Comments on: Is Ted Lieu the state’s Ultimate Nanny?

By: Animal Lover

Animal Lover — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:54:18 +0000

Be careful what you wish for. This could most easily backfire and keep you from your home. WHO determines if the dog is injured – or if it became injured at the hands of the owner? This is theft – under guise of law, something California lawmakers are doing routinely!!

Remember – the devil is in the details!

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:09:55 +0000

Senator Lieu is a picture of what is wrong with the state politicians. Ted is mandating his own personal likes and dislikes on the states voters. Ted Lieu has sold his vote to the Humane Society and oddly enough one week he is saying how shark fin soup is O.K. and that we are being discriminating by trying to outlaw this practice and the next he is trying to shut down all hunting with dogs. Ted Lieu has no Knowledge of hunting with dogs and what is involved with the practice yet he stands up and says lies such as ” Montana Banned the use of dogs because it was inhumane and he wants California to be as Humane as Montana was in 1927″. You will not hear him say that statement anymore because it is untrue and the reason it was banned in Montana was because of the fact that there are Grizzly bears in Montana. Montana still uses hounds to hunt lion,Bobcat,coons, foxes etc. The fact that Ted Lieu introduces these bills without doing any research as to what the facts are and lies to the public to push his personal agenda is disturbing.The facts about SB1221 are that the control of predators in our state is now going to cost the tax payers money when we were getting it done for free. Senator Lieu needs to focus on fiscal issues instead of taking Californians rights.

By: David in Irvine

David in Irvine — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:02:34 +0000

I don’t claim to be clairvoyant, but in a comment I left on Aug. 31 to one of Katy Grimes’ posts (Quantity not Quality) I anticipated this post, at least tongue in cheek!

By: Donkey

Donkey — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:25:58 +0000

Katy, you are one sharp cookie! It is clear to me that those that wish to impose control on the individuals daily life are for the most part Libs on a mission, but the right also seeks control, although to a lesser extent. In the end it all leads to a loss of freedom. 🙂

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 04:16:52 +0000

The best was Ted Lieu’s response via Twitter: “@CalWatchdog There are willing sellers of alcohol & tobacco, and willing buyers who are children. But thank goodness government intervenes.”

Ahhhh. thank goodness for the government, and thank goodness for Nanny Lieu.

Katy

By: Donkey

Donkey — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:37:48 +0000

This made me laugh: “SB 1058 – Victims of Corporate Fraud”

Not only because very few “victims” are being compensated, but the irony of our state government accusing the private sector corporations of any kind of fraud. Calwatch has story after story of the fraud put upon the taxpayers by RAGWUS feeder after RAGWUS feeder. If I was not a rational thinker I would have a much darker demeanor. 🙂

By: Rex the Wonder Dog!

Rex the Wonder Dog! — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:02:32 +0000

Thanks FL. will read sb 1500 more closely…….

By: Dannielle

Dannielle — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 21:45:41 +0000

you realize, “rex” that Sb-1500 completely removed due process protection, a Constitutionally guaranteed right?
already, any person claiming to be representing a “humane” group has narly unlimited, compltely unsuperised pwoer to interfere with your ownership rights. like the guy running around the gilroy area in a truck painted up to look like local police. his background? meteorology. yet he’s out there “investigating” people and properties for things he believes are abuse or neglect. if your animals are taken, there’s no court hearing- you *might get a hearing in front of a county animal control office representative but not a court of law. also it clearly states that the automatic presumption on the owner is guilt, and they must “by a preponderance of evidence” prove that they are not guilty. again, a little thing we call the Constitution says otherwise. then, based on little more than the word of a group who intends to sell your animal off for tax free bucks later, you not only lose your pets for life, you get hit with a bill- meaning they can also then go after your car, your home, anything they want to satisfy the lien. selling off seized animals has become a huge booming business for certain groups, who hit owners with fees for care due before any charges are even filed, and the threat of the loss of their homes if they cannot pay. these groups then sell off the animals, you know- the ones in such desperate need they had to be immediately rescued but are available for adoption the very next day- and you’re stuck with the bill, potential legal charges, loss of evidence (bc the animals are long gone)…this is OK with you?
no one supports animal abuse, yet these laws get passed by well meaning people who think that failure to give their wholehearted support to these bills paints them as supporting animal abuse.
issues like this are why I moved out of CA two years ago and will never return.

By: Freedom Lover

Freedom Lover — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 07:11:59 +0000

Hey Rex –
!a best read ole Lieu’s SB-1500. There are a bunch of gotcha’s in there – that you and your owner might not like! It is one more step towards the government telling you what to feed your dog, when to take him out, how long he’s allowed to have exercise, etc. The laws aren’t THAT protective on kids. Ya got a good owner – ya best make sure you don’t do ANYTHING that Lieu can take you away from your owner for.

By: Rex the Wonder Dog!

Rex the Wonder Dog! — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 05:23:57 +0000

Im behind SB-1500 10,000,000 %