Tuesday, January 30, 2007

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.


Anonymous said...

Bill Richardson is a carpet-bagging creep, masquerading as a Democrat.

Democrats - now that they've swept Congress - seem to be in a big hurry to fill the vacant shoes of the corrupt right wingers that blatently pander to special interest groups and big, rich lobbying firms. Or wait - don't our Dem officials count HSUS as a special interest group 'cause now HSUS is kissing ass and dropping big money into the pockets of Dems.

Richardson - and anyone else that thinks it's OK to wipe out property rights by signing on to the HSUS/ASPCA/PETA agenda of ending ownership of animals - better get ready for a major shift of Dems leaving the party.

Charles said...

Richardson's commitment to animal rights has moved him up substantially on my list of potential candidates to support.

Good for him.

Anonymous said...

If you have volunteered at any of California's dog pounds, or in any other state, erroneously referred to as "shelters," you might understand the "breed specific" need to stop illicit and cruel breeding and use of certain breeds. Thousands upon thousands of "specific breeds" die horrendous deaths at the hands of cruel, profit-seeking gamblers, or die in those so-called "shelters" after suffering, sometimes for months, in those places, with volunteers valiantly searching for, but not finding,homes for most of them.

If you haven't been there, you are not entitled to an opinion---try it. You'll hate it and stop seeing this bill as a "big brother" privacy invasion. You will support anything and everything that could make a difference in the prolonged, unabating suffering of these innocent animals.

Anonymous said...

My friends and I recently relocated to Albuquerque. We ran from conservative Minnesota to, what seemed like, our "land of the free". We have three dogs that are our lives. We do everything in our power to keep them safe and healthy. When given the opportunity (which rarely, and i mean rarely, happens) to run, they don't. They love us and stay with us on their own, not by force of leash or hand. Be got them a house with a yard. The house may be small, but the yard is enormous and they love every inch of it. They sleep in our beds at night and and respect our house when we are gone. We "puppy-proof" the home before we leave, give them plenty of food, water, and toys, and they're estatic to see us when we get home (and vise-vera). They have friends to play with, parents that love them, and plenty of room to run. They couldn't be happier, and they won't be happier with a micro-chip.
We moved here without the slightest knowledge of any HEART Ordinance. Our landlord requires that are pets are registered and we respect that. We went to a shelter looking to register them wheh we recieved the news.
We are not going to micro-chip our dogs. That is an obvious violation of their right to be alive. I understand the point behind it, but what about a "Collar Law" or a "Pet-Tag Law". Are we really so sadistic that the forced "only way out" is implanting a MICRO-CHIP under the FLESH of a LIVING-BEING? That is completely unreasonable. I don't think our culture realizes the direction that we're headed.
I like having my personal information being strictly MY PERSONAL INFORMATION. The idea that I run the risk of being flagged a "terrorist" because of what I check out from the public library is sickening. Living in a country where you're "top-dog" if you have a clip-on GPS/cell phone/web-server/peronal assisstant attached to your ear is disturbing. We are evolving into a robotic state and the HEART Ordinance is merely another step in that direction. I am not convinced that this outragous behavior is best for me and my four-legged loved-one, and I am not willing to sign a waiver agreeing to turn my furry friend into a cyborg. Give me the fine. I'll go to jail if I have to, we'll fight this into the ground.
We have a 6 month lease and its an unreasonable request to pay $150 for each dog not to undergo this procedure. Does ANYONE know of any way out?

Please e-mail me: justwhatineeded73@yahoo.com