, in a single breath. He wants to kick pit bulls out of the Big Apple, and the distinctly racist rhythm of his modest proposal goes : "Dogs are often the weapon of choice of drug dealers and gangs seeking to intimidate and terrorize neighborhoods." So its the pit bulls that have to go. And their meth lab-operating, gang-banging, juvenile delinquent owners can take a hike, too. I hear pit bull owners don't put the toilet seat down after they pee, by the way. Who needs 'em, anyway? Managing stigma, pit bull owner-style Its not your imagination. Discrimination is a reality for pit bull owners, and it is not easy to live with. In fact, the very special people at Tufts University did a study on social deviancy pit bull owners. Managing the stigma of "outlaw" breeds found that . . . ". . .[in ] negative portrayal of pit bulls have been depictions of their "owners" that threaten mainstream America. Media reports of attacks by these dogs were invariably accompanied by value-laden descriptions of their owners as people whom "average citizens" might find dangerous. According to Hearne (1991), these reports often described pit bull owners as white thugs or poor urban blacks and Latinos who kept their dogs in dope dens and fed them raw meat to make them as mean as possible.' But "stigma" is not the issue here. We're not talking about the heartbreak of psoriasis. We're talking about civil rights, and "truth and justice for all". The concept that justice is blind, and that we are all equal under the law. Pit bull owners aren't thugs, deviants and dope dealers. . . Pit bull owners are coal mine canaries. Marginalize pit bull owners at your own peril, because once pit bull owners are definitively stripped of their rights, such as. . . --their right to due process and equal protection under the law, which breed specific laws like California's its-ok-to-require-mandatory-castration-just-of-pit-bulls is all about, or -- their right to privacy--impossible to protect where breed specific mandatory microchipping is the law, or --their right to assert ownership because of "guardianship" laws which allow their property--which would be their pit bull dogs--from simply being seized and destroyed by freaks like Tom Skeldon in Toldeo, Ohio . . . . . .then we will all be so seriously screwed that it won't matter any more. Really. Kicking pit bull owners to the curb is wrong. For many reasons. And equal rights count. They count a lot.

Humane Profiling: Caring enough to vilify and discriminate Kentucky Humane Society's kinder, gentler approach to breed extermination The Louisville Courier-Journal coverage reads like a humaniac seduction scene from hell. Just reach for those rose-tinted glasses, and you might almost believe the good intentions. However. . . Kentucky Humane Society is selling out dog owners In 2006 the Humane Society of the United States and Democratic City Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton (over the opposition of every credible animal-related organization in the country) fought and failed to legislatively profile dog owners and their dogs and restrict or ban "pit bulls" (and a variety of other breeds). KHS is implementing Plan B--the kinder, gentler, breed specific freebie castration approach. Why? KHS says that intact dogs are a "public safety risk". Interesting that KHS's news release didn't address all dogs in Louisville, though. Just "pit bulls." Why else? KHS says there is a "overpopulation" of dogs in the area. Not all dogs, though. Just "pit bulls." What constitutes an "overpopulation", and what created it? The KHS press release didn't say. Crocodile tears for pit bulls While researching for this blog I scanned a year's worth of KHS newsletters. There were pictures of big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, houndy dogs, white dogs, black dogs, old dogs, young dogs. . .but not one picture of what was appeared to be a pit bull. KHS's Petfinder listing today doesn't show any pit bulls up for adoption, either. How very odd. This is an organization striving to do the right thing for pit bulls? Where are the pit bulls? KHS seems to deny any possibility of showing pit bulls in a positive light, or as adoptable dogs. Are they only interested in permanently removing pit bulls from the gene pool? Yeesh. Talk about "one generation and out." HSUS Pres and CEO Wayne Pacelle would be so very proud. Kentucky Humane's burned bridges and broken faith with dog owners Last year, dog owners in Louisville watched "humane" organizations conspire in a year-long campaign to make dog ownership a joyless affair in Louisville. As a result, dog owners have 90 new pages of animal control ordinance to contend with, governing everything from permissible leash length on up. They watched them support Cheri Bryant Hamilton and the Humane Society of the United States at every devious turn of that long, long negotiation. The ordinance that was rammed down the throats of pet owners in Louisville may well be illegal. Where was the outrage when the Humane Society of the United States advocated breed specific measures , and profiled some dog owners as "drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol"? Did "humane organizaitons " argue that pandering to the media and fear-mongering is no way to respond to any "overpopulation" issues? Not Really. Unkindest cut of all: profiling entire neighborhoods of dog owners We're not talking status symbols and La-la Land, folks. When the Kentucky Humane Society called out seven Louisville zip codes for extra special attention, and free transportation to the pit bull castration fields. . .that was a whole 'nother field of endeavor. Its called red-lining. Red-lining Louisville Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton KHS offered free transportation, just for pit bulls, and just for pit bulls belonging to residents of certain parts of Louisville--including Cheri Bryant Hamilton's neighborhood. I wonder how Cheri feels about being lumped in with the drug dealers, gang members and the twisted thrill seekers the HSUS so loves to rage about. Surprise, Cheri! You've just been profiled based on your zip code. How's it feel? I wonder how Cheri's neighbors and constituents feel about it, too. I'd be pissed as hell. Its not gonna be any picnic at Kentucky Humane Society You think those dog owners will happily pack their dogs off for a day under the knife at Kentucky Humane, all alone, like trusting families send their kids to summer camp? Man, I sure wouldn't. Troubling trend: HSUS/DDAL partnering with Animal Farm Foundation, Pit Bull Rescue Central, others Call me crazy, but I have a problem with dog rescue groups that ally themselves with outfits that want to eliminate dogs from the face of the planet. Pacelle's infamous "one generation and out. . .we have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals" doesn't jive with promoting responsible pet ownership. Not at all. Animal Farm is still claiming that HSUS opposes BSL. Even after HSUS's Adam Goldfarb admitted that it in Louisville HSUS advocated breed specific measures. How sick is that? Who's up for the next round of surgeries? Huh? Who else is gonna get free transportation to a permanent exit from the gene pool? Once Kentucky Humane and their pals exterminate solve the overpopulation problem with pit bulls, who's next? What breed is next on the list?

My money is on some kind of retriever. Golden, yellow lab, black lab, chocolate lab, Chessie, Toller, whatever. . .it don't matter. Maybe all of them, what the hell.

Petfinder's always got a batch of bird dogs on offer, and gawd knows, their owners are sociopathic hunters enthralled by bloodlust.

Cyclops eye pointed at. . .who? You? Will the kind and caring folks send their free transportation squads into your neighborhood? Will your zip code be next on the list? Is your neighborhood looking a little "overpopulated" today?

Wanna schedule a freebie castration for next week, maybe? Courtesy of the Humane Society of the United States?

Calling progressive, liberal Dems! Think there's a reasonable trade off in sacrificing constitutional civil rights and liberties--like private property, due process, equal protection, and privacy--in those new animal protection laws? Do ya? Here's your question, then: Are you ready to surrender your dog? Are you? Cause this dog-owning, civil rights loving, long-time Democratic voter really wants to know. Joe Trippi, gentleman farmer Trippi, the guy who masterminded Howard Dean's internet campaign, has a new gig: Philadelphia mayoral hopeful Tom Knox. Trippi remains one of the most influential Democratic Party strategists in the country, and he lives on a fine little farmette on the Delmarva peninsula, within striking distance of the Capitol Beltway. Trippi family home in the Dogs Deserve Better database? Now, if Tammy Grimes and her vigilante posse ran off with Joe's dog, would he be cool with that? If Tammy creeped in some night and, citing the so-called "good samaritan law" that Trippi's other client, Best Friends Animal Society, is busy pitching to legislators. . .and she helped herself to his pets. . . that would be just fine. Right, Joe? What's a little vigilante justice among friends? Due process is so last season.

If the fine little farm's address popped up in Tammy's database of anonymously contributed locations ripe for raids--not a problem. Right, Joe?

Joe Trippi: Are you ready to surrender your dog?

Senator Patrick Leahy, VT: Big Thumbs Up for Mandatory RFID Microchipping and Spies in the Sky Senator Leahy says he's no friend of domestic spying schemes which may eavesdrop on law-abiding U. S. citizens. So what's he doing supporting NAIS [the National Animal Identification System]?

Eavesdropping? Don't make me laugh. NAIS, in the words of Dr. Mary Zanoni, sets the USDA up with the ability "to subject the owner of a chicken to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun."

You think my dog is a national security risk, Senator? You find a need to surveille my home in order to protect the national food supply? Due to the presence of my one dog?

Will Senator Leahy mind it when NAIS places the global positioning coordinates of his own home in a database? Because it will, if he or any member of his household owns a single cat. Or dog. Or chicken.

Note to Senator Leahy: lay off the sweet green beverage from the little paper envelope, Senator! RFID microchipping is not about homeland security. Its not about protecting the food supply.

Its about making money. Those pharmaceutical companies are set to make a bundle, particularly when they start marketing that database once NAIS rolls out.

Patrick Leahy: are you ready to give up your dog?

Testicle Wars: Marching on to New Mexico, courtesy Democratic head honchos Martin Chavez and Bill Richardson Read it and weep. Democratic Albuquerque Mayor (freshly named to the DNC, by the way) Martin Chavez of New Mexico just made good on his promise to make the land of Dis Enchantment canine gonad-free.

Mandatory castration will be the SOP in the new New Mexico.

Of course, in Chavez's Albuquerque, Animal Control already doesn't have to bother with details like a search warrant if they're investigating an act of "cruelty." Rumors that doggy toe nails weren't clipped this week will suffice. So Mayor-wannabe-governor Martin Chavez, are you ready to surrender your dog? Cheri Bryant Hamilton: can't back-pedal fast enough in Louisville, KY Democratic City Councilmember Hamilton had better put a few miles between herself and the Pet Nazi animal control law she helped the Humane Society of the United States put in place in Louisville.

Things are getting a little difficult for dog and pet owners in Louisville these days, what with 90 new pages of animal control ordinances to comply with.

Has the Metro Animal Services Director been by to personally certify your fencing as now required by law, Cheri? I hope so. We wouldn't want anyone to confiscate your dog because your fence isn't six feet high, or sunk at least a foot under ground.

Cheri Bryant Hamilton: ready to surrender your dog yet?

This is your wake up call, Democrats!

Drop your what-nots and pull up your socks, boys!

This bullshit's got nothing to do with Democratic Party values!

What's so "liberal" about warrantless searches of family homes?

What's "progressive" about vigilantes, and the routine surveillance of law-abiding citizens?

Why is discarding due process rights such a hot item in certain Democratic circles these days?

And are you ready to surrender your dog?

Because its coming to that.

Sooner than you think.

Land of Dis Enchantment: Dems behaving badly in New Mexico. Really badly. There is some weird, freaky shit going down in the name of democracy and Democrats these days. Events in New Mexico are now about as weird as it gets. Special interests. . .beat out the U. S. Constitution Now, from this dog-owning Democrat's point of view, here are a few questions:

Has political posturing--calculated to appeal to animal rights extremists--replaced core Democratic Party values in the Land of Enchantment?

Will Governor Bill Richardson, the Democratic Party's Great Latino Hope, place the priorities of special interest groups ahead of the U. S. Constitution ? Albuquerque's HEART-less animal control mandate Richardson's understudy, Albuquerque's Democratic Mayor with gubernatorial aspirations Martin Chavez, beat him to the punch when it comes to sucking up to animal rights extremists. Chavez extols the virtues of mandatory microchip insertions and mandatory surgical sterilizations for pets, and promises to campaign to make such requirements a statewide obligation in 2007. Chavez is sounding less and less like a Democrat, and more and more like Rick Santorum. New Mexico animal rights organizations just love Chavez. Its easy to see why. There sure is a whole lotta smoochin' going on. Chavez is no renegade Democrat, though. He was just appointed to the Democratic National Committee. The preamble to Albuquerque's huge new anti-pet, anti-pet owner HEART ordinance reads-- "The Council further finds that the people of Albuquerque should treat animals as more than just lifeless inanimate chattel property. . ." Gag me with a spoon. Drivel and spin New Mexico's Animal Protection Voters lapped up that incoherent drivel, though. APV counted passage of HEART among their many 2006 "accomplishments." As far as Mayor-wannabe-Governor Chavez is concerned, your right to privacy -- destroyed by the easily-accessible database of household information created by mandatory microchip programs -- is unimportant. Your worries about the health implications of spay-neuter don't count either. In fact, your ability to make any decision at all on the care of your animals, protected by your constitutional property rights, is basically gone. In Albuquerque, you're just there to pay the bills. Paving the way for Louisville And you'd better have plenty of cash, too. Like Louisville, Albuquerque ordinances discriminate against the poor by establishing prohibitively high fees for various categories of pet ownership. Readers who were shocked by the undemocratic, wildly over-invasive, fraudulent set of animal control ordinances inflicted on Louisville, KY should think about what happened in Albuquerque first. Residents of both cities are now in court, struggling to rid themselves of deeply flawed ordinances that were strong-armed through the legislative process. In both cities concerns about the legality of the proceedings have been raised. Both sets of ordinances are so over-reaching and unenforceable that municipal officials, including both Mayor Martin Chavez in Albuquerque and Mayor Abramson in Louisville, indicate that they can only hope to enforce the new laws selectively. So much for equal protection under the law. Dems that diss civil liberties Just how many civil rights and liberties will Democrats blow off, anyway? Governor Bill Richardson: itchin' to lose his . . . virtue? Or was it already but a faint memory? Playing to the adoring New Mexico animal rights lobby, Richardson already signed a bill into state law that makes dogs that chase cats "potentially dangerous" and subject to seizure by authorities. Richardson's 10 point Animal Protection Package was released on December 27, just in time to compliment announcement of his presidential bid. The $3.6 million in funding offers more taxpayer money than the animal rights lobby previously asked for, and covers "humane education" for children in public schools and the establishment of an "Animal Welfare Oversight Board". Gee, I wonder who gets appointed to that? Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, the world's largest and richest animal rights organization, was quick to offer his thanks. Slick Billy Richardson: Between worlds, or simply AWOL on constitutional rights? This guy is a Democrat? Friend of the little guy? Campeón del pueblo? Protector of the oppressed? Where is Bill Richardson on protecting personal property rights, anyway? People like Ralph Nader "got it" years ago. Republicans like Charlie Norwood rule the eminent domain debate. As far as I can see, they're the ones standing up for our rights. What's up with that? Latino Uncle Tom for the Humane Society of the United States

The HSUS deliberately plays up middle-America's worst nightmares when they profile dog owners as "drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol." And yeah, race and ethnicity are the unspoken subtexts here.

Doesn't that Tío Tomás, Bill Richardson, understand that the negative stereotypes so unjustly conjured up by HSUS encourage discrimination against the very socio-economic groups he is supposed to deliver to the Democratic Party?

How twisted is that?

Bill Richardson, blowing in the wind

Just what the hell is he thinking?

Other than "I want to be president", its hard to answer. The Albuquerque Journal quotes him, circa 1996: "I was a conservative Democrat, who became a progressive Democrat, who's now a moderate . . .a progressive moderate who's also pragmatic ." But, hey. That was ten whole years ago. Looks like Bill Richarson has moved on since then.