Is there any area of life that politicians don’t see as an opportunity to grandstand, posture, and propose rules “for thee and not for me?”
It seems as if the answer to that is a big “NO,” as the BBC and Yahoo News report on the so-called “Big Cat Public Safety Act”, a bill proposed in DC that rides the wave of popularity in the story of animal trainer “The Tiger King,” and would ban private ownership of animals termed “big cats.”
US Senate lawmakers are proposing to ban private ownership of big cats such as lions and tigers in the wake of the Netflix documentary series Tiger King.
But first, can we dispense with the popular habit of many news agencies and reporters calling politicians “lawmakers?” Politicians write statutes, they don’t “make law” for humans. There is a difference between state-based statutes and Natural Law, the latter of which is based on your God-given right to own your life and property in peaceful coexistence with others doing the same.
Politicians deal in statutes -- creations of the state, and they love to generate new ones to grow the state's power, especially when they can jump on the chance to look “caring” about some hot topic.
On Monday, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said he supported the bill, along with three other senators; fellow Democrat Tom Carper (Del), and Republican senators Susan Collins (ME) and Richard Burr (NC).
That would be Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Democrat who was caught lying about being a Vietnam battle vet. So, yeah, Dick might have claimed to have had experiences in the Vietnam jungle where the tigers lurk, but, well, it’s a safer bet he’s only seen them in zoos.
As NBC News reports:
Blumenthal did lead voters in Connecticut to believe he was a Vietnam veteran when, in fact, he was never deployed to Vietnam. He obtained at least five deferments and later served in the Marine Reserve in the Washington area..
And those other Senators also have shown such disdain for the truth about the Constitution that they, too, can be respected about as much as Blumenthal.
Which is, of course, not at all.
Given their disastrous history for oaths, why not posture and try to look caring about cats while, again, overlooking the Constitution, which doesn’t give them any so-called “power” to ban the private ownership of big cats? They’ve already shown that they don’t care about the intent of the Founders who created the Senate, where they draw their six-figure salaries off the backs of us caged taxpayers, so one more leap into the realm of “caring” while not caring for the US rule book, well, that’s just part of their animal behavior.
The report notes:
If the bill passes the Senate, the ownership ban would apply to lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, or any hybrid of these species kept as pets. Sanctuaries and zoos, for example, would be exempt.
Of course zoos would be exempt, because many zoos are run via the taxation of humans, humans who might not want to cage animals.
For example, while Blumenthal et al want to overlook the Constitution in order to threaten government action against private people who might adopt big cats, the US government annually spends big cash on the Smithsonian-affiliated National Zoo.
It subsidizes all kinds of systems of animal captivity, and so-called “preservation,” none of which is sanctioned by the Constitution.
And the DC gang also funds all kinds of lab experimentation on live and slaughtered animals – again, utterly against the stipulations of the very document that created the House and Senate the politicians occupy.
So, let’s not pretend that this cadre of politicians in the Senate, or their predatory pals in the House -- where their version of the bill passed in December by a vote of 272 to 114 – really care about animals.
Thus far, all they seem to care about it pretending to look noble, while breaching the rules of the government that hands them money taken from us, and treating us like animals, as well.