Aggressive Animal Alert: AZ ZIP 85014 (Longview West Neighborhood)

Normally, I’d simply allow the COP Animal Control and Police to deal with the dog attack at my mother’s property today but given the number of small children and residents with small pets I feel the need to put out this warning for residence in Phoenix ZIP Code 85014, particularly in the Longview Neighborhood and surrounding area in which the below incidents occured.

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.


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.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Foxx? Foxx’s ‘No Tolerance’ for Grad’s Student Loans

Representative Virginia Foxx: ‘No Tolerance’ For Graduates With Big Student Loans To Pay

“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.

AZ HB 2549: Outlawing Internet Trolling (Except it wont)

Arizona Looks to Outlaw Internet Trolling | Techland |

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.

Commentary On Hilary Rosen Attacks On Ann Romney

I generally ignore most political partisan sniping, especially in campaign seasons, but like many I was extremely offended by Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney in a botched class warfare attack on Mitt Romney’s successes. There are numerous reason Ms. Rosen should have simply kept her mouth shut and found a different tactic in which to try to create opposition to Romney’s status as the near de facto Republican Presidential nominee. Here are but a few:

  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.

Obama’s Supreme Court Comments

I’ve been considering President Obama’s comments about the Supreme Court potentially overturning ObamaCare deciding if he was serious or making the usual political hay politicians are wont to do when they think a ruling bu the judiciary will not be to their benefit. I’ve come to the conclusion it was  a bit of both. The fact that it was a bit of both only reaffirms my belief that Obama does not understand how the U.S. Constitution and the government derived from it works.

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.