Dot
02-03-2008, 05:38 PM
Please send this to anyone you know in California.
Cross posting requested
For all who live in California who would like to do something to fight the "animal rights" extremists, here's something concrete that you can do today (2/3/08). If you live in California, or know other animal lovers who live in California, please forward this message to them, and ask everyone be sure to vote on Tuesday February 5.
If every Californian dedicated to preserving our rights as bird, dog, cat, and other animal, owners votes NO on Proposition 93 on February 5, and spreads the word to others to do the same, that could be the decisive factor.
The following political post is from Laura Sanborn, who is very active in the fight for all of us to own and keep our animals (including our exotic pets, and our birds). She has some very useful information for you on an important ballot issue in Tuesday's voting in California.
Thank you for what you do for animal owners and our animals.
Genny Wall
DISCLAIMER: Unless expressly stated otherwise, the contents of this document are solely attributable to the author. No part of this document shall be attributed to, charged against, or credited to, any group or organization, formal or informal, of which the author may be an officer, member, or affiliate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE CROSS POST IMMEDIATELY
As luck would have it, California will have an opportunity on Tuesday February 5 to help rid the state legislature of some of the worst proponents of anti-dog and anti-cat legislation. It is not just constituents in their legislative districts who can vote these extremists out. Every registered California voter has the opportunity to vote them out.
Now is a critical time for those who oppose the radical Animal Rights agenda to make it clear to politicians that we are a powerful constituency, and that legislators who pander to the extremist AR agenda will lose their jobs. We can send letters and faxes to make our case, but what matters most is how we vote.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Lloyd Levine terms out at the end of 2008. Levine is the sponsor of the infamous AB 1634 mandatory spay/neuter bill.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Fabian Núñez terms out at the end of 2008. Núñez is the Speaker of the Assembly. Had Núñez not twisted arms before the "do over" vote in the Assembly, AB 1634 would have died for good last Spring.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Loni Hancock terms out at the end of 2008. Hancock sponsored a failed bill to ban the several thousand year old tradition of field coursing with hounds.
A poll a few days ago showed Proposition 93 in a statistical tie. Californians are waking up to the fact that Proposition 93 is bad. Polls a few months ago had shown overwhelming support for it. But the more Californians learn about Prop 93, the less support it has.
We only have two days remaining to spread the word.
If every Californian dedicated to preserving our rights as dog and cat owners votes NO on Proposition 93 on February 5, and spreads the word to others to do the same, that could be the decisive factor.
There are plenty of other good reasons to vote NO on Proposition 93:
- it is dishonestly worded to make it sound like it toughens California's term limits, when in reality it weakens them - the leadership that is promoting Proposition 93 promised it would be paired with reform of California's corrupt and broken redistricting process, but they broke that promise - it has a sweetheart clause that allows even longer terms for Núñez and many others - newspapers on the left and the right oppose Proposition 93
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080125/news_lz1ed25bottom.html (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080125/news_lz1ed25bottom.html)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/ED66UF359.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/ED66UF359.DTL)
Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net (http://saveourdogs.net/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.
--Justice Louis Brandeis OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Cross posting requested
For all who live in California who would like to do something to fight the "animal rights" extremists, here's something concrete that you can do today (2/3/08). If you live in California, or know other animal lovers who live in California, please forward this message to them, and ask everyone be sure to vote on Tuesday February 5.
If every Californian dedicated to preserving our rights as bird, dog, cat, and other animal, owners votes NO on Proposition 93 on February 5, and spreads the word to others to do the same, that could be the decisive factor.
The following political post is from Laura Sanborn, who is very active in the fight for all of us to own and keep our animals (including our exotic pets, and our birds). She has some very useful information for you on an important ballot issue in Tuesday's voting in California.
Thank you for what you do for animal owners and our animals.
Genny Wall
DISCLAIMER: Unless expressly stated otherwise, the contents of this document are solely attributable to the author. No part of this document shall be attributed to, charged against, or credited to, any group or organization, formal or informal, of which the author may be an officer, member, or affiliate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE CROSS POST IMMEDIATELY
As luck would have it, California will have an opportunity on Tuesday February 5 to help rid the state legislature of some of the worst proponents of anti-dog and anti-cat legislation. It is not just constituents in their legislative districts who can vote these extremists out. Every registered California voter has the opportunity to vote them out.
Now is a critical time for those who oppose the radical Animal Rights agenda to make it clear to politicians that we are a powerful constituency, and that legislators who pander to the extremist AR agenda will lose their jobs. We can send letters and faxes to make our case, but what matters most is how we vote.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Lloyd Levine terms out at the end of 2008. Levine is the sponsor of the infamous AB 1634 mandatory spay/neuter bill.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Fabian Núñez terms out at the end of 2008. Núñez is the Speaker of the Assembly. Had Núñez not twisted arms before the "do over" vote in the Assembly, AB 1634 would have died for good last Spring.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Loni Hancock terms out at the end of 2008. Hancock sponsored a failed bill to ban the several thousand year old tradition of field coursing with hounds.
A poll a few days ago showed Proposition 93 in a statistical tie. Californians are waking up to the fact that Proposition 93 is bad. Polls a few months ago had shown overwhelming support for it. But the more Californians learn about Prop 93, the less support it has.
We only have two days remaining to spread the word.
If every Californian dedicated to preserving our rights as dog and cat owners votes NO on Proposition 93 on February 5, and spreads the word to others to do the same, that could be the decisive factor.
There are plenty of other good reasons to vote NO on Proposition 93:
- it is dishonestly worded to make it sound like it toughens California's term limits, when in reality it weakens them - the leadership that is promoting Proposition 93 promised it would be paired with reform of California's corrupt and broken redistricting process, but they broke that promise - it has a sweetheart clause that allows even longer terms for Núñez and many others - newspapers on the left and the right oppose Proposition 93
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080125/news_lz1ed25bottom.html (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080125/news_lz1ed25bottom.html)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/ED66UF359.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/ED66UF359.DTL)
Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net (http://saveourdogs.net/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.
--Justice Louis Brandeis OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)