Aggressive Animal Alert
ZIP: 85014

If the following two dangerous animals and/or their owner are spotted or if one know where they reside, please contact City of Phoenix Animal Control with this information so the community can be better protected.

Animals:

2 Dogs, breeds unknown, mixed

Dog 1: Small, black, possible white markings on chest.

Dog 2: Small, white with tan/brown patches.

Incident(s) of Aggression/Dangerous Animal Behavior:

1. Attempted to attack cat and then charged owner trying to shoo dogs out of backyard. Dogs’ owner encouraged dogs to attack and made no effort to restrain animals when asked to do so. Time: Approx: 8 a.m.

2. Snapped at two people trying to chase the dogs away from kittens the dogs mauled to death. Incident took place in backyard of private resident and was reported to City of Phoenix PD and Animal Control. Time: Approx: 12:30 p.m.

3. Dogs returned to location of second attack, chased off after charging owner. Approx: 2 p.m.

Animal(s) Owner:
Name: Unknown.
Description: Hispanic male, about late 20s to mid 30s, 5’9″ to 5’10″, approx 150-170 lbs, brown eyes, short black hair, clean shaven, last seen wearing ball cap, sleeveless shirt.

Other Information:

Owner allows animals to run around without leashes in violation of the law. Encourages animals to attack.

Known to frequent corner gas station/convenience store near Longview Elementary. Believed to live in area bordered by Fairmount, 12th St, Osborn Rd and 7th St.

Evidence is being compiled for potential criminal and civil charges against dogs’ owner.

“I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that,” Foxx continued. “We live in an opportunity society and people are forgetting that. I remind folks all the time that the Declaration of Independence says ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ You don’t sit on your butt and have it dumped in your lap.”

No reason for that? Uh huh.

Mrs, Foxx reveals her true nature as an entitled elitist politicians with no comprehension, understanding, or awareness of how the average American lives. She lives in the D.C. echo chamber of self-delusion and ignorance of the world around her. She claims we are a nation of opportunity. We are not nor have been for quite some time. People like her have made it increasingly difficult to near impossible to even find an opportunity let alone exploit said opportunity through numerous rules and regulations that have done nothing but hinder opportunity. She pontificates on how she worked her way through school, didn’t take a dime, and the usual blather I have dubbed the “Elitist Echo” about how people today are just lazy and expect everything handed to them. What makes this pretty reprehensible is the fact that this elitist fool sits on the  Subcommittee for Higher Education.

Where was her outrage over the years about increasing tuition costs? Why was her committee doing nothing to make college more affordable? Why does she have no understanding that college costs are somewhere like 1700% more than when she went to college? Why did she and her elitist colleagues allow the economy to collapse and then bail out those responsible for the collapse without a single concern for the average American? Will Mrs. Foxx take responsibility for her part in destroying good paying jobs for college grads who are now unemployed or underemployed because Congress allowed their positions to be outsourced, downsizes, or even eliminated for no other reason than Congressional and Corporate greed? Ultimately it is the availability of jobs that determine whether one can pay their debts. Our economy is in the tank, therefor no jobs. Perhaps the Congresswoman should spend her time working to better the economy than whining about those scrabbling to get ahead despite her and her colleagues efforts to undermine the working people of America.

I know many college grads who are unemployed or underemployed. They didn’t ask for it. They’ve worked hard and were screwed over despite their efforts. I would suggest Mrs. Foxx and her fellow political elite in Washington on both sides of the isle stop denigrating people (their constituents) over their college debt and instead look to their own guilt in wracking up trillions of dollars in debt in their wasteful spending of taxpayer money. When she and her fellow elitist scum have eliminated the national debt they have incurred while in office, then she can question others about their personal debts.

Hypocrisy thy name is Rep. Virginia Foxx.

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.

While I applaud the State’s efforts to update existing laws to ensure new technological means are not used to skirt anti-harassment and intimidation protections, this law will likely not hold up in court because the terms “annoy or offend” were made into “criminal” offenses. Such vague terminology could be used to suppress 1st Amendment rights in Arizona by those who become “annoyed” or “offended” by something someone writes on the Internet. Every day people are “offended” and “annoyed” by the most innocuous of things. That doesn’t mean it’s criminal to say or write them, especially when they are of a non-threatening nature.

Who decides what is “offensive” and there for criminal? I find the derogatory comments about Arizona from progressives, pro-illegal alien supporters and extremist groups like La Raza to harm Arizona businesses via boycotts offensive; so is that a criminal offense? Does that justify 25 years of incarceration? Of course not. And then there is the whole “profane language” part, which the SCOTUS ruled long ago as protected speech, regardless of the level of offense.

A well intentioned law but ultimately one that has been subverted by those desiring to quash free expression in this nation.

1. Violated the first rule of politics (at least in my book): She attacked the family of a candidate for no legitimate reason (e.g. policies, criminal activity, et al.).
2. Ms. Rosen attacked Mrs. Romney personally knowing little more than Ann Romney being Mitt Romney’s wife, as if being a spouse to a wealthy individual was a crime. Yes, a number of extreme “progressive” leftists in the Democrat Party view success and wealth as evil but the vast majority of reasonable Americans have no problem with those who acquired their wealth legally. As Romney has never been accused of criminally achieving his wealth, as far as I know, then no American should begrudge he or his family’s successes. Any who do likely do so from a position of avarice and jealousy in themselves.
3. Ms. Rosen attacked stay at home parents (both mothers and fathers) as somehow unaffected or unconcerned by economic issues. Additionally she implies that stay at home parents don’t actually contribute or work. Anyone who has been a stay at home parent or knows one could easily inform Ms. Rosen of her ignorant statement. Regardless of your economic income status, rich or poor, to attack stay at home parents for political reasons in unwarranted.
4. Ms. Rosen attempts to start class warfare between women, playing into an old misogynistic tactic used by both political parties in the United States to keep women divided instead of united on issues that concern them all. Obviously the Democrats haven’t realized that Americans are tired of the divisive filth being spread by both parties, especially the constant calls for class warfare by the hypocritical political elite.
5. Ms. Rosen plays into the hands of the misogynists by attacking another woman over the choice she made regarding her children and family. If Ms. Rosen truly believes women should have the rights and freedoms to make their choices in their lives regarding the families and careers then why attack another? Or does Ms. Rosen think personal choices only applies to decisions she agrees with or that such freedom should be denied to others based on economic status?

In other words, Ms. Rosen has accomplished through her initial insult and revealing* apology something that Republicans and conservatives have been unable to do of late. She single-handedly blunted the Obama Administrations bogus claims of a GOP “War Against Women”, blunted the Democrat Party’s increasing extremist class warfare agenda, and made women aware that the true misogynistic tendencies of the Democrat’s leadership is no different than that of the GOP.

She shattered the mirrors and blew away the smoke to reveal the ugly truth of her DNC masters for all to see. So, congratulations Ms. Rosen for showing yourself to be a puppet of the political elite’s efforts to further divide America in a cynical ploy to remain in power. It saddens me that despite centuries of effort to end misogyny women still allow themselves to be used by politicians of the political spectrum to attack other women and keep them downtrodden for the choices they make. It’s shameful and women should not allow themselves to be so easily duped into such activity. It’s one thing to question someone’s policies but wholly another to simply attack the person as Ms. Rosen did. It’s a fine line to walk, but the line is there none the less.

As for me, Ms. Rosen’s actions have cemented my support to the Romney campaign in order to fight the hypocrisy, fear mongering and hysteria of individuals like her. It’s time to end class warfare.

* Revealing statement from her apology: the faux war on women. So the Dems made the phrase up to push their policies via fear. Sadly there are true attacks on women’s rights that both major parties have every intention of ignoring (if not encouraging) because ultimately they view women as inferior and less important than men in our society.

President Obama claimed that it was unprecedented for the SCOTUS to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Obviously the President has conveniently forgotten that last two hundred years or so in which the SCOTUS has acted as a judicial review of laws that may infringe upon, if not outright counter, the framework of the Constitutional government and Bill of Rights all Americans live under. That hardly makes the SCOTUS overruling laws passed by a majority of Congress unprecedented.

Disturbingly, President Obama tried to imply that the number of votes that passed ObamaCare somehow makes it exempt from challenge or judicial review; that the Legislature and Executive branches of the Federal Government were above any and all judicial process. That is the mindset of would be dictators, not democratically minded politicians. The President clearly does not understand that the United States is a Federal Republic in which democracy exists, but the “mob rule” is not allowed to trample those that were in the minority of a vote. This attitude is a primary reason the Founders established our three-part government: to establish checks and balances that prevent any part of the triad from being able to usurp control of the nation for their own ends and rule without restraint.

So I am left wondering:

1. Was Obama playing politics, trying to stoke up furor amongst his base and the radical left?
2. Does Obama truly believe the Executive and Legislative branch can make laws without allowing for redress by the public via judicial challenges and review?

As to playing politics, I have no doubt that is exactly what Obama was doing. Unfortunately all he did was harden both sides and perhaps alienated those on the fence concerned that this was an indicator for Obama’s nascent desire for greater power via larger government and perhaps even attempting to intimidate the SCOTUS into submission to his policies.

Does Obama believe the Executive and Legislative branch can rule without public redress? I believe he does. He’s always been a man who supports expansive overarching government.

However, in his support for big government, he has forgotten that since pretty much the founding of the United States the public has always had the right to challenge laws thought to be unfair, discriminatory, or otherwise detrimental to individual liberties, rights, and freedoms. The President forgot something important about the founding of this nation: the Revolution was in part response to the rulers (King George and his court) refusing to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of their subjects in the Colonies.

Curiously, Obama has no complaints about prior “judicial activism” of the SCOTUS. Perhaps he needs a reminder of just a few  important decisions resulting from SCOTUS rulings:

1. Miranda rights.
2. Abortion rights.
3. Contraceptive rights.
4. Desegregation.
5. Ruling anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. (I.e. Allowing marriage between races)

While I feel the SCOTUS has made several severely flawed decisions, especially of late, and no longer believe they always make the correct, let alone truly constitutional decision, I’ll take the opinions of the Justices musings over that of a blow-hard politician, even if he is the President, any day of the week.

Obama Calls On Congress To Pass ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax

“We don’t envy success in this country. We aspire to it,” Obama said in his Saturday radio and Internet address. “But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead – not just a few.”

‘And how exactly does the government taking successful peoples money and blowing it on failed government projects and stimulus either “fair” or give people “the opportunity to get ahead”? This just show’s Obama’s neo-socialist views that government can create jobs and prosperity through taxation.

While the plan would force millionaires and billionaires to part with more of their money, Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that if enacted, legislation reflecting Obama’s proposal would collect $47 billion through 2022 – a trickle compared with the $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period.

More evidence that this is simply Obama trying to stir up a rabble and ignite the extremist left-wing base of socialists and communists into getting out to support him while trying to imply anyone who is “rich” is somehow evil and bad for America. How about the government truly cut unnecessary spending, something Obama has no interest in since he obviously thinks someone else should have to pay for everything. This is extremely hypocritical considering how Obama uses none of his own wealth to assist his poorer family members, both in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Obama also renewed his call for ending tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000.

Read that as small business owners, you know the people who pretty much drive local business across this nation. So we clearly see Obama lies when he says he supports small business and then turns around and labels them “rich” in order to tax them. From my perspective someone who make $250,000 from their business is not “rich” whatsoever. I also don’t see how punishing them for being successful through taxation will help others have an opportunity to get ahead unless Obama thinks putting business out of work somehow opens up opportunity. That sort of thinking is simply asinine.

They should call the “Buffet Rule” the “buffet rule” because it isn’t about “fairness” it’s about fat government pigs wanting more taxes to waste on their pet projects while American’s suffer declining quality of life by these same pigs efforts to undermine commerce, opportunity, liberty, and freedom in the United States. Fortunately the so called “Buffet Rule” has about zero chance of passing in Congress, at least for now.

Two lottery tickets bought at the same time have the same exact numbers.

Interesting and sort of funny.

I would be somewhat suspicious myself, especially since it took an individual going to the media to get any response from Arizona Lottery officials. I doubt it was anything more than a malfunction with the machine or program running the random number generator but a little more transparency by official would have been better received by the public.

As an aside, congratulations to the winners of last night’s Mega Millions jackpot.

Whoever wins (whether now or a later drawing) will definitely be set for life, so long as they don’t fall into the trap of spending it wildly. I just hope whoever wins is someone (or several someones) who really need the money. I have nothing against the well to do and rich, but I admit it rubs me the wrong way when I see such people win large prizes. It seems greedy to me.

Whoever wins, it’ll be historic. Even more so if no one wins the prize given projections for next drawing in that circumstance.

So good luck to all partaking in the madness.

Senate agrees to vote again on birth control bill

The Senate narrowly rejected the bill Wednesday but Republican Sen. Nancy Barto of Scottsdale on Thursday won voice approval of her motion to have a reconsideration vote.

In other words, the little Christian fascists couldn’t get through their backdoor attempts to ban contraception and make women subservient chattel (their real goal) so they try again. It amazes me that over a hundred years of women fighting over something as simple as birth control is being undermined be uneducated Luddites and backwards ideologues under the guise of “religious or moral objections”, especially from other women like State Senator Barto. Of course, these are the same would be dictators in the Arizona legislature that want to deny women medical knowledge about their pregnancy in order to “prevent abortions” so I’m not that surprised. Infuriated by the pigs kowtowing to the extremist Christian fascists, yes, but unsurprised by these weak-willed fools and hypocrites.

It’s people like these that simply harden my pro-choice stand on all women’s reproductive issues. The extremists Christians like Barto and her ilk will not stop until the bad old day’s of white male, Anglo-Saxon protestant Christian fundamentalism has women and minorities “put back in their place”. I suppose I should be happy the Christian Talib [1] haven’t tried to re-institute the old U.S. Federal morality laws (the Comstock Laws [2]) that banned even discussing contraception back in the early 1900′s but I imagine the right wing crazies will try that next to continue their war on Americans who disagree with their religious social agenda.

Enough is enough already. People need to mind their own business and get out over everyone else’s business. If the extremist Christians don’t like contraception and abortion that’s they’re right, but they don’t have the right to force their views on others or invade their privacy to enforce their “morality”. If they think they do have the right to force their views on others then they have absolutely no right to complain if or when others demand that religious institutions be required to teach Evolution, accept gay marriage, provide contraceptive services, or be forced to accept those not of similar inclination of belief into of leadership in their organizations. Turn about is fair play after all, right? Not so fun for the Christian extremists when they are being told what to do and how to live is it?

So there’s a simple solution: Everyone needs to stop forcing their opinion and interfering in other people’s private lives and matters. Obviously too many Americans have forgotten the core principles of our country’s foundation when we have so many who believe they have the right to rule over others without regard for individual rights, freedoms, and liberties. It saddens me to see Arizona and the United States destroying itself within because so many are willing to stand by and let it happen because they think they will somehow benefit and never become one of the oppressed.

[1]Talib literally means student or seeker in Arabic and refers to a student of Islam. Talib gave birth to the name of the radical Pakistan created Islamist group, the Taliban. In this case, Christian Talib is appropriate given extremist fundamental Christian’s similar attitude, beliefs, and behavior to the backwards minded Taliban regarding women, other religions, and minorities. I probably should use the more proper plural term of talib which is tullab but the distinction would probably be lost on most religious extremists anyway.

[2]The Comstock Act of 1873 made it illegal at a Federal level to send obscene, lewd, or lascivious materials through the mail and targeted not only pornography but specifically the distribution of contraceptive and reproductive health information and devices through the mail. A number of states had similar laws and collectively said laws were used to suppress individuals advocating women’s health issues. The act was found unconstitutional in 1936 but did not end the suppression of women’s contraceptive rights until key SCOTUS rulings in 1965 (allowing contraceptives for married couples) and 1972 (allowing contraceptives for single people).

“I thought that President Obama’s statement to President Medvedev was disconcerting,” said Lieberman of Connecticut at a news conference with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).

It is rather disconcerting to have a U.S. President making such comments. It’s brings up a number of questions while bringing about annoyance about the President’s arrogance and suspicions over his motives. Primarily the question is this: What exactly is Obama going to be flexible on with Russians? Given his past distaste for missile defense in the past being flexible could mean he would attempt to persuade Congress to kill the program since the President can’t do so directly. Doing so would likely be unsuccessful, even if the Congress returned to being Democrat controlled, given strong support in Congress for the missile defense program across the political spectrum.

So while I think some anti-Obama groups are just making political hay over this, there is a legitimate demand for the President to explain exactly what he meant by his remarks. Not only to the American people but to our allies in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe which has been feeling abandoned in some respect by the Obama administration in the face of Russia’s re-emerging hostility and belligerence towards former Soviet and Warsaw Pact members.