Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

BOCS To Consider Animal Rights Power Grab Proposal

By Greg L | 15 September 2009 | Prince William County | 25 Comments

The latest request from local liberals is to form an Animal Welfare Committee, which has been promoted in numerous letters to the editor and a constant stream of lobbying before the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, which is scheduled to take this matter up today.   It’s all about animal welfare, and who could be against that, right?  Plenty of folks are, and with good reason.  It’s not about animal welfare.

This idea has been shot down twice already. The original idea was to help find private funding to assist the Animal Shelter. That’s a pretty good idea, and had it just been left as that, I doubt many residents would have a problem. But when you look at the PWSPCA website it doesn’t take long before you realize how they wish to expand the scope of the committee to oversee all animal welfare issues in the county, and establish a forum for the SPCA and all the animal rights allies that they’re trying to bring into this that would turn Board meetings into an animal rights circus. The PWSPCA has even already established a website for this committee that doesn’t exist yet under their own control that they’ve devoted to political activism.  This will be another Human Rights Commission, although this time for animals, and no doubt it will turn into the same waste of taxpayer resources, duplication of effort, and useless distraction that the Human Rights Commission has become.

The county has Innovation as a Bio Research Job Center and Animal Research is a federally mandated part of that business. If animal rights activists get a taxpayer-funded forum to pontificate about how federally-mandated programs are inhumane for animals, I can’t imagine a lot of bio research companies are going to be eager to come to the county and provide jobs.  We really don’t need to put roadbloacks in front of local job creation, just to make animal rights activists happy.

Had this proposal been strictly constructed to support the animal shelter, we’d have had a committee working with the Police Department that operates it long ago.  The reason we don’t have this is because radicals don’t want the half-loaf of a better animal shelter, they want a shot at seizing some political power.  So what if they throw laudible animal welfare goals under the bus?  That’s the liberal way, to try to hijack something good and decent in order to ram down the electorate’s throats something they would find intolerable.

Let’s hope the Board sees through this power grab.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

25 Comments

  1. Chauncey Gardiner said on 15 Sep 2009 at 12:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Might be worth a trip to the McCoart Bldg just to watch the circus.

  2. Sylvester said on 15 Sep 2009 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    LOL! I don’t live in PW, but I would like to recount an incident in Arlington Co. years ago when the animal rights crowd wanted the county board to rewrite all the animal laws and make major changes.
    The word “pets” was to be deleted and replaced with “animal companions”. Cats were to be confined at all times or on a leash if
    outside. I guess this was to save the lives of mice. A Cat licensing requirement was also on the agenda.

    The meeting was hysterical. Somebody (no pun intended) let the cat out of the bag about the meetings agenda early and a rather large group of angry cat owners showed up to protest. The idea was shot down quickly.

  3. Gone Hunting said on 15 Sep 2009 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Is Stewart really going to support the left wing animal-rights nuts on this one? Kiss his future good-bye….

  4. Patty said on 15 Sep 2009 at 12:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    I noticed that many signatures on the petition are from individuals that do not reside in this state. Many signatures are from people living in other countries.

    Interesting.

    It also appears that county money (tax dollars) would go to support this committee.

    Why would they have a committee already organized when the Board hasn’t approved it? Seems they have already picked Their people.

  5. Just the Facts said on 15 Sep 2009 at 1:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Amazing - animal rights advocates get a forum before the BOCS while women’s right not to suffer harassment and abuse in County employment are ignored, and senior County staff attack the victims with impunity.

  6. Anonymous said on 15 Sep 2009 at 1:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gone Hunting, why are you saying Stewart is going to support this crap? It is John Jenkins proposal, not Stewarts. Stewart will kill this thing before it has a chance to get anywhere….

  7. Gone Hunting said on 15 Sep 2009 at 1:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s what I’ve heard, but it would be so out of step for him. A good guy….

  8. FED UP said on 15 Sep 2009 at 2:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wouldn’t it be nice, if instead of all these whackjobs supporting animal rights - they actually rose up to protect the rights of human beings - the unborn?

  9. Not SPLC said on 15 Sep 2009 at 2:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe Gerhardt told them he could make it happen before he up and left.

  10. Anonymous said on 15 Sep 2009 at 3:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sooo…. when are we going to discuss Vegetable rights! Can you just imagine the “horror” associated with what happens to create V8 juice! Fortunately, mineral rights are already established law.

  11. fed up said on 15 Sep 2009 at 4:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    “A Cat licensing requirement was also on the agenda.”

    West Arlington already has that.

    Ooops. Did I say West Arlington? I meant Manassas Park.

  12. concerned said on 15 Sep 2009 at 4:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    It passed, although watered down. Stewart, Stirrup, Jenkins, Principi, and Caddigan in favor.

  13. Disgusted said on 15 Sep 2009 at 5:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Glad it passed! I love cats…..medium well with a twist of lemon.

  14. BattleCat said on 15 Sep 2009 at 7:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey Now!!

  15. Dave in PWC said on 15 Sep 2009 at 10:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Only good cat is a dead cat

  16. Bridget said on 16 Sep 2009 at 6:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Oh, it is so on, cat haters. If the chickens can get an Empathy Museum, by glory I say the cats desrve one of their own.

  17. Dave in PWC said on 16 Sep 2009 at 7:46 am:
    Flag comment

    Cats drool, dogs rule

  18. Kingsley said on 16 Sep 2009 at 1:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can’t believe this stupid thing passed. What were they thinking?

  19. Bridget said on 16 Sep 2009 at 4:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Kingsley said:

    I can’t believe this stupid thing passed. What were they thinking?

    “Animal Rights = Human Control

    “Animal rights” is just one more diabolic scheme for promoting government control over human lives by destroying our right to private property. It is the logical tactic of those who hate the individual creative ability and wish it replaced by the anti-human jackboots of collectivism.

    “Animal rights” activists use the tools of rationality which are uniquely available to the human species in order to deny the distinct nature of their own rational faculties. They raise up animals in an attempt to lower humankind.

    They may speak for themselves only, not for me. I know what I am. I know what animals are. And I will name what “animal rights” activists truly are: the Human Defamation League. And making us as oblivious to cruelty as are all other animals, if not the actual agenda of the Human Defamation League, is nonetheless the unintended consequence of their campaign.

    http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/aniright.html

  20. Gone Hunting said on 17 Sep 2009 at 9:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, I’m disappointed in Stewart for this. Chalk one up for the nanny state…what’s next, a PWC representative to the UN?

  21. Greg L said on 17 Sep 2009 at 10:02 am:
    Flag comment

    An amendment to this proposal was adopted that explicitly restricts the AAC to matters pertaining to the animal shelter. That should handle most of the concerns here, and gives the Board a big stick to beat them with if they decide to start agitating outside of their defined purview.

  22. KMG said on 17 Sep 2009 at 4:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    I dunno Greg. The folks over at “anti” are praising the “progressive” leadership of those that supported this new committee.

  23. Bridget said on 18 Sep 2009 at 6:19 am:
    Flag comment

    The folks over at “anti” are praising the oppressive “leadership” of those that supported this new committee.

    Fixed.

    Too often progressive is code for oppressive.

  24. Benton said on 18 Sep 2009 at 6:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    So is Mr. Nohe a hero again for voting against it. Soo hard to keep up with the plan here????!!!!

  25. JD said on 21 Sep 2009 at 1:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Animal Welfare issues are more complicated than “do experiments or do not do experiments”, or “kill for profit” or “don’t kill for profit”. I think the intention of those who are compassionate toward animals is to spare the more immmoral things we do to animals in the pet, food, and experimentation areas (and for zealots of the animal welfare cause, spare them entirely). I agree with some aspects of animal compassion, but clearly there are better venues for this issue than a tax-funded county organization.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1477