Posted on 05/28/2007 6:30:17 PM PDT by AKA Elena
"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up."
--Pastor Martin Niemoller.
How very often do we see use of this famous statement from the beginning of the horrors of Nazi Germany “borrowed” by proponents of our Second Amendment and our “right to bear arms” as “ First they came for our guns and then they came for us” … both acts which were true happenings in the rise of Nazi Germany and the imposition of Hitler on the German people. Of course, both of these happenings had horrendous effects and are burned into our knowledge of non-revised history. The consequences are known to us all.
My sorry attempt to use such deeply serious and deadly beginnings as a forward to and example of something much less vital, might offend some to the point of considering my doing so as “sacrilegious”. Perhaps I’ll be able to use these examples justifiably, in a far broader manner.
The following is the “frivolous or innocuous” matter that I will address … a freedom that is being threatened throughout cities and counties and states across the entire country. A freedom which can affect millions of we Citizens of the USA.
The freedom? Our right to ownership of pet dogs and cats and the entitlements such ownerships entail.
Perhaps a point of importance is the increase in directives in cities and towns nationwide doing away with the term "OWNER" and replacing it with "GUARDIAN" or some such equally inappropriate word associated with animal ownership, which comes straight from the liberal PC world.
AB 1634 was heard by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee of California throughout April and May and passed out of Committee within the last two weeks. It is interesting to note that all votes against this bill were from the minority R's on the committee with two exceptions -- two D's voted with the R's against the bill.
Some of the negative background can be found within the weird workings and mindset of PETA. Unfortunately, in some cases some can also be found in those who breed animals as a "commodity" without the ethics which most of us have. Poor ethics and placement of pets can also be found in and through the backyard carelessness of dog and cat owners which results in euthanasia … a costly moral and monetary issue.
“PETA” had its start some many years ago and immediately started hitting some dog shows and releasing dogs from their confines with the mistaken excuse that no one had any right to keep an animal fenced in any way, even though dog and cat domestication can be verified since the start of “written” history. This fact was fortutitously (for PETA and their like) forgotten by these “do-gooders”.
This past weekend before Memorial Day saw some of these PETA “nuts” out in force at a set of Southern California shows again resorting to releasing dogs from their owners confinement of them as some outlandish “do-gooder” concerted and planned activity.
As far as AB 1634 is concerned, PETA is one of the big supporters of this proposed law along with some “disreputable” individuals whose credentials and veracity has never been questioned or tested, but who are known to be free with non-veracity.
At this Memorial Day’s weekend’s shows, owners were warned to keep special care that there was no recurrence of this “theft by release” by that organization.
PETA and some other “acronymic” organizations have been successful in convincing Assemblyman Levine in California to entertain and pass out of committee in the state’s legislature a proposed law that is totally at odds with the continued right of both cat and dog owners to own intact dogs of cats without onerous and expensive approvals and licensing from the state.
The eventual result of the enactment of such a law, would be that honest and ethical breeding would be forced out of the control of the common breeders and in essence, all dog and all cat breeding would be forced into underground activity and/or (in the case of someone like myself, who has devoted forty some years to this avocation) some breeders would feel obliged to somehow leave this state or quit altogether.
Like myself, most ethical breeders of purebreds, require the spay/neuter of pet quality animals. In my personal case, all dogs we do not keep in our ownership and possession are spayed/neutered. In spite of our good ethics our individual breed clubs have been directed by the AKC to "rescue" and "re-home" those identifiable as our breed, no matter their origin (oftentimes an unregulated cage farm in the mid-west).
The proposed law requires that the neutering surgery be performed by the age of four months (which in itself is a grave danger to the pet both in having the surgery at ssuch a young age, and in its future, as cancers are common when spaying or neutering is performed on such young animals).
The consequences to the art, science, pleasure, hobby breeders as well as the effect on the continuance of the breeding of SERVICE DOGS would be disastrous.
The “product” of pet animals (dog and cats, purebred or mixed breed) would then be required to be ordered and shipped to prospective owners from various other states, sight and prospect for its purpose unseen and unknown.
The guarantees which validate purebreds are proven in size, colors, temperaments, breed characteristics and general overall similarity. Besides the art of breeding better dogs in each generation and striving for perfection (an impossibility) and breed for breed distinctions guarantee exterior appearance, temperaments and health expectations. In spite of the fight for the purebred, the same arguments as to rights and privileges of ownership apply to all mixed breeds as well.
Denying the right of owners to make decisions about one’s own property (even when I might not agree that the quality of someone else’s dogs or cats should be bred) should be sacrosanct and I should not be legislated out of my avocation through the imposition of the ignorance of any state or its representatives.
I, personally have a licensed kennel and am graded “A” by the inspectors. This does not matter … I could not afford to keep my animals if this law passes. Who has the right to mandate what I do with what is my own property if I do not violate the reasonable local laws and requirements now in existence? I have gone through the licensing process since 1977 and have at one time, had two licenses at the same time, one for commercial boarding (before the death of my husband) and one for our private dogs. These rules are expensive and strenuous in that licensing, but this new insidious law would make my kennel a waste of time, emotion and money.
It is estimated that California would not have pet dogs or cats within the next 10 years, if this becomes law. No one can substantiate that assertion. Certainly, the law is aimed at ALL dogs and cats -- not just purebreds, and would certainly hurt the most ethical the most.
Right now, through the establishment of an informed PAC, there is “dickering” over detail on the already passed committee recommendation between all concerned entities … but it is fairly beside the point, since it is still and will still be an onerous and “exclusive to the rich” bill, even if some latitude is given to breeders.
Even the law enforcement agencies which get dogs through various sources have one commonality -- the sources are breeders who specialize in these dogs. The same is true of ALL service dogs. None would be considered safe or disqualified from these regulatory measures. "They" (the Legislators) are making claims to unexplained exceptions to the law without specification.
There will be a domino effect if a state of the size and stature (?) of California is able to enact these restrictions. I would ask that every person who believes in clear Constitutional Freedoms, contact the California Legislature as soon as feasible to tell them to vote NO on AB 1634.
Free Republic can be a force for Freedom on large and most important issues ... however, this seemingly innocuous proposed law, even though not National, nor particularly “party” oriented … is definitely an anti-Constitutional matter of a most personal nature and would effect hundreds of thousands of citizens. It should be stopped before a final version of the bill is put together.
Liberals spend hours and hours in thinking up the most offensive matters to throw in our faces and “require” our acceptance of them … this is not a moral issue at all, but it is a social one which we all should try to stick down their throats with our objections to its passage as just one more liberal and socialistic attempt to regulate our lives.
The California State Clerk’s information can be found at . You are invited to call and object strenuously to this interference with my freedom and pursuit of happiness.
The referenced proposals and ramifications of such a law can be viewed at the American Kennel Club site sourced above.
Aside from this statewide law, the following has not been referenced at the various meetings to discuss actions to be taken against AB 1634.
City of Los Angeles
The Los Angeles City Council has directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would allow the City of Los Angeles to adopt the provisions of AB 1634 locally even if the state bill is not adopted.
Specifically the measure asks that the proposal mandate that all cats and dogs be spayed/neutered once the animal is four months old. The proposal will include exceptions for licensed breeders and will expand their spay/neuter assistance program to pet owners who earn less than 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.
To my knowledge almost all facilities such as Animal Shelters and the licensing organizations in Los Angeles County are COUNTY owned and operated, so perhaps this Los Angeles City decision is moot.
To help preserve our rights and become more informed of this proposed action and actions which may involve yourself and your pet ownership in your own area, you may want to call this number: AKC’s Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720 or e-mail: doglaw@akc.org to be kept apprised of related matters in your area.
Back to the original introduction, will we wait until they pick and pick and we are bereft of all of our Freedoms and Pursuit of Happiness?
The section on creating links is near the top. Just scroll down a little.
That it is about cats and dogs does not bode well. There are more important things on our plate and some frantic female pleading for cats' rights isn't going to set the juices in motion.
But it appears, it is more about intrusive governmental laws instructing us on how best to live.
You must excuse me. I have gone over the edge. Bush's traitorous immigration bullsh*t is the straw that makes the camel no longer useful as a beast of burden.
It is the last snowflake that makes all the snow fall off the branch.
I am in free fall. The trust I have put in others has been violated.
Unless the next bill Ted Kennedy writes is to prohibit fat drunk New England senators from ever writing another bill, from ever again imposing his stupidity upon this country, then I declare that Ted Kennedy and his buddy Bush need to step down now and let those with more common sense and a love for this country take over.
Did I hijack your thread? I'm sorry.
The problem is that we need LESS government in our affairs. The nanny state is more demeaning of our freedom than the nutjob in Iran developing nuclear weapons. All he can do is kill us.
People who do not love freedom and who do not love this country are passing laws as fast as they can to manipulate us into submission.
Anybody who thinks their vote still counts needs to send me $5.00. No, send me $20.00.
That's how stupid all this has become.
Thank you, I will do so!
They have gone completely over the edge and now they are taking "legislators" with them - and we are falling into the abyss of insanity.
It seems to me if all dog and cat owners would unite, however, to stop this idiocy - it would stop. Surely someone in the pet dog and cat world can organize such a movement? Such an opposition? And FAST.
For what it's worth, I'll follow your instructions tomorrow. I hope others will as well.
But I hope dog and cat owners will unite and run these idiot "lawmakers" right into the rivers near their towns tarred and feathered with dogs and cats running after them for all they are worth!
Do Be, you are correct. Too many folks just sat it out when it wasn't their turn to be in the sights. Then when it is, that's when they begin to scream bloody murder.
Having been through one turn, I think I'll just sit it out until enough of the sheeple turn from being passive subjects to being ready to become something approaching an active citizenry.
We have a distance to go yet, I think: we still have way too many "good Germans" who want to play nice with their new masters.
What a “right on” response ... the point is not our dogs ... the point can be and IS just too many parts of our lives which are violated by an entity known as government.
I do not insult you. I am in total agreement with you. I was simply stating that what gets your juices flowing and sets you into action may not do much to motivate me off the couch.
However, your cause is my cause. We may not speak the same language but we are on the same page. I appreciate your post and your voice.
To you it's cats and dogs. To me it's rats and traitors.
Or something like that. Keep up the good work.
Communist -> Jew -> Unionist -> Catholic -> Protestant -> Nazi
... persists as an artificial construction in our minds, thanks to the stepwise nature of this example. A Jew is not an "almost-Communist", and a Protestant is not an "almost-Nazi".
It is not even a matter of degree - they are independent groups with little or no lineage to trace between them and their agendas. Each has their own self-interest, and their own distinct dogmas they preach.
(Not belittling the Pastor's message... I am only lamenting the unintended forming of perceptions.)
Code is: <a href="http://www.akc.org/news/sections/legislative_alerts.cfm">
"Communist -> Jew -> Unionist -> Catholic -> Protestant -> Nazi"
... persists as an artificial construction in our minds, thanks to the stepwise nature of this example. A Jew is not an "almost-Communist", and a Protestant is not an "almost-Nazi".
What in hell are you talking about? There is absolutely NO IMPLICATION that these groups were equivalents or even shared any kind of agenda. You infer something that was not implied.
The Pastor's comments were historically accurate as to the approximate order in which the NAZI's rounded up people who were imprisoned and later sent to the DEATH CAMPS... and Pastor Niemoller, a mainstream Lutheran Pastor was one who was sent to Dauchau.
It certainly does not concatenate down to, as you imply, the Nazis. It certainly did NOT include the Nazi's as the final link. The link connecting these various people was that they were VICTIMS of the Nazis. Niemoller founded the anti-Nazi Confessing Church within the Lutheran Church in Germany in 1934.
I’m right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.