On Friday Carson shelter manager Gil Moreno abruptly resigned from his position at the shelter. This comes a few months after the shakeup at Baldwin Park, where then manager Lance Hunter resigned from his position to go join the ASPCA. Since that time it seems that the highest of decision makers at Baldwin Park are reversing course and moving in a backwards fashion. Ric Browde made this statement on his blog back in May…

This week despite having over 30 empty kennels on May 10th, the shelter staff was being ordered to kill. Adoptable dogs were being given deadly Marcia Mayeda cocktails and staff and volunteer morale plummeted as the number of barrels full of pet carcasses inside the shelter’s freezers soared.

^This matches what I personally witnessed at the Carson shelter when I was there to visit with and photograph the dogs on June 4th, counting 39 empty kennels and then coming to find out that they were still killing that morning.

With Moreno’s tenure over, Alonzo Real will now become acting shelter manager until a replacement can be found and hired. I’d like to formally throw my hat into the ring as someone who would be extremely interested in partnering with whatever new leadership they bring on, but this seems extremely unlikely considering Marcia Mayeda and L.A. County rejected my application to become a volunteer due to what they called an “ongoing conflict with the department.” That’s another way of saying that if I’m not set on being a shill for a horribly run system, that they don’t need my help, free or otherwise.

They also forced my girlfriend out of the volunteer system, due to her refusing to sign a selectively enforced document written only for her that mandated that she adhere to an in-house breed-specific policy that goes against everything just and decent for the dogs. Prior to this she was “suspended” for taking out Pit Bulls that had not yet been temperament tested, which is a complete racket considering most of their Pit Bulls never even get temperament tested (to the few that eventually do, it routinely takes staff over a week to do them after it’s been requested), and thus, sit in their cages without interaction until they are killed.

So why did Gil resign? Was he going to be fired? Was his resignation just a move to save his pension? All questions without any on the record answers. What I do know is that in my 3+ years of visiting the Carson shelter I’ve never seen a poorer run place. The foundation of control, prejudice, vindictiveness and retaliation has defined my coverage of this shelter. It will forever be encapsulated on this website.

Moreno aside, the crux of any argument made against any L.A. County shelter will always lead back to its atrociously entrenched director Marcia Mayeda. She’s the one that’s been most deserving of being fired for well over a decade, and instead was just shockingly given a raise in 2014. You can blame the L.A. County Board of Supervisors for that one. Last month the interim job at the Baldwin Park shelter was given to Gayle Miley, who proceeded to immediately alienate volunteers in a myriad of ways. Worse, Marcia Mayeda has since hired the infamous Pat Claerbout of the Stockton animal shelter to take over at Baldwin, signifying her continued desire of reorganizing deck chairs on the Titanic.

To close, I will attach my last exchange with Gil, which gives insight into 1 gigantic misstep that ended up costing a wonderful dog his life. How many times this shit happened without anyone there to recognize it, document it, raise hell on the dog’s behalf, we will never know…

Email exchange with Gil Moreno on 6/2014 by swaylove

On the morning of 6/4/2014 the Carson shelter opted to kill Brownie (#A4709410) while he had a CTA in place and an adopting family that would show up onsite hours later to get him. That same day I was at the shelter and counted 39 empty kennels. The excuse given for why he was euthanized? He was “sick.”

As someone who wrote a pretty well-shared rebuttal to Charlotte Alter’s Time article, I now want to say something else… I’ve seen many people attempt to address Alter all over social media, some fantastically, some not. There’s a certain portion of people that were offended by what she wrote, and in response have decided to be just as offensive back, or MORE SO.

It truly is disgraceful when I have to see irrationally unstable people (who claim to love dogs) online calling for the death of someone they disagree with, calling her a “dumb bitch,” calling her a “whore pig,” wishing her to be “euthanized,” calling her mom a “fat slut,” and so on and so on. If you’d turn your brain on for just a moment you’d realize that with your trollish, eye for an eye, reprehensible behavior towards Alter you are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of advocating for your dogs. You are instead cheapening us all by committee (and unfairly, I might add, because I want nothing to do with you), because who will be held up as a representative for Pit Bulls? Me? Or the woman that called for her death and referred to her family in a tasteless fashion on Twitter? Take a second… I’ll let you ponder that question.

Just as the media takes the 0.01% of dogs that are actually dangerous/unsound and uses them to disparage the 99.9% that are awesome, they will use an idiot’s vicious and personal rant to label everyone else who has been really informative, and thus unfairly drag us all through the mud together.

Further, if you didn’t have a dog and were just stumbling onto this “debate” from afar, to see how some of the “dog advocates” are behaving is to potentially have these folks believe the garbage that gets spewed to disparage Pit Bulls. Why? Because you are the one’s being vicious online. As vicious as the DogsBite cult, as vicious as any truly dangerous individual dog.

Quit ruining things for the compassionate, genuine, hard-working, thoughtful and responsible people of the world, who make up the vast majority, by giving people the illusion that you are speaking on my behalf. YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING ON MY BEHALF. You are not helping any of the dogs. You are actually doing the opposite. You are giving dog-hating people fuel, by providing them with stupid shreds of buffoonery that they will then use to attempt to scapegoat us all, just as they do with the dogs.

Not sure how many of y’all already have pet insurance, but I want to give you an insight into how it helps me. Just yesterday my dog Neola had to get a mast cell removed from her leg, her vet bill for the day was $827.90 and my out of pocket cost was only $123.29. Trupanion will cover the rest, and they consistently cover 90% of vet bills WITH NO LIMIT or per-illness/injury payout ceiling for the lifetime of the pet. They are the real deal.

To the contrary, I used to have VPI when I had Sway, and they would constantly shortchange me and ding me with “yearly limits” and this was unfortunately little use because Sway had a blood disease that was treated year around. Had I known about Trupanion then it would have made both of our lives easier. That makes me sad but all of our dogs are now under Trupanion and it truly is one of those things that I’d most highly recommend. For my 2 girls I pay $38/month for each and to have a certain level of peace of mind it is definitely worth it.

This is my referral link and for transparent reasons I’d get a $10 reward for each new person that signed up, but I’m not here plugging something in a selfish fashion. Use the link, don’t use it, but just consider Trupanion if it’s something that you can fit in your monthly budget. I’ve had it for the last 5 years and couldn’t be more happy with it. It truly is a lifesaver.

First, it is horrible that KFC kicked out that 3-year-old girl due to people being “scared” of her face, if that’s indeed what actually happened. Other versions say that the child’s mother was actually causing a massive scene inside of the restaurant and that’s what initiated the KFC staff to ask HER to leave, not the child (it’s now been investigated twice and numerous sources state that the incident didn’t happen at all). But regardless, Time writer Charlotte Alter’s focus was clearly on disparaging Pit Bulls. So my focus will be pointing out the many problems in her article…

Problem #1: Alter provided no description of what led to the attack on the little girl, no circumstances (10 dogs, they were all running loose, the little girl was unattended), no details of the environment that the dogs were living in prior and during (9 of the dogs apparently were yard dogs), nothing whatsoever. Kind of relevant and important information if actually wanting to further the concept of public safety.

Problem #2: Alter claims that Pit Bulls “make up only 6% of the dog population,” which she has absolutely no way of knowing or confirming. Why not? Because there’s no accurate way to peg the number of dogs from any breed or “type.” Further, because there’s no specific or consistent definition of what a Pit Bull is or is not, quite the opposite. The reality of labeling Pit Bulls is subjective, ambiguous, vague and all-encompassing in nature, especially by those wanting to exploit a tragedy as a way to further their anti-Pit Bull agenda. That notion then needs to swing both ways when calculating any total number of “Pit Bulls” in existence, meaning: You can’t conveniently overreach in an effort to label every dog involved in anything as a “Pit Bull mix,” and then turn around and not use that same formula when calculating a total number of possible Pit Bulls or Pit Bull mixes. At least be consistent with your erroneous tactics.

Problem #3: Visual identification is not scientific, wrought with errors and inaccuracies, and these identifications are often made by unqualified people and then printed/reported in the local/national news, which is then used as “facts” for unsubstantiated claims.

Problem #4: Mixed breeds are not a breed at all.

Problem #5: Even if the 6% figure was true (which it’s not even remotely close), in a country of 75 million dogs that would mathematically equate to almost 5 million Pit Bulls. By any count, 99.9% of those dogs have never mauled or killed anyone.

Problem #6: Alter sources Merritt Clifton.

Problem #7: Alter sources alleged percentages coming from Clifton, which aren’t based in reality, evidence or science, and are instead selectively chosen from unsubstantiated media reports. Total bias bullshit, a misrepresentation of the truth, and nothing more than arrogant claims being made when such claims aren’t even possible to ever accurately be made!

Problem #8: Alter tells the audience that the CDC stopped collecting breed-specific information but failed to mention WHY they stopped collecting breed-specific information… I’ll let the CDC explain:

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002% of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites.

Problem #9: Alter references the NOT peer-reviewed 2011 Annals of Surgery study titled “Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs,” which has been thoroughly discredited. Why? Because it was done by non-animal experts who were looking at photographs of injuries and then concluding, based solely on the photographs and medical records, which breeds of dog caused which injuries. But 1 problem: They never saw any of the offending dogs! So not only did they skip the shoddy visual identification process, but they never laid eyes on the dogs. And yet, they were so arrogant as to breed-label the injuries anyways. Preposterous.

Problem #10: Alter implies that all Pit Bulls and their owners should be collectively blamed for what allegedly happened to the little girl at KFC. Wow, I wasn’t at KFC that day and neither was my dog! If she was treated in such a way then it’s the fault of the person that treated her that way.

Problem #11: Alter mentions the dog from Arizona named Mickey, but again provides no description as to what actually led to that attack, no circumstances, nothing whatsoever. She then proceeds to claim that more people were concerned about the dog than about Kevin Vincente, as if a person couldn’t be simultaneously concerned for both, or as if concern or thoughts about 1 cancelled out concern or thoughts about the other.

Problem #12: Where are Merritt Clifton’s sources supporting his asinine claims about “shelter dogs” that span 151 years going back to 1858? No nod to the obvious difference in technology and communication capabilities from the 1800s/1900s in comparison to today. No nod to anything, just a made up number that is utterly unverified but that’s being presented, both by Clifton and by Alter, as if it’s fact.

Problem #13: Alter sources Colleen Lynn from the anti-Pit Bull hate group DogsBite.org.

Problem #14: Colleen Lynn is not a geneticist, nor is she genuinely knowledgeable about dog behavior.

Problem #15: Merritt Clifton states that “not every kind of dog responds to neglect and abuse by killing and injuring people.” Um, just by the way that he phrases this statement he implies 2 utterly wrong concepts: That all Pit Bulls would respond by killing and injuring people and that all non-Pit Bulls wouldn’t respond by killing and injuring people. Way to be a simpleton, Merritt! It’s an obvious fact that dogs are individuals and not objects, sentient beings and not manufactured products that come off of a conveyor belt. Clifton must believe the opposite. 99.9% of all dogs from any breed or type HAVE NOT mauled or killed a person!

Problem #16: Clifton’s proclamations as to what makes a “good” and “bad” Pit Bull is nothing more than a soundbyte meant to blame the dogs and not the people that put them onto the chains he speaks of. Just because a dog is on a chain doesn’t make it a “badass” (vicious, fighter) anymore than Clifton picking up a water hose makes him a firefighter. What chaining your dog does do is isolate it, frustrate it, make it territorial, and take away its option of flight, among other cruel things depending on the circumstances. Some dogs subjected to this type of shit are no less friendly than non-chained ones, as each remains an individual and deserves their right to be properly evaluated. Point being, it all depends. But chaining a dog (any dog) CAN LEAD TO TRAGIC INCIDENTS, especially when involving unsupervised children. What’s also interesting is Clifton claiming there are “good” Pit Bulls, yet he makes his living off of egregiously exploiting them and pushing fabricated statistics onto politicians who then serve up ideas for bans and regulations.

Problem #17: Alter embeds a bar graph from the hate group, spells their website wrong, and then provides no further explanation as to where the numbers come from. I’ll tell you: It’s from Colleen and Merritt, using their tactics of cherry-picking through unverified media reports. Further, what’s the definition of “attack,” or for that matter, “maiming”?

Problem #18: Lynn goes all land shark rhetoric on everyone, threatening that there will be a “disfigured child” in every school. Total fearmongering nonsense. 5? 15? 25 million Pit Bull-type dogs in the country? The definitions become so vague that that latest number is not to be discarded out of hand. What I do know is that reality does show that we have a lot of responsible people and really great dogs out there. Try as you might to ignore this fact, it’s still a fact.

Problem #19: How in the hell does Merritt Clifton assume that 80% of all dogs are sterilized, but then that 80% of all Pit Bulls aren’t sterilized? There is quite literally no way to know this information. Is this silly guy the Oracle? Does he kick it on the weekends with Santa Claus? Does Santa take him down the chimney, notepad in hand? I mean, I’m sorry, but this guy is totally full of shit.

Problem #20: Alter writes as if Colleen Lynn actually cares to prevent having more Pit Bulls euthanized. Haha. Earth to Charlotte Alter: Colleen Lynn wants Pit Bulls ERADICATED by any means necessary. You’ve been played like the neighborhood jukebox. A little something from her Facebook page…

Problem #21: Alter sources PETA, who rules the roost on animal-related doublespeak and lobbies for both Pit Bull bans and “no adoption” policies for the Pit Bulls coming into shelters. They promote the ideology of “killing them to save them from abuse.” This is completely ludicrous and the fact that they are still being given a platform on this issue speaks to how lazily Alter’s piece was slapped together.

Problem #22: Holding Colleen Lynn, Merritt Clifton and PETA up as examples of compassionate advocates for the well-being of Pit Bulls (and bigger dogs in general) is like putting the head of the Ku Klux Klan in charge of African American reproductive systems.

Problem #23: You mean to tell me that no other organization wanted to comment for this article? Alter magically produced the only animal welfare organization in the United States that is pro-BSL, and yet failed to produce more statements from the hundreds that are against BSL? Wow, that’s awful convenient! This is probably to give the illusion that the debate is actually equally split. The opposite is true however, as damn near every professional animal/safety-related organization is openly AGAINST breed-specific legislation.

Problem #24: Pit Bulls are dogs, therefore they ARE like any other dog, no matter what Daphna Nachminovitch/PETA or any other demagogue wants to claim.

Problem #25: Breed-specific sterilization for Pit Bulls is not done for overpopulation purposes or to help shelters kill less animals, although those are 2 obvious ends that might eventually come out of a move to incrementally eliminate 1 of America’s most popular types of dog. The truth? It is done as a secondary move when banning dogs by breed or type is not supported by the community or viewed as being unfair or too extreme. Same rhetoric, same sensationalism, same intent, always. Pay attention.

Shall I keep going? I’ll stop.

Pasadena City Councilman Steve Madison needs to own his true desires, learn how to “listen” to differing perspectives, and learn how to deal with a defeat. He should not allow his quite blatant and naked desire to scapegoat all Pit Bulls for crimes not yet committed merge into completely separate issues that no one was calling for prior to his agenda being brought forward to his colleagues.

1) Dealing with “dangerous” individual dogs is a task best left to the breed-neutral “dangerous dog” laws that already exist from municipality to municipality.

2) Dealing with “dangerous” individual dogs is a concept NOT dealt with when sweepingly indicting all dogs deemed to be mixed at some level with “Pit Bull,” a subjective term of slang.

3) Dealing with “dangerous” individual dogs is a concept NOT dealt with when you mandate the sterilization of all dogs deemed to be mixed at some level with “Pit Bull,” a subjective term of slang, after you’ve sweepingly indicted them all for being “inherently dangerous” without evidence or incident.

4) Dealing with “dangerous” individual dogs is a concept NOT dealt with when you mandate the sterilization of all dogs across the board.

Numbers 2 and 3 are matters of profiling, precrime, prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, vilifying and ignorance/hate. Number 4 is a matter of education, “overpopulation,” euthanized animals, shelter practices, transparency, enforcement of existing laws, community outreach and available/accessible programs. If you want to have a conversation based around the proposed idea on the back end of concept number 4 then let’s have that conversation on its own merits, not on the back of further stigmatizing Pit Bulls. Leave the sensationalist rhetoric at home, in your own space, to be spewed to your own tailored audience. Society does not accept these ideologies and philosophies of broad and vague indictment. Madison promoting such rubbish only serves to want to further take the world in the opposite direction.

Can Steve Madison dissociate himself from his own belief for even a moment? Is he able to recognize the reality that millions upon millions of these dogs that he vaguely takes issue with actually exist in the United States? This is an undeniable fact, at any level you’d want to slice it, yet he doesn’t care to acknowledge it or treat its obviousness as actual counter-evidence to his reached conclusions. Madison will point to “evidence” of a reported attack, with a reported breed (which is usually based solely on a media mention), and hold it up as the relevant evidence that surely outweighs the silent and obvious but non-reported evidence that I just spoke of. Keep in mind that, whatever the details, this is a singular incident! Regardless, he will also speak of whatever reported attack while ignoring the many circumstances often cited during or leading up to said attack, circumstances that are genuinely and directly relevant to actual public safety. And yet the breed or type of the alleged offending dog will be his only interested takeaway. If it’s reported as a Pit Bull he will use it, if it’s not then he will discard it.

Mr. Madison can be introduced to, questioned on, or confronted with any and all versions of information that would actually serve to conflict with his existing beliefs, and instead of hearing such information or thinking on such information he would revert to his corner of cognitive dissonance. Critical thinkers would try to deal with the inconsistency of their belief when challenged with countering information. On this issue Steve Madison is not a critical thinker. He will resort to refuting, rejecting, distorting and/or ignoring any dog/Pit Bull-related information that he doesn’t agree with. This is what his current track record actually shows, a belief disconfirmation paradigm stooped in confirmation bias. More directly, he seeks out people like Colleen Lynn from the hate group DogsBite.org in order to “confirm” what he already believes, while at the same time ignoring the wealth of detailed and researched information coming from the AVMA, the CDC, the American Bar Association, and quite literally every single professional animal/safety-related organization that exists in this country today.

To the contrary, if (for example) a Pit Bull owner (I’ll use myself) is to be confronted with the evidence of a singular incident, they wouldn’t out of hand claim that such an incident isn’t ever possible, but rather simply ask that their dog be judged on its own merits and not on the actions of another dog, no matter what the determined breed of that dog ends up being. This is actually recognizing what has happened in that singular incident, but at the same time refuting the concept of collectively blaming every member of whatever relevant “group” that is being conceptualized. Now will there be anomalies to this point? Of course. There will always be certain “bad apples” or ignorant/vile behavior coming from whatever viewed group that materializes in one’s mind, and no matter the subject matter or issue. But my point is that the non-acknowledgement or avoidance of such select information is not normal, standard or a representation of the next person. Most Pit Bull owners do not have rigid ideologies based on vilifying massive groups. Singular incidents remain singular incidents, and nothing is ever absolutely perfect.

In closing, Madison’s view of Pit Bulls is a false dilemma in which certain solutions go completely ignored for the purpose of fabricating reality for political gain.

This interview with Jeff Borchardt, anti-Pit Bull hatemonger, is a total misrepresentation of actual reality. How many lies can be packed into 45 seconds?

First of all, this piece states that Mr. Borchardt had “no concern” with the dogs being around his baby. This isn’t true, as he’s stated numerous times that the dogs were to remain kenneled in a yard outside and never to be around his son. Yet, he now blames ALL dogs for his son’s death and not the actual babysitter who violated his request… And I’m certainly not saying she needs blamed, but if he’s hellbent on blaming someone in order to process his grief then maybe he should start with focusing on the individuals who were actually involved with Daxton’s death. This babysitter, Susan Iwicki, has now conveniently became as vicious in her sweeping anti-dog ideologies as Borchardt is, which surely comes in handy for the cause of trolling the internet using a multitude of fake profiles to spread hate against all Pit Bulls and all dog owners. Also, in this story Borchardt claims to have not only known and liked the dogs, but talks as if he has all kinds of personal insight into their actual characters. More disingenuous, reconstructed and dressed up nonsense. This is aside from the numerous erroneous factoids he attempts to jam into his last sentence that they air for their piece. Last, it’s claimed that his organization doesn’t seek a ban on Pit Bulls, yet there’s years of his own statements available online that tell otherwise. Represent yourself honestly in public, man!

These tactics of inconsistency are always present when the few DogsBite followers (rarely) come out and present their ideas to the non-controlled public. Colleen Lynn does the exact same thing, ramping down her rhetoric to appear only 75% psychotic instead of a raging 125%. Again, be real. It speaks volumes when you can’t be.

FACTS to counter the rubbish in the video interview from MyFOX Chicago:

^This is taken directly from the DogsBite website, which isn’t to show that it has any credibility, but rather that it’s the Borchardt-approved story that was put out through their own string of websites. A counter to this story, which is based on the actual police report, can be seen here.

Here’s a statement taken directly from the Daxton’s Friends website (many of his cruder statements appear on Facebook and all over internet comment sections), which backs both dog regulations and dog bans…

It’s also stated on this website that 26 different dog breeds are considered (by Borchardt) as “potentially dangerous.” Lol. First off, from his angle (which is to vilify entire breeds and types) this is total bullshit. Secondly, semantically speaking every single dog, as well as any other animal and any other person or object, is “potentially” dangerous. But anyways, his Daxton’s Friends website sweepingly proclaims that all American Bulldogs, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, Miniature Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Great Danes, St. Bernards, Rottwilers, Akitas, Boxers, Alaskan Malamutes, Chows, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Shar Peis, Siberian Huskies, Olde English Bulldogs, Bullmastiffs, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, English Mastiffs, Fila Brasileiros, Dogue de Bordeauxs, and Presa Canarios are a detriment to public safety and should be regulated. Nice guy.

When addressing a control freak like Borchardt I oftentimes speak of the concept of collective blame. Instead of being specific and holding the individuals involved accountable, this concept instead scapegoats massive groups of uninvolved individuals and promotes the erroneous philosophy of precrime. Jeff Borchardt displays this way of thinking in absolute spades… Pit Bulls aside, look at this post from September of last year where he blames “pro-Pit Bull organizations,” Best Friends, the National Canine Research Council, Animal Farm Foundation, Bad Rap, Pit Bulletin Legal News Network, the ASPCA, the HSUS, the Center for Disease Control Prevention, the American Veterinary Medical Association, Shorty Rossi and the show “Pit Boss,” Tia Torres and the show “Pit Bulls and Parolees,” Cesar Millan and the show “The Dog Whisperer,” and any parent out there who might dare post a photo of their dog with their children onto Facebook for killing his son Daxton Borchardt. You are all to blame!

Below is Borchardt using the phrase “die out” or “bred out,” which alludes to his softer public stance of mandating sterilization laws onto Pit Bulls instead of outright bans. This is what many from the DogsBite cult will speak of now, which allows them to publicly hide their true intent behind the misnomers of caring about any overpopulation, Pit Bull shelter deaths, or any abuse that any individual dog may suffer at the hands of a person. Much like PETA, they will say that they are doing it for the dog’s “own good and protection.” To the laymen who has no idea either way this presents a picture of a less extreme person who, instead of calling for an eradication roundup, is simply calling for a spay and neuter law with the grandest of intentions. Without any context or background this incredible disingenuousness sometimes goes unaccounted for…

Here is Borchardt (just this week) “liking” a link to a petition that calls for the banning of ownership of Pit Bulls as domesticated pets, and then once clicked through a fuller screenshot of what that petition entails…

And finally, here’s Borchardt saying that he’s going to kill any Pit Bull-type dog that moves into his neighborhood by serving it antifreeze to drink…

I don’t know Jeff Borchardt personally. I certainly have empathy and compassion for him, person to person, in regards to the tragic loss of his son’s life. What he’s went through I wouldn’t wish on anyone, ever. But sadly, with this issue he’s constantly shown himself to be a reprehensible, classless, ignorant and despicable person who’s allowed his grief to literally turn him into a flagrant monster.

Maria Guido, a writer over at the website Mommyish, sarcastically wrote a little poem a few weeks back in response to the Galunker book that’s coming out. In it she defiles all Pit Bulls as vicious animals that will eat your children’s face off. She writes…

What a genius idea to teach children not to be afraid of this breed. Maybe they’ll start approaching them more, because that hasn’t proven to have disastrous results or anything. This is a joke.

So wait, as opposed to the idea of teaching children to be afraid of certain types of dog? That would fix things or be more helpful?

I have a few brilliant ideas actually. How about you teach your children to not negatively stereotype dogs simply based on the way that they look, you know, because that might lead to them growing up and doing the exact same thing to human beings. Secondly, how about you teach your children how to behave around all dogs? You know, for their safety? Teach them what’s appropriate, what’s not. Teach them boundaries. That way they’ll actually be equipped with legitimate information to apply to their interactions with all dogs, instead of a false sense of security that only certain dogs are capable of harming them. How about that? No?

Guido then goes on to characterize all Pit Bull owners as people who have no interest in public safety, but rather as people that care more about blaming others than having empathy for victims of whatever tragic incident that might happen. This is a running theme in many of her articles. She uses screenshots of statements coming from individual people as evidence to collectively blame all Pit Bull owners, and as she complains about Pit Bull owners “blaming” everything else. Funny, but more pathetic and sad to be honest. This excerpt, taken from the same poem, relays her message quite well…

So listen to me kid, these dogs are just trouble. And their owners are worse, maybe even double.

Nice. See how it’s all so simple? I suppose I’ll be called the same thing if she’s to ever read this… That I’m blaming her by suggesting that she drop the discriminatory shtick and dually focus on the idea of educating children about safety precautions around all dogs as well as the idea of treating things as individuals instead of scapegoating them in groups. How dare I do such a thing!

As I looked further into Guido’s posts I began seeing many that were addressing Pit Bulls. I saw her actually source the anti-Pit Bull hate group DogsBite.org while lazily delving into the topic of dog-related human fatalities. That’s always great. In another sweeping Pit Bull rant from April she ends by stating the following…

Any animal that can be provoked to mauling someone because it’s tail is pulled or it’s food is touched should not be legal to own.

Wait, is that Guido actually talking about individual dogs and their behavior, or is that Guido essentially implying that all Pit Bulls will do these things, and thus need to be banned? That answer is obvious, as you simply need to look at Guido’s actual journalistic record. Hell, mere paragraphs above this very statement she says that Pit Bulls “have this annoying propensity of occasionally ripping innocent children apart.” No mention about the millions upon millions that never, ever do such a thing. Yet they are the ones that will suffer due in part to her erroneous blathering.

But then today Ms. Guido put out an interesting post… Its title? Banning “chasing games” won’t stop kids from getting hurt. That’s ironic. You know, considering that she seems to want to ban Pit Bulls and all. So there seems to now be an obvious question: Will banning Pit Bulls stop kids from getting hurt by dogs? Of course it won’t, but that’s highly inconvenient information.

So Guido takes a nanny state approach that’s centered around collectively blaming both dogs and people in 1 instance, and then complains about these same exact tactics in another instance. She asks… “Really? What should we stop next?” Damn, I’d ask her the same thing in regards to dogs! Because if she were to ever achieve her desire of eliminating millions of dogs that simply fit a vague physical description, what would happen when another dog eventually seriously injured or killed a child? Because that will happen, and it will continue to randomly happen. Would she want to regulate or ban that dog breed or type? Then ban another? And another?

Weeks earlier she went after people standing up for the 2nd Amendment in the wake of that psychopath Elliot Rodger murdering people in California with both guns and knives. Interestingly there was no focus on the knife, which he used to kill half of his victims. She took issue with the unkind words someone used, which is a fair point I suppose (I wouldn’t have used his words but it’s his right to be an idiot), but failed to appreciate the larger point he was trying to make. Then, just yesterday, she mocked the New Jersey Department of Children and Families for threatening to remove a child from his home because he was “twirling his pencil like a gun” in school. She described the situation as being “invasive, terrifying, out of hand, and a nightmare.”

Earth to Maria: That’s what happens when you give control freaks the ability to lazily indict things based on ignorant characterizations and not individual circumstance and evidence. That’s what happens when you embolden the state to start banning objects instead of focusing on the specific individuals who are using said objects to cause murder and mayhem. This is the blatant feeding of a vilification campaign, and then that campaign bearing its nasty fruits. You can’t have 1 idea without the other eventually being pushed. Banning agendas always lead to the acceleration of other tactics meant to exploit the things having anything to do with that which is being scapegoated!

Last week she wrote about someone leaving a loaded gun in a Target store and then lamented people online for suggesting that it was planted. She said that “blaming this on a group of moms is just pathetic.” I’d agree! So with that, please consider being a little more consistent and stop your perpetuation of group-blaming when it fits your heinous messaging against Pit Bull-type dogs and their owners. Thanks.

Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, who is currently running for the Senate in the 28th district, can’t possibly be trusted when his bogus claims are compared to his actual record… Regulating dog ownership by breed? Having his Pit Bull ban blocked by state law and then mandating sterilization onto any dog mixed with “Pit Bull,” which isn’t even an actual breed of dog but instead a slang term? Calling them all vicious and sweepingly indicting millions of dogs on the back of singular incidents of bad ownership? Isn’t your dog part of your family? Stone isn’t “pro family,” he’s pro discrimination. And how in the hell can he say that he’s “pro 2nd Amendment/gun” if he was so gleefully willing to ban and regulate your dog, which he conveniently compared to a gun during a 2013 meeting? Neither should be banned (these are people problems, bad ownership), but dogs kill roughly 30 people a year, guns are used to kill thousands and thousands! If you are a law-abiding gun owner how can you possibly trust someone that was so obsessed with banning a breed of dog? Jeff Stone is not what he claims.

I recently came across an article that was detailing how Lancaster Mayor Rex Parris was using his political capital in order to knowingly misrepresent a situation and blatantly smear City Council candidate Johnathon Ervin. This type of behavior clearly gives further insight into the mind of the man who seems to call everyone “gangbangers.” He did it to push his Pit Bull-targeting legislation through in 2009, painting all owners of the dogs as gang members, and he just did it in March with Ervin, an African American man who attended a 2012 protest. The actual name of that protest? The “Hoodie March for Solidarity Against Stereotypes.” Didn’t matter at all to Parris, who put out a political mailer calling Ervin the “anti-law enforcement candidate” and the “gang candidate.” Incredible. Read these amazing paragraphs that were included in the mailer…

Unfortunately, one of the candidates running for City Council wants to turn back the clock and make Lancaster a magnet for street gangs and section 8 housing abuse once again. This liberal candidate’s name is Johnathon Ervin.

Electing Ervin to the City Council would give street gangs a green light to resume their criminal activities in Lancaster. If he is on the council he will know about on-going operations to fight the gangs. When he passes this information to his friends, the safety of our deputies and our families will be in jeopardy. By not voting, you will be helping gangs to roam our streets and threaten our deputies and our families.

This is so egregious that I don’t even know what to say. I’m actually speechless.

Ervin ended up coming in 3rd out of 9, right behind the 2 incumbents who will keep their seats. Mr. Ervin apparently won the vote at the polls, but was ultimately bested by the votes by mail. By my quick math only little over 9% of the city population cast votes in this election. Parris responded to the outcry over his mailer by accusing folks of playing the race card, then apologizing on Facebook.

When you look into the tactics being used by Mayor Parris, just with this situation alone, you will see an outrageous disregard for reality. His misrepresentations are literally off the charts. It’s embarrassing and pathetic that a public official can keep getting away with acting in such a simplistic, inaccurate and ignorant manner. He is an absurd human being.

This is a visual followup on the post with a similar name, as well the “How the scourge of BSL not only targets dogs, but people” article that I put out just last month. It’s a 9-part (as of now) video series that averages a little over 3 minutes per video, detailing how chicanery is being used to circumvent state law. Since the state of California disallows bans by breed or type of dog, going the route of mandating a dog breed’s/type’s sterilization is always the 2nd chosen option of pursuit for those disingenuous bureaucrats wanting to sweepingly vilify all Pit Bulls. It still leads to the same end, just slower. It also still perpetuates unjust stereotypes, indicts entire massive groups for crimes they never committed, and promotes the philosophy of blaming millions for the actions of 1 individual. The intent is always blatantly anti-dog, anti-Pit Bull, pro-discrimination and pro-prejudice, pro-scapegoating and pro-demonizing, anti-public safety, anti-science and anti-liberty. This particular series takes a look at Gavin Newsom, Rex Parris, Robert Miller, Jeff Stone, John Tavaglione, Mike Gardner, Steve Adams, Steve Madison and Micheal Goodland. Watch them 1 at a time or click the “playlist” button in the upper-right corner and select a specific clip…