Li'l Adam Schiff now wants us to pay for doggie daycare with his new PETSAFE Act
Irish writer Jonathan Swift purportedly said, "All government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery," so I'm demanding reparations, because I certainly do not consent to be "governed" by this gang of thieves. I'll also settle for a 1789 reset.
Yesterday, Adam Schiff's office issued a press release to boast about the House member's newest (and maybe most asinine ever) legislative proposal, the PETSAFE Act. From the text:
The bipartisan PETSAFE Act would establish a pilot grant program for mobile pet shelters for use during emergencies and major disasters — helping pet owners temporarily shelter their pets during evacuations, providing transportation to safe locations, and reuniting pets with owners post-evacuation.
(RINO alert for the Floridian readers here: the "bipartisan" support comes from your own Republican congressman Brian Mast, so it sounds like a primary challenger is in order.)
What these legislators are proposing is literally taxpayer-funded doggie daycare. Read what Schiff said below:
As Californians experience repeated evacuation orders…pet owners face the heart-wrenching challenge of finding shelter for their beloved animal companions. Our legislation provides refuge for pets during evacuations, ensuring they are safely and swiftly reunited with their families once it is safe to return home. Families should not have to make the choice between their pets and finding safe shelter during times of crisis.
This meme comes to mind:
Public Service Announcement for statists: pic.twitter.com/PiaHgIWyvU
— Olivia Murray (@americaliv1) August 9, 2023
So what exactly do they mean when they say "pet"? Well, from the bill itself:
... an animal, including a dog, cat, bird, rodent, rabbit, or turtle, that is kept in the home as a companion animal rather than for commercial purposes.
As with all things government (and the left), this is bound to spiral out of control — that list of creatures sure doesn't sound finite, and "in the home" could be up for interpretation (especially when lawyers are involved), so what's to say someone can't have his horse, or elephant, receive "free" mobile pet-sitting?
According to Dina Titus, the Democrat cosponsor from Nevada:
Anyone affected by a major disaster knows that mandatory evacuations can mean uprooting the most important parts of your life. People are often reluctant to evacuate without their family's furry friends. This commonsense legislation would require FEMA to fund mobile pet shelters to keep animals safe in the midst of disruptive events and an already difficult time.
Oh, dear — there's that linguistic harbinger again, the word that reliably comes before the despotic overreach..."commonsense." Extorting me to pay for someone else's pet boarding bill is the farthest thing from sensical.
With the present (digital) company excluded, I wonder: does anyone even read anymore? I mean, obviously, Schiff, Titus, and Mast have never read the Constitution, that much is clear — nowhere, and I mean absolutely nowhere does the document allow for these lawmakers to take such gross license with their delegated power.
And what about the common man? Does he read? It certainly doesn't seem so, because if he did, it's unlikely we'd be in the political predicament in which we now find ourselves. Thomas Jefferson, among others, explicitly foretold of the creep toward tyranny, away from a balance of power, and how to avoid such a disastrous scenario. Below is an excerpt from his Notes on the State of Virginia:
All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. ...
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. ...
Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people....
Jefferson warned that relatively soon, "corruption" will have seized the heads of government" and "spread by them" through the "body of the people" — also known as ... Congress.
Image: DonkeyHotey, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.