by Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon
They are now coming after our four-legged companions.
Blue state after blue state is now engaged in mandating forced neutering and spaying of our pets -- and with a Dr. Strangelove fanaticism that should instead be directed at improving school systems or providing clinics with the necessary means for lessons on birth control for illegal aliens and unwed pregnant teenagers.
It began quietly in 1990 in San Mateo County, in Northern California. The Board of Supervisors approved the nation’s first law requiring all pets in that region ‘go under the knife.’
“We took a first step toward solving the animal overpopulation problem,” said Supervisor Tom Nolan, the instigator of the San Mateo ordinance. It grants authority to impose a $500 fine on violators who fail to neuter and spay their dogs.
Similar laws passed in New York, New Hampshire and Washington State. While the majority of states fund spay/neuter clinics through license fees, the blue states make it “mandatory” for dog and cat owners to neuter their pets. Nowhere in these proposals are there substantial fines or misdemeanors solely for irresponsible pet owners.
The most recent proposal blossomed the week of April 9, 2007 in Southern California: the “California Healthy Pets Act” (AB1634), which is a thin disguise to exterminate pets. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- the illegal alien’s best friend and leader of the largest Sanctuary City in the country -- has, to no one’s surprise, jumped like a bean with both feet into the fray as a partner to the legislation. He is the new king of finding ways to increase revenues without calling it a tax.
Proponents claim that this ordinance will raise proceeds via license/registration fees and fines to defray the cost of euthanasia, including other animal control services. The only accomplishment this new law will offer is the halving of registration and licensing compliance by pet owners who will go underground to protect their natural rights.
Doctors of Veterinary Medicine are not held to the same doctor/patient confidentiality agreements with a dog or cat, as is the ruling with human beings. Under AB1634, however, DVMs will be placed in the unappealing position of informant: to turn in pet owners whose un-neutered or un-spayed pet has been brought in for treatment.
How is this different from Hitler’s Eisantzgruppen? Will physicians become the states’ Gestapo-like task enforcers so that man’s best friends can be sterilized against their owners’ will (and ultimately vanish ‘for the greater good’)? Will this be the ‘Final Solution’ for some of God’s perfect creations whose only crime is that they were not born human?
On the one hand, curbing the birthrate of cats and dogs to 50% or less is, in and of itself, not a bad idea (unless you own shares in companies like Friskies, Science Diet, or Alpo). On the other hand, demanding without recourse that conscientious pet owners have their pets mutilated, particularly expensive purebred dogs and cats, is another example of the outrageous ideas that bounce up like a Pop Tart from the Liberal Think Tank toaster, such as with their exploitation of late-term abortions as a “progressive” idea.
Like so many other ideas that begin with seeds of sensibility, this one has grown into a morass of liberal logic. The people who dream up these foolish ideas are the same mindless obstructionists who don’t lose a minute’s sleep over the insurmountable problems imposed on society by, as a salient example, illegal immigrants: They overcrowd our hospitals giving birth to anchor babies; their offspring crowd our schools and run roughshod in gangs. They represent an inordinate number of the prison population, and too many, of late, have been caught driving drunk, without a license or documentation, after they killed innocent men, women and children. One of these illegals has been deported 17 times. How many animals are captured and set free 17 times?
We digress to make a specific point, which follows in a side-by-side comparison that shows what is sensible and what is preposterous:
Dogs and cats are not, and were never, a threat to our social infrastructure.
Illegal aliens are a problem that is straining to the breaking point American taxpayer resources, our legal system, our safety and our patience.
Dogs and cats do not purposefully cross state lines to steal, maim or kill for pleasure or gain.
Criminal illegal immigrants commit these offenses every hour of every day.
Dogs and cats expect nothing except a good rub behind the ears, a $3 toy, and one square meal a day.
Arrogant illegal immigrants demand immediate amnesty and equal rights of legal citizens, and offer nothing in return except a cheaper Big Mac.
Dogs and cats don’t roam avenues and boulevards in packs numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Illegal immigrants force the lock-down of city streets to protest en masse American policies while waving their home countries’ flags, or American flags in faux patriotism at the behest of Spanish talking heads.
It began quietly in 1990 in San Mateo County, in Northern California. The Board of Supervisors approved the nation’s first law requiring all pets in that region ‘go under the knife.’
“We took a first step toward solving the animal overpopulation problem,” said Supervisor Tom Nolan, the instigator of the San Mateo ordinance. It grants authority to impose a $500 fine on violators who fail to neuter and spay their dogs.
Similar laws passed in New York, New Hampshire and Washington State. While the majority of states fund spay/neuter clinics through license fees, the blue states make it “mandatory” for dog and cat owners to neuter their pets. Nowhere in these proposals are there substantial fines or misdemeanors solely for irresponsible pet owners.
The most recent proposal blossomed the week of April 9, 2007 in Southern California: the “California Healthy Pets Act” (AB1634), which is a thin disguise to exterminate pets. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- the illegal alien’s best friend and leader of the largest Sanctuary City in the country -- has, to no one’s surprise, jumped like a bean with both feet into the fray as a partner to the legislation. He is the new king of finding ways to increase revenues without calling it a tax.
Proponents claim that this ordinance will raise proceeds via license/registration fees and fines to defray the cost of euthanasia, including other animal control services. The only accomplishment this new law will offer is the halving of registration and licensing compliance by pet owners who will go underground to protect their natural rights.
Doctors of Veterinary Medicine are not held to the same doctor/patient confidentiality agreements with a dog or cat, as is the ruling with human beings. Under AB1634, however, DVMs will be placed in the unappealing position of informant: to turn in pet owners whose un-neutered or un-spayed pet has been brought in for treatment.
How is this different from Hitler’s Eisantzgruppen? Will physicians become the states’ Gestapo-like task enforcers so that man’s best friends can be sterilized against their owners’ will (and ultimately vanish ‘for the greater good’)? Will this be the ‘Final Solution’ for some of God’s perfect creations whose only crime is that they were not born human?
On the one hand, curbing the birthrate of cats and dogs to 50% or less is, in and of itself, not a bad idea (unless you own shares in companies like Friskies, Science Diet, or Alpo). On the other hand, demanding without recourse that conscientious pet owners have their pets mutilated, particularly expensive purebred dogs and cats, is another example of the outrageous ideas that bounce up like a Pop Tart from the Liberal Think Tank toaster, such as with their exploitation of late-term abortions as a “progressive” idea.
Like so many other ideas that begin with seeds of sensibility, this one has grown into a morass of liberal logic. The people who dream up these foolish ideas are the same mindless obstructionists who don’t lose a minute’s sleep over the insurmountable problems imposed on society by, as a salient example, illegal immigrants: They overcrowd our hospitals giving birth to anchor babies; their offspring crowd our schools and run roughshod in gangs. They represent an inordinate number of the prison population, and too many, of late, have been caught driving drunk, without a license or documentation, after they killed innocent men, women and children. One of these illegals has been deported 17 times. How many animals are captured and set free 17 times?
We digress to make a specific point, which follows in a side-by-side comparison that shows what is sensible and what is preposterous:
Dogs and cats are not, and were never, a threat to our social infrastructure.
Illegal aliens are a problem that is straining to the breaking point American taxpayer resources, our legal system, our safety and our patience.
Dogs and cats do not purposefully cross state lines to steal, maim or kill for pleasure or gain.
Criminal illegal immigrants commit these offenses every hour of every day.
Dogs and cats expect nothing except a good rub behind the ears, a $3 toy, and one square meal a day.
Arrogant illegal immigrants demand immediate amnesty and equal rights of legal citizens, and offer nothing in return except a cheaper Big Mac.
Dogs and cats don’t roam avenues and boulevards in packs numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Illegal immigrants force the lock-down of city streets to protest en masse American policies while waving their home countries’ flags, or American flags in faux patriotism at the behest of Spanish talking heads.
Dogs and cats are loyal and trustworthy.
Non-English speaking, rule-busting and intoxicated illegal immigrants are neither willing nor capable of being either.
Dogs and cats provide joy and unconditional love.
Self-seeking illegal immigrants bleed the American taxpayer unconditionally, and without conscience.
So, why are liberal politicians persistently pressing forward like Rommel’s panzer divisions to force pet owners to bring in their canines and felines to be anesthetized and sterilized, and at no later than four months of age? It’s a question that demands sober, logical, and credible answers. It presents the slippery slope of a liberal agenda that has quietly infiltrated American thought via educators and the media.
In the end, as always, the real victims are those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. They are being threatened with arbitrary rules composed by out-of-control liberals and their equally uncontrollable agendas. Clearly it seems that the ‘unborn’ are a menace to liberals: human fetuses and late-term babies allowed to be aborted with impunity, and now the attempt to eliminate conception amongst dogs and cats -- to wipe them out.
The Lefties of the '60s that scared everyone with the idea of over-population are still at it. It is not enough that we are faced with an extremist foreign agenda whose aim is to exterminate westerners. We are systematically being reduced in number, both human and animal inside our own borders. Imagine if the whole of America was placed into the efficient hands of the liberals: In less than two generations there would be no one remaining, except, of course, illegal aliens.
The question is, who will get there to finish the job first?
No comments:
Post a Comment