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.

Score after Round One in the Big Apple-- Pit bulls: 1 Peter Vallone: 0 And those happy-go-lucky dogs with the infectious grins never laid a glove on him.

Opening a can of whoop-ass on Pete Vallone

NYC Councilman Peter Vallone (Democrat-Astoria) must be wondering what the hell happened. Response to his Christmas proposal to reverse New York State law and ban pit bulls from the City of New York met with near unanimous scorn.

The New York Post's Julia Szabo -- a pit bull owner herself -- ran the above photo from the Unexpected Pit Bull calendar. Then she encouraged readers to contact Vallone and tell him how they feel. And then she published his telephone number and email address.

Then there was Newsday's Denise Flaim.

". . .breedism is a fact of life for the pit bull, whose reputation is tinged with racial and socioeconomic associations that no one is comfortable talking about, but invariably react to."

Snark infested waters

And there was ultra-hip Gawker's take on the whole thing:

"Councilman Peter Vallone: Killjoy of the Year We've got to hand it to Queens Councilman Peter Vallone: Never has one politician advanced more ridiculous, attention-getting legislation. . ."

NY City Councilmember Peter Vallone. Animal Rights activist. Vallone's response to New Yorkers who contacted him about his proposal? "Thank you for contacting my office [. . .blah, blah, blah. . .] As a dog owner and animal rights activist I am well aware that when raised properly, pit bulls can be as loyal and loving as any other breed . . ." Animal rights activist? Now, where would a guy like Peter Vallone ever get the idea that animal rights activism could be squared with the destruction of pit bulls? Maybe from PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, who actively supports the euthanasia of all "pit bulls?" Ingrid's we-love-pit bulls-so-we-must-kill-them-all logic might have appealed to Vallone. Or maybe Vallone tried to follow the murky twists of Wayne Pacelle-speak, and concluded that Humane Society of the United States would be perfectly fine with a pit bull-free New York? Hard to say. But move over, Ingrid and Wayne. Peter Vallone just joined your team. Pit Bull sightings on Madison Avenue Will that goofy grin once again be used to encourage people to surrender their paychecks? After all, its not like pit bulls don't have experience in advertising. An informal survey of media watchers was decisive: pit bull sightings are on the rise! Its not your imagination. Pit bulls are everywhere. They're peddling lawn mowers, hot sauce, jeans, sports drinks. All kinds of stuff! Peter Vallone's worst nightmare. . . The Pit Bull that founded. . .Gotham? Or, should that be: "Gotham that founded the New Yorkie"? Does it really matter? Not to me.

Just as long as caring dog owners can to keep their good dogs, free of unreasonable restrictions.

Is that so much to ask, Councilman Vallone?

Mission: Market Share New York's ASPCA shows its true colors What has Orange done for you lately? New York City's ASPCA fired out a breathless "breaking news" alert last week and a letter from ASPCA President Ed Sayres. The ASPCA has long been a dominant animal law player in New York City, where all dogs and cats picked up stray, or impounded for any reason, must be surgically sterilized before they are returned to their owners. The ASPCA maintains a full-time dedicated lobbyist in Albany, too. But that was then, and this is now. The ASPCA has widened its horizons. Spread its wings. Got the bit between its teeth. Targeting four cities this year as, Mission: Orange, the ASPCA's million dollar PR campaign and re-branding effort, pledges to take the ASPCA coast-to-coast. Humaniac turf war? Looks like competition for "humane" donations just ratcheted up a notch. There'll be fierce competition for constituencies, too. Just how many national animal protection organizations does this country need, anyway? How are donors supposed to figure out where to send their money? While smaller than the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA reports revenue of about $50 million in 2004, and claims more than 1,000,000 members and supporters across the country. The ASPCA's tagline: "We are their voice" HSUS? "Promoting the protection of all animals" "Donate now!" is all over both websites, naturally. Decisions, decisions. Where to mail the check? This could get complicated! "We need you on our side" , also known as "Join now!" But the ASPCA doesn't mean me. I'm a dog owner, and the ASPCA doesn't support dog ownership. Or cat ownership. Gerbil or canary or turtle ownership. The ASPCA says guardianship is better. Their entire website was updated, not long ago, to reflect a global change to guardianship language. In other words, the ASPCA would like you to forfeit your ability to make decisions regarding the care and welfare of your pets, because you would no longer own them. And since the ASPCA is in the humane law enforcement business, guess who would be stepping in to make those decisions for you? Agent: Orange. Of course, of course. Orange will be backed up by the court system which has the power to appoint, and to remove, guardians. We are The Enemy. The Enemy is us. It used to be the hunters (bloodthirsty sociopaths). Then it was the breeders (money-grubbing puppymillers). Occasionally its the pit bull crowd (drug-dealing criminal losers). Now its all animal owners. So I'm the enemy. You probably are, too. We are characterized by the ASPCA as those who "have title to and dominion over the animal for the owner’s enjoyment and benefit as he/she sees fit." By definition, we're heartless monsters. Exploiters exerting our dominion as we see fit. Just ask the ASPCA. Selling shelter animals to pet shops. I thought that pet stores were on the humane movement's shit list. Remember the battle cry? "Don't buy from a store while dogs and cats wait in misery at the shelter!" I guess, anticipating that the pet supply chain will swing away from established sourcing, that had to change, too. Sha-zaam! Selling shelter animals to pet shops is now a good idea. But let's be clear: We're not talking consignment deals. Those puppies and kittens will be SOLD to pet stores. But, no worries! This is a good thing! The ASPCA says it is. Yup. All about market share. But I can see the angle. With a little coaching from pet retailers on bringing the product to market, those dogs and cats mean significantly increased revenues! Plus, think of what the sales would do for those "live exit" statistics the ASPCA is so concerned about. Hey, that dog or cat went out the door alive on its way the the pet store. Right? ASPCA and Agent Orange on the national platform Its not just the color scheme that's making me queasy, although the blunder seems to indicate an overall lack of judgement, if not a complete break with reality. What were Saatchi and Saatchi thinking? The ASPCA paid a million dollars for orange? By the way, do you think the ASPCA or their PR firm has any clue about who else might be using blaze orange? Any clue at all? This orange thing is so confusing! Just ticking along like Clockwork ORANGE The ASPCA opposes hunting under any circumstances, but uses blaze orange as their new symbol. The ASPCA "does not support purchasing or otherwise acquiring animals from large-scale commercial breeders [or] the retail outlets they supply. . ." but says that selling shelter animals to pet stores is okay. The ASPCA says owning animals is bad. Its exploitative. But then the ASPCA says there are problems with "guardianship", too. What kind of a whacked out outfit is this, anyway? I don't think they have a coherent position that differentiates them from HSUS. Not anymore, at least.

This is all about market share. The mission is market share. Not preventing cruelty, or any of the rest.

Death, destruction, and the HSUS: Democratic Party's gift to Louisville Dems continue to wander and dabble their way towards automatic support of animal rights issues, leaving their dog and pet-owning constituents to fend for themselves as best they can. Residents of Louisville, Kentucky are getting ready to assume the position. The countdown for implementation of Louisville's gargantuan anti-pet, anti-pet owner animal control ordinance continues. In the meantime, Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the largest, richest animal rights organization in the country--the organization that basically wrote the Louisville ordinance--says he's looking forward to a banner year. In fact, he comes precious close to hijacking Democratic Party rhetoric. In an article published for him by the Denver Post, he writes-- "The Democrats have now taken control of Congress . . .[and] the 2006 election brought decisive victories for the cause of animal protection - and left the callous to lick their own wounds for a change. . . Despite the enormous financial advantages of animal-use industries and their trade groups, they don't seem to welcome open debate and direct democracy. They do best in the clubby comfort zones of back rooms and big-time lobby firms. " Daring comments, coming from an organization that outspent Exxon Mobil in lobbying during the 2006 election cycle, spreading $3.4 million to support the candidates and issues HSUS favors. But then Wayne has been taught to spin by experts. HSUS employs one of the trendiest, most adept PR firms around. And with an income of upwards of $125 million in donations offered up by the unwitting to "save animals", HSUS can afford the very best. People who live in glass houses But problems with open debate and direct democracy? Oh, my. My, my, my. The Louisville Kennel Club and the League of Kentucky Sportsmen are filing suit against the city of Louisville to halt implementation of that HSUS-driven animal control law. One of their prime grievances? "[Counsel for the Louisville Kennel Club] says the council's Democratic Caucus violated the open-meetings law twice on the day that the council passed the ordinance. Hamilton, the ordinance's sponsor, held a work session early in the day to go over changes in the ordinance, with the full caucus meeting at 4 p.m. . . .Fleischaker asks that the council acknowledge violating the open-meetings law and apologize, acknowledge the vote was illegal and call a special meeting to rescind its approval." Meanwhile, back on the farm: low expectations prevail in Louisville Everyone's heard of the Peter Principle, right? Employees rise within the bureaucracy until they hit their level of incompetence ? "Incompetence" is going to take on a whole new meaning in Louisville, when the Director of Animal Services' new police state powers kick in. Meloche's employment history: clear pattern of failure Reporter Stephen George of the Louisville Eccentric Observer summarized Meloche's professional low points: Guilty administrative plea in Canada for improper record keeping of a controlled substance (anabolic steroids) at his veterinary clinic Fired after 10 months on the job as animal control administrator for the city of Durham, NC for insubordination Resigned from a position as Director of the Tallahassee-Leon Community Animal Control Services amid accusations of veterinary malpractice, aggravating shelter over-crowding and increasing euthanasia figures, inexperience with the public sector, and more. Meloche's mama might be proud, but I really wonder what Democratic Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson saw in a job applicant with a work record like that. Who the heck put that resume on his desk, anyway? Huh? Democrat Abramson hired Meloche little more than a year ago. And Democrat Cheri Bryant Hamilton soon became his very best friend, along with Pam Rogers of the Humane Society of the United States, as the three of them cooked up an animal control ordinance widely acknowledged as the worst in the country. The Louisville animal control ordinance places near totalitarian power in the hands of Gilles Meloche. The 90 odd pages of it--and councilmembers were left scrambling to see if they had actually read it prior to considering it--passed on a clear party-line vote. Dems played follow the leader in what observer Stephen George called "a fantastic display of the dismal possibilities of partisanship in local politics." Usual suspects in Louisville: ordinary dog owners, good family dogs Disconsolate dog and pet owners in Louisville are waking up to what the Dems in the Louisville City Council did, and they're beginning to ask hard questions. Dems are feeling the noose begin to tighten, too. Selling out your constituency has its consequences. Let's just hope Democrats, both in Louisville and nationally, wake up and smell the dog. Soon.

Live from New York! Its not the dogs--its the dog owners ! As New York City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. attempts to surf the fearmongering wave his recent anti-pit bull tirade spawned, who will step in to control the spin? Vallone? I'm thinking not so much. At this point, it looks like Vallone can't find his butt with both hands. His comments on pit bulls are a steady stream of misinformation, myth and hype. Shocked members of the Dog Federation of New York rushed to offer their assistance in understanding things like bite statistics and dog anatomy. They offered to help him set up community-based dog safety programs within the scope of existing law.

Let's just hope he takes it. He seemed to have no facts of any sort available to him.

No traction on the mean streets of New York

At least not for a tough guy wannabe like Councilman Vallone, trying to work a crowd that's been there, seen that, and gave the t-shirt to the dog.

Predictably, his talk of banning pit bulls from the Big Apple met with a cool reception. Many New Yorkers fondly remember former Animal Care and Control Director Ed Boks' comments on pit bulls. Ed famously suggested renaming the dogs "New Yorkies" and quipped:

New Yorkers, like pit bulls, are sometimes perceived as a standoffish and mean breed - but are actually some of the most generous and open-hearted people I've ever met.

And here's Ed with a New Yorkie. Yup. "Pit bulls" have plenty of advocates in the City of New York. Including outspoken members of the "animal protection" business, like New York's ASPCA, the Mayor's Alliance for Animals, the Humane Voters League, and others. But politics abhors a vacuum. The momentum Vallone created is going someplace.

If NYC doesn't ban pit bulls, what will it do? Gotta do something about the ruckus he kicked up. Right? Blame gamesmanship in the Big Apple I think Vallone is looking to nail someone. Anyone. He has to. Otherwise he's just a wussy that started something he couldn't finish. Not the image he wants to cultivate. So let's look at his remaining options for spinning that pit bull-inspired media blitz, and maybe saving his political rear end while he's at it. Resolution 156, Vallone's call to the New York State legislature to reverse state law and allow him to ban pit bulls and other breeds reads:

. . .dogs are often the weapon of choice of drug dealers and gangs seeking to intimidate and terrorize neighborhoods

That language is remarkably similar to what Humane Society of the United States' Pam Rogers used to stampede the Louisville City Council. In Louisville they passed what may be the worst animal control ordinance in the country.

Pam Rogers wrote:

["pit bulls"] are likely the most popular dog in the country, but unfortunately, they are also the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol."

The ASPCA, long a dominant force in NYC animal issues, says: [“Animal owners” have] title to and dominion over the animal for the owner’s enjoyment and benefit as he/she sees fit. [Shifting to "guardianship"] will foster better protections for animals, as well as the development of a more respectful and humane society. And then there's Jane Hoffman, President and COB of the NYC Mayor's Alliance for Animals. Questioned by the NY Daily News about Councilman Vallone's pit bull tantrum, she responded: . . .dangerous dogs are created by neglectful owners who often leave them chained up in a yard.

Pointing the finger at. . .us?

Oh, yeah.

Its not the dogs. Duh. We knew that.

Its us. Nasty, mean, criminal, vicious, drug-dealing spiteful dog owners.

Dog owners need regulation. Supervision. Rules and boundaries. Lots and lots of them. Maybe 100 page's worth, like they got in Louisville. It will serve us right.

Sound like a plan? It will take a little more spinning, of course, but I'm thinking Peter Vallone will have some help with that.

What do you want to bet something very similar to that Louisville ordinance is going to hit Peter Vallone's desk with a thud?

Any takers? I'll give you good odds.

Nailed to the wall in Louisville: Testicle Wars rage on Preliminary reports from Louisville showed that Cheri Hamilton Bryant and the Democratic Metro Louisville City Councilmembers pulled a classic bait-and-switch in the wee hours of the morning. Disregarding the property interests of all Louisville's dog owners, blowing off the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U. S. Constitution, Bryant--a lawyer--and her Democratic Party cohorts stuck to their guns and furthered an agenda offered to them by the Humane Society of the United States. This morning's Louisville Courier-Journal reported that the City Council enacted yet another revised version of Councilwoman Bryant's mammoth dog law proposal. A summary of the various shiny new requirements for all Louisville dog owners follows. The portions of the proposal allowing breed profiling were dropped, but the Testicle Wars continue unabated, now in Louisville. Dog owners and lovers, we've been sucker punched once again. Louisville residents get ready for a visit from the Gonad Nazis The new ordinance includes the following:

Pet limits on dogs outdoors--3 dogs on up to .5 acre; 7 dogs on up to 2 acres and no limit on tracts greater than 2 acres.

Revaccination/relicensing requirement for all dogs/cats removed from a kennel or cattery at any time.

Prohibits use of invisible fencing for unaltered dogs.

Requires 6 foot fence with one foot underground for "dangerous" and "potentially dangerous" dogs, 4 foot leash, and microchip for unaltered dogs.

Defines "potentially dangerous" dogs as any dog that bites, scratches or bruises a person "in an aggressive manner."

Mandates spay/neuter for any unaltered dog that is impounded for any reason before the owner can reclaim the dog.

Requires vets to report rabies shot information to Metro Animal Services so that dogs which got a rabies vax but not a license can be impounded.

Allows dogs to be impounded for "irritating" or "perturbing" ANYONE.

Prohibits ownership of ANY animals by anyone who has two violations within 5 years-no matter how minor.

Requires reporting of all litters, including brief description of all puppies.

Requires reporting of all sales of all dogs, with buyers name & address to be sent to Metro Animal Services, even if buyer is not local.

Requires dog license # to be published in paper in any advertisement.

Watch your balls, boys.

The Testicle Wars are coming your way. Will the Democratic Party continue to be the greatest asset and ally of Best Friends, HSUS, and other animal rights organizations dedicated to eliminating domestic animal ownership? The Republican Party looks better each day to this born-to-vote-Democratic resident of a very blue state.

Louisville's Dirty War On Dogs The latest version of Louisville, Kentucky's massive animal control proposal has been published. And the American Kennel Club and its local ally, the Louisville Kennel Club, duly released their analysis .

This ordinance will have a devastating effect on dog owners and breeders in Louisville and may have a dramatic impact on the Kentuckiana Cluster, the largest dog show cluster in the country.

They're right, of course. The proposed changes will have a devastating effect. But they are too kind. And way too polite.

The "dramatic effect on the Kentuckiana Cluster" doesn't mean jack to me.

Let's get down to it. This ordinance will. . .

Screw the average dog owner to the wall

Its painful to watch Metro Louisville City Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton, a woman with a law degree, a person of color, a Democrat representing a district that is both predominantly black and predominantly poor try to strip the citizens of Louisville of their civil rights and take their dogs away from them.

Cheri Bryant Hamilton hates dogs.

You knew that. She's a client of the Humane Society of the United States.

But she hates her constituency, too. Her proposal invents more ways to take their dogs away from them than you would have thought possible.

For example:

Limit laws: 3 is the magic number

Under the proposal, no matter how well you care for your pets, the limit is three dogs if you live on less than half an acre of land.

Now, I ask you: Who, generally speaking, lives on the smallest properties in Louisville and will be disproportionately affected by this limit law?

What option will caring and responsible dog owners have for pets they have loved and cherished over the years when, under the new Louisville ordinance, they are "over the limit"?

What will happen to those middle-aged, blameless pets whose owners can't afford more land? Many of them will be surrendered to shelters. Most of them will die there. Its very hard to find new homes for older animals. And if Louisville's limit law goes into effect, there will lots of older, displaced pets looking for new homes.

How "humane" is that?

Limit laws have been found unconstitutional in a number of places. Depriving people of their pets (their private property) based solely on the number of animals they own is wrong. There are fairer, more democratic ways to address any sanitation or noise issues, through nuisance noise ordinances and enforcement of sanitation laws.

But Cheri Bryant Hamilton isn't interested.

She's too busy making it hard for poor people to own a dog.

"Tethering": How much does good fencing cost in Louisville, anyway?

Tethering is a huge buzz word in the "animal protection" biz at the moment. And let's face it, no one likes the thought of a dog tied up 24/7.

On the other hand, good, solid, dog-proof fencing is expensive. Really expensive. Many caring dog owners-- who worry about their dogs getting over or under a shaky fence-- tether their dogs. And like many things in life, there's a "good way" and a "bad way" to do it.

But the Louisville proposal makes it impossible. Under Councilwoman Hamilton's proposal:

It would be illegal to use anything shorter than a 10 foot tether. So if you're in the habit of tying your dog's leash to a parking meter while you go in to pick up a loaf of bread, forget it. That would be illegal.

It would be illegal to use anything other than a tether with a swivel on each end. So if you like to take your dog with you when you picnic in the park, tying her to a tree or bench while you eat, forget it. Also illegal under the Louisville proposal.

Do you enjoy tying your dog to the nearest tree while you work in the yard? You had better work fast. Under the proposal, your limit is one hour out of each eight. Anything more than that is illegal.

It would be also be illegal to tether a dog between the hours of 8:00 a. m. and 6:00 p. m. So if you want the dog outside while the baby naps in the afternoon? Forget it. You have to build a fence.

So start saving up for fencing now, Louisville residents.

Over 100 pages of proposals: a disaster waiting for every Louisville dog owner

There's lots more in that proposal. Fees go up dramatically. Negative profiling and stereotyping of not only dogs, but DOG OWNERS is perpetuated. Allowing your dog to "irritate" people is against the law. Police state powers for the Metro Animal Services. Due process rights of dog owners discarded. It goes on and on and on.

The Humane Society of the United States suggested and endorsed the breed specific laws and has guided Cheri Bryant Hamilton at every turn. HSUS remains one of the very few organizations which actually support the proposal.

Louisville will become a war zone for dog owners, and HSUS isn't complaining about any of the above proposals. HSUS is leaving good dog owners to scramble for cover.

It will be a long, long time before I donate to the HSUS.

And longer still before I vote for Cheri Bryant Hamilton.

Dems hate dogs, love profiling Louisville Dems are profiling us because of our dogs Negative stereotyping of dog owners: business as usual for Democrats in Louisville. Just what the hell is the Democratic Party thinking? Is the dog owner equivalent of "driving while black" now official Democratic Party policy? While Republican members of the Louisville City Council stand up for the civil rights of law-abiding and caring dog owners, Dems seem too busy snuggling up to the Humane Society of the United States' bank account to notice that they are pissing off their own core constituency. Forget sticking up for the little guy! Cuddle up to special interests instead? Dems are whizzing in their own cornflakes ! Let me spell it out for Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton, sponsor of the 100+ page long Louisville dog ordinance proposal that would enable authorities to profile dog owners based on what their dog looks like. And as of the last round of revisions, also. . . Make it almost impossible for the owners of hunting dogs to participate in trials. Prohibit veterinarians from treating sick or injured dogs if the dogs aren't licensed. Prohibit people from finding new homes for dogs they can't keep. And more. Much, much, more. A recent opinion survey conducted by My Dog Votes found overwhelming opposition to dog-breed based profiling among registered voters. In fact, 92.9% of respondents reported that they would cross party lines in a local or state election to preserve their right to own the dog of their choice. So take a good look at your constituency, Cheri. I bet at least 45% of them own a dog. And I know they don't support negative stereotypes like the drug dealing, gangbanging, urban thug Pam Rogers of the Humane Society of the United States used to scare legislators into supporting your proposal. Hero of the Day: Republican Metro Louisville City Councilmember James Peden Maybe its his background as a teacher and student of history. I don't know. But when it comes to civil rights, James Peden, accompanied by his fellow Republicans, is eating the lunch of Metro Louisville City Council Dems. Councilmember Peden gets it: Discrimination is wrong. Its just plain wrong. And a 100+ page long dog ordinance that makes owning a dog more complicated, more onerous, and subject to more restrictions than operating a day care center, is ridiculous. Its no substitute for reasonable and fair laws for everyone. No matter what HSUS's Pam Rogers says. Democratic Party politics leave dog owners out in the cold The Louisville Courier reports: "Democrats forced the vote over the objection of Republicans, who wanted to continue talking about the ordinance at a future committee meeting. . .But the Democrats, who hold a 4-3 advantage on the committee, blocked an effort to table the measure and then passed it on a party-line vote. Peden said he expects his GOP colleagues to try to send the measure back to committee when the council meets next Tuesday. Short of that, he said they will try to amend the legislation on the floor of the council chamber. " Boots are made for walking

Former Clinton advisor on domestic policy Bruce Reed got it in a heartbeat.

His November 16 piece in Slate Magazine explained that the demographic reached by the My Dog Votes survey was--listen up, Metro Louisville City Council Democrats, cause this is important--the group that put you in office.

The My Dog Votes survey respondents were primarily middle-class women between the ages of 25 - 54, representing an almost even split of political party affiliations. Most viewed themselves as moderates, regardless of political affiliation.

Do I have your attention yet, Cheri? Still think that discriminating against parts of your own constituency is such a hot idea?

Louisville: Take it to the steps of City Hall.

I mean it. Take your dogs. Take your kids. Take your sleeping bags. Light candles. Make posters. Do it NOW.

And let's not kid ourselves. Its not just Louisville dog owners in trouble here. This 100+ page long, animal rights-inspired train-wreck of an ordinance is a problem looming on the horizon for all of us, wherever we live.

Don't live in Louisville? Write to the members of the City Council and let them know you don't support the politics of scape-goating and discrimination.

Lend a hand, everyone. Do it today.

Gentlemen: Start your engines (and hang on to your balls!) The Tacoma, Washington Gonad Battle is ON! Quick update to the Testicle Wars: The American Kennel Club advises that the December 12 Tacoma City Council meeting will address the issue of mandatory spay neuter of all dogs in Tacoma, Washington. You're going to feel a little pressure Actually, you're gonna feel a LOT of pressure. Particularly in the vicinity of your Bill of Rights guaranteed protection of private property. The U.S. Constitution says the government cannot simply strip you of what you own. Like that quivering little chunk of your dog. You might feel a significant twinge around your WALLET, too, if -- for any reason whatsoever -- you don't want to have your dog(s) surgically sterilized. Bidding begins at $55 for an annual "intact animal license". And then you have to pay for a breeder's license (at a yet-to-be-determined additional cost). Yup. Even if you have no interest whatsoever in breeding your dogs. The idea is to make you pay until it hurts for the privilege of leaving your dog the way he or she was born. Cash strapped? Fixed income? Putting your kid through med school? Tough shit. The privilege of owning intact dogs apparently does not extended to people with a limited income. Ya gotta pay the piper in Tacoma Now there's a "liberal" idea: discriminate against the poor. Good going, Councilwoman Anderson! Excellent! Does being poor mean you aren't good enough to own certain [intact] dogs? Is that the idea? Cause I got a problem with that. I'm also wondering if the Gonad Nazis will be going door-to-door inspecting dogs for the presence of unlicensed balls in the nicer parts of town. Or will they mostly scrutinize dogs in the poorer neighborhoods of Councilwoman Anderson's new, improved and de-testicled Tacoma? I sure don't see them ringing doorbells and peering between legs in the high rent districts. Do you? Doling out testicles, one by one. . .

There's plenty more to dislike about the Tacoma proposal. For example:

Limit laws would be testicle-specific. Four balls per household. Two intact animals per customer only, please. If you're a little old lady for four elderly Pug dogs that happen to have their balls still attached to their bodies. . .you've got a problem. Or two out of your four dogs sure do.

By the way, will Tacoma foot the bill if your dog(s) don't make it out of surgery? Cause I really don't see that happening, either. One strike and you're out in Tacoma Dogs picked up stray will be surgically sterilized in Tacoma. Doesn't matter how they got loose. Even if you have invested in all the permits and whatnot. Your property rights will NOT apply. The dog that goes into the pound will NOT be the same dog that comes out. Now where have I heard that idea before? Was it. . .the Institute for Animal Rights Law's website? Or maybe Animal Farm Foundation? Cause their "Five Point Approach to Community Safety" is just about in lock step with Tacoma's master plan to rid the city of gonads. Is everybody on the same page? Hell, no. The most comprehensive source of funding for spay-neuter programs, Maddie's Fund, does not fund government-mandated programs. Maddie's Fund only does voluntary programs. So who's gonna pay for all that surgery? The tax-payers of the City of Tacoma? Cause someone sure is. What's the plan, Councilwoman Anderson? Inquiring minds want to know! Write the City of Tacoma a letter. The sooner the better. Folks, I believe the Tacoma City Council is waiting to hear from you on this matter. And don't forget to drop Julie "owning-an-intact-dog-is-no-longer-a-right" Anderson a note, too. I don't understand how or why Julie thinks that blowing off property rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution is no big deal, but she does. She needs to hear from people just like you: Julie.Anderson@cityoftacoma.org

Screwing the pooch Are campaigns to "protect animals" all about negatively profiling people? Seems the Humane Society of the United States, income $125 million in 2005, outgrew the "animal welfare" biz. HSUS tweaked its homepage tag line and language to appeal to donors on a whole 'nother level.

Its all about "protecting animals" now.

Question is: protect them from what? Whole lotta love The Wall Street Journal confirms that through its associated political action committees the Humane Society of the United States spent more money on the 2006 midterm elections that Exxon Mobil did. HSUS spent nearly $3.4 million on the recent elections and ballot initiatives. HSUS donated more than $150,000 directly to Congressional candidates. In other words, HSUS outspent Halliburton. Whoa. That's a whole lotta money for protection. Personally, I'd like to know what Wayne Pacelle's HSUS is getting in exchange for all that cash. Cause I got a suspicion or two. Negative profiling for dog owners in Louisville, Kentucky Last year Democratic Louisville City Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton proposed a nasty revision to Louisville's animal control ordinances including breed specific requirements which unavoidably will discriminate against law-abiding and caring dog owners based on what their dogs look like.

In other words, Councilwoman Hamilton set up certain Louisville residents for discrimination.

The you-know-what hit the fan pretty quickly in Louisville following Coucilwoman Hamilton's proposal. A year and eight drafts of the animal control proposal later, the Louisville City Council is still arguing.

The current draft proposal is more than 100 pages long, and its a disaster.

Enter stage left: Humane Society of the United States

Some "dog advocacy" organizations have celebrated the HSUS's stance on breed profiling (BSL). For example, Animal Farm Foundation quotes HSUS as opposing BSL.

Sadly, Animal Farm Foundation is dead wrong. HSUS doesn't oppose negative stereotyping and breed specific legislation. Not any more, at least. HSUS suggested it and actively encouraged it in Louisville.

In a letter dated July 5, 2006 and addressed to the members of the Louisville City Council, Pam Rogers, the HSUS's Kentucky Legislative Coordinator, made a series of recommendations. Through her letter. . . the HSUS endorsed BSL for Louisville: ". . .legislation requiring their [that is, "pit bulls"] mandatory sterilization could be a benefit to the breed and to all dogs in the community." and then the HSUS negatively profiled pit bull owners for the Louisville City Councilmembers:

["pit bulls"] are likely the most popular dog in the country, but unfortunately, they are also the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol."

HSUS advocates discrimination Yup. HSUS tweaked more than just their homepage tagline. They're now apparently okay with negative profiling--for dogs and people. Here's a clue for the Humane Society of the United States. (Write this one down, Pam.) Discriminatory laws that encourage negative stereotypes are never a benefit. Never. Fear-mongering language calculated to deepen apprehension among politicians and the public cannot be rationalized. You do not "protect animals" by profiling them, or their owners. Temporary, limited, or "just a little" discrimination of any sort is. . .discrimination. Negative stereotypes promote deeper levels of misunderstanding. Fear. Bigotry. Hatred. Latest news from Louisville You would have thought that "you can't judge a book by its cover" would have resonated with someone like Cheri Bryant Hamilton. After all, she's a member of the NAACP. And the NAACP has quite a problem with negative stereotyping. Councilwoman Bryant Hamilton identified "reducing crime, criminal opportunities and the fear of crime" as a crucial issue during the recent campaign season. Does she really think that discriminating against certain portions of her constituency and attempting to force them to castrate their dogs is a step towards her goal? Is a 100-page-long dangerous dog law supposed to be a substitute for impartial enforcement of good laws? Is she hoping that dog owners, particularly those that own certain breeds, will just give up and leave? Or did Cheri Bryant Hamilton just swallow what the Humane Society of the United States has on offer--hook, line and sinker? Cheri toes the (HSUS) line The Louisville City Council was ready to vote against the breed specific language on November 13th--in fact, they did vote against it--but Councilwoman Bryant-Hamilton and another Democratic City Councilmember stomped out of the meeting. Without them, there was no quorum and the vote didn't count. Other Louisville councilmembers were quoted in the press expressing their amazement at the disrespect she showed them. Sounds to me like Councilwoman Bryant Hamilton is pretty heavily invested in the Humane Society of the United States' program for negative profiling. I'm just wondering who's been investing in her.

Its the data, stupid. Crap, political corruption, privacy and microchips The Bush administration and its cronies took a jackhammer to privacy rights with legislation like the Patriot Act. That's the good news. What the hell's it got to do with your dog? Does the Patriot Act extend to our pets? Are the Dems gonna save us? (Not freaking likely. ) Quick! What unites the USDA, the Humane Society of the U. S. and ex Bush cabinet Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson ? Answer: a plan to force you to microchip your dog and database your household information

Shamelessly peddling compulsory plans as a way to return lost pets to their owners, but not hesitating to shaft the millions of ordinary, law-abiding citizens whose private information would be captured and distributed through comprehensive microchip-based databases, diverse organizations are lining up on compulsory RFID microchipping for dogs and other pets. Through its support of Rick Santorum's PAWS bill many felt that even the American Kennel Club aligned itself with animal rights organizations, and the USDA's NAIS plan, and against the privacy interests of animal owners.

The push is definitely on to get pesky dog owners on board with requirements for mandatory use of radio-frequency identification microchips for dogs and other domestic animals. Privacy concerns?

Funny. No one seems to be hearing them.

Are they in it for the money, honey?

Let's get down to it. Microchips are a BIG potential market. HUGE. Just for dogs in this country--

Sales of microchips at $35/insertion on the estimated 65 million dogs in America? $2,275,000,000

"Aftermarket" sales (which would be the mandatory database registration fees) at $13.75 each? $893,750,000

Database of the household information on the 45% or so of U. S. homes that include a dog? Now, that's priceless.

But its not the windfall profits that's got me crazy. Nope. Its the people who keep saying. . .

"I've got nothing to hide."

Oh, yeah?

Wake up! That's a fox in the hen house! With mandatory microchipping of dogs and cats in place, the household information of about 63% of the U. S. population would be funneled into a huge database of people who have committed no crimes. People not accused of any crimes. We're talking about people who simply own pets. The database would hold the details on an estimated at 69.1 million U. S. homes. My home would be there. Probably your's would, too. Individuals and organizations with access to that database could run reports on who owns a big dog. Which households have "too many" cats. Where dogs and cats with their reproductive parts intact are located. Addresses. Phone numbers. Names. Shit, the NAIS regulations would require that your home's global positioning coordinates go into the database.

Still think databases are no big deal?

Imagine your insurance company with its hands on that database. In fact, take a moment to download and view this video. Go ahead. Do it. And as you listen to the guy struggling to get his pizza delivered, imagine that he owns a (duly microchipped, as required by law) "pit bull". Or Rottweiler. Or husky. Or mastiff. Or Great Dane. Or Chow. Or German Shepherd. Doberman. Akita. St. Bernard. Bull Terrier. Miniature Bull Terrier. Cane Corso. Malamute. Catahoula. . . .

Here come the Democrats!

Meet New York State Assemblyman and Democrat Jose Peralta, of Queens.

One dark and stormy night earlier this year, Assemblyman Peralta submitted a bill proposing mandatory microchipping and the creation of a database of all dogs over the age of four months in the State of New York. Four other Democrats promptly signed on to it.

What information would go into Assemblyman Peralta's database? Who would have access?

"An amendment that requires dog owners to implant a microchip that includes owner`s contact information and dog`s medical history. A registry of dogs shall be created at the time of dog licensing. This registry will be made available to veterinarians, shelters and kennels for the purposes of identification."

In other words, just about anyone with a little ambition could gain access to your household information, your dog licensing data, and your dog's veterinary records.

Think it could never happen in the U. S. of A.? Think again. Mandatory microchipping is already a reality in El Paso, Texas--where, by the way, both the city and the county vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

New Zealand's regulations just kicked in. Hong Kong already requires microchipping. So does Portugal. The list goes on.

Roe v Wade, Griswold, privacy and your ever-loving dog

Where does our right to privacy come from? Roe v Wade.

A woman's right to choose, protected by Roe v Wade, is the keystone. The decision is all about privacy. In fact, the Roe decision relied heavily on the earlier Supreme Court Griswold decision asserting the "right to marital privacy". Chip, chip, chip away at privacy--no matter what the rhetoric put out by the Tommy Thompsons, American Kennel Clubs, and HSUS's of the world--and guess what?

The tail you swallow will be your own. So-called progressive thinkers who mistakenly believe that they "have nothing to hide" and choose to support agendas sponsored by outfits like the Humane Society of the United States are going to find themselves in bed with some distinctly un-liberal people. Do ya still think threats to privacy, like mandatory microchipping for your dog, are no big deal? I sure hope not.