Monday, October 22, 2007

Screwing the Pooch. Again. Dog laws strip away civil rights Turn your head and cough, brother. Dog laws are the new back door to demolishing the civil rights and liberties that progressive Democrats love to get teary-eyed and maudlin about.

The icing on the cake? Liberal Dems are in it up to their dainty nostrils.

Is anybody awake there at the DNC?

Tacoma, Washington: Julie Anderson and her continuing war on caring pet owners Well, hell. Nobody ever claimed that Tacoma City Councilmember Julie "having an unaltered animal is no longer a right" Anderson was a quick learner. Julie-the-liberal-Dem was beaten back on last year's plan mandating the surgical sterilization of all Tacoma dogs and cats unless their owners have the money to buy a breeder's permit. Julie doesn't like pet owners When making it really difficult to own an intact dog or cat without plenty of money to pay for the privilege failed, Julie developed a stunning new plan to solve the myth burning issue of "pet overpopulation": let's take pets out of their homes and send them to shelters. That's right. Julie's newest, most modest proposal offers all kinds of artificial thresholds and limitation on pet ownership. All designed to make it harder to own dogs and cats. Julie Anderson apparently subscribes to PETA's "better off dead" theory: killing dogs and cats is morally superior to letting the "wrong" [limited income, young, politically incorrect] people continue to enjoy their company. For example: Three animal control violations in two years, and you can be stripped of your private property. Under the proposal, failure to scoop poop is a violation. Three violations in two years and all of your pets can be taken from you and sent to an underfunded shelter. Where the chances are pretty good that they will die. Under the current Tacoma proposal, kids can't license their pets. You have to be 18 years old to buy a dog license. Why? Julie, why don't you just cut to the chase and require competency in English, an income of $150,000 per year and maybe five acres of fenced woodlands and meadows? Huh? I hear you knocking. "Pit bulls" and no knock searchs We were all supposed to cheer when an appeals court in that most brilliant of blue of states, Massachusetts, found that the mere presence of a "pit bull" was insufficient to justify a no knock search warrant. Give me a break. The decision in Commonwealth v. Santiago leaves the door for no knock searchs based on dog ownership wide open. Shit, the court reasoned that any dog can be a weapon: While we agree with the Commonwealth that a pit bull (or a mutt) may, under the appropriate circumstances, pose a serious enough threat to an officer's safety to justify a no-knock warrant, no such circumstances were present here. There was no information in the affidavit that the defendant might actually use the pit bull as a weapon. Dogs are weapons. And they lurk in 45% of U. S. homes. Why am I not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling from the phrasing in that decision? Maybe its the suggestion that any dog could be used as a justification for a no knock search? Lemme tell ya, I was way happier when no knock searches were illegal and dogs weren't weapons. When dog-hating freaks like Democratic New York City Councilman and ex Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Peter Vallone Jr. rants on about "pit bulls" as "street weapons". . .is he paving the way for no knock search warrants and other civil rights violations against their owners? Vallone pretends he's got a real hard on about graffiti, baggy pants, and "pit bulls". So let's face it. Vallone thinks discriminating against urban youths is a winning political formula. Is race a factor in that Democrat's thinking? Oh, baby. You better believe it. I'm just wondering what its got to do with the Democratic Party. New Rochelle: keeping the undesirables O U T. How? With a dog law. When the entrenched Democratic Party-controlled New Rochelle City Council moved to require a $250 permit, per dog, per year, in order for non-residents to walk a dog in a public park what was the intended effect?

Keep those Bronx dogs and their melanin-rich owners the hell out of New Rochelle.

The City Council wanted to keep New Rochelle safe for the right kind of people. Their kind of people.

Get it straight. This is not about dogs. This is NOT about saving puppies, open spaces for off-leash dogs, or "pet overpopulation." Its not about "pit bulls" or whether microchips cause cancer. The issue is civil rights. Your civil rights, and mine. My Dog Votes. My dog only votes for dog-friendly candidates, and the preservation of civil rights and liberties. He's a sensible dog, and he has his priorities straight. I hope yours does, too.


Anonymous said...

We always hear that pit bulls are used as drug guard dogs as if a drug dealer can't use any other breed of dog. Here's just one case of a dealer who is using another breed of dog to guard his drugs...

Burlington County Times;
Suspect charged with sending dog to attack officers

Burlington County Times

PEMBERTON TOWNSHIP — A township man was charged with aggravated assault after he sent his dog to attack officers conducting a drug raid Wednesday, police said.
Officers went to the Magnolia Road home of Robert J. Anderson III, 24, at 6:41 p.m. to execute a search warrant in a drug investigation, Lt. Robert Lewandowski said.
Anderson was outside the house, but when he saw officers approaching, he went inside, locked the doors and refused repeated orders by police to come out, Lewandowski said.
During the confrontation, Anderson opened a door and sent his Labrador retriever to attack the officers, the lieutenant said. The officers used a chemical spray to stop the dog, and none of them was injured, he said.

The officers then entered the home and arrested Anderson without further incident, Lewandowski said. They seized an undisclosed amount of heroin, marijuana, unauthorized prescription pills and drug paraphernalia, Lewandowski said.
Anderson was also charged drug possession, drug possession with the intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was lodged in Burlington County Jail in Mount Holly on $25,000 bail.

Anonymous said...

Great post, let's hope it gets read.

I admit I was happy with the No-Knock ruling at first but it sure isn't anything to cheer about.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting how insane Tacoma's new proposed three strikes your out law on pets and their owners has become. Julie is odd. She must dislike anyone who had a pet as a kid or cared for a pet. I had several pets under age 18 and never had an issue. Why are kids now irresponsible? Isn't that the parents decision whether Timmy or Danny can have a pet rabbit? If my pet is not licensed, or god forbid my neighbor's dog craps in my yard (again), I can hall him off to jail with Snowball (woof).

Ever been to France (Paris)councilmembers? Dogs shit there in public. I don't see the French placing citizens in shackles or toting them off to jail.

But in Tacoma, god forbid your good o'l labrador gets out three times and chases your neighbor's cat that taunt him. If your dog gets out, you have failed and because of that good bye ol' yeller.

Anonymous said...

Councilwoman Anderson of Tacoma is no friend of responsible pet owners. Owning a pet or giving a puppy away to a good home is not a crime. At least my dog hasn't slept around, stiffs different breeds to get laid or has compromising photos.

New law notes:
Clean your own house before you damand it of others.

Make it a civil infraction to sell or give away puppies or kittens born to an unlicensed animal. Owners would be required to include the mother’s license number in any published advertisements of puppies or kittens.

Other changes being proposed include:

• Making it a violation to leave animal waste on public or private property, unless authorized.

• Making anyone younger than 18 ineligible to license pets.

• Making it a violation to improperly license a pet (to license an unaltered animal as an altered pet).

• Making it a crime to create or use counterfeit license tags.

• Adopting state law regarding poisoning of animals. Unlike the current city code, which makes it a misdemeanor to poison an animal, the state law includes exceptions for poisoning rodents and slugs.

Anonymous said...

Nassau County, NY SPCA at it again
(Ordered to stop activities two times in past few years),0,1282875.story?track=rss

Former Nassau SPCA sergeant file sex harassment suit
9:11 PM EDT, June 9, 2008
A former volunteer investigator with the Nassau County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals filed a $4-million lawsuit Monday against the county, the society and its leaders, charging sexual harassment and gender discrimination and that she was terminated after she complained.

Susan Collison, 37, of Massapequa, an investigative sergeant, said in her complaint that her supervisor, Capt. Stanley Feinman, asked her to sit in his lap and asked her if she filled her back pockets "or is that all you?" When she left the room embarrassed, the supervisor implied to those remaining that she was on her way to have sex with somebody, the complaint said.

"The defendant's conduct is outrageous," said Collison's lawyer, Rick Ostrove in Carle Place.

Collison said Feinman, 65, harassed her, and that SPCA boss Henry Buck, 70, condoned it.

Feinman and County Attorney Lorna Goodman said they hadn't seen the papers, and could not comment. Buck could not be reached.

Collison said the captain touched her inappropriately, showed pornographic images to co-workers and said the pictures depicted Collison, even though they did not, and lied to others that she had or would have sex with co-workers and fund donors.

She said she repeatedly complained to Buck, who often was present during the captain's comments, and that the chief told her he would take care of it but did not.

In May, Buck removed her from SPCA duties.

The notice of claim said that, in addition to funding the SPCA, the county is responsible for providing all training to the SPCA, including sexual harassment and gender discrimination training.