Animal Gestapo Houston
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Late in September of 2008, I happened upon a television program called Animal Cops Houston.  It was on a channel called Animal Planet, which I never watch.  The program was playing on a television that someone had left running and I just happened to walk past the television during the program.  In less time than it took for me to walk past the television, I noticed what was being presented.
The program was an account of the theft of some animals by some gestapo thugs who were masquerading as animal saviors.  The amount of bleeding-heart weeping and wailing presented on behalf of the animals that were being stolen was substantial.  The level of phoney propaganda in favor of the proclaimed flawless virtue of the thugs who were stealing the animals was considerable.  The concern that was shown for the shattered rights of ownership of the so-called (previous) owners of the animals was utterly absent.  The program was a blatant and disgusting example of brainwashing in favor of intrusive government.  It was all justified by the whiney sniveling over the plight of the animals.  It brought to mind my previous observation¹ that the more worthy the cause, the greater the level of repression and governmental brutality that cause will support.
The so-called right of an animal to good treatment, presuming that any such right exists, is vastly less important than a human being's right of ownership of the animal.  In general, the right of ownership means, or used to mean, or ought to mean, the right to use, to enjoy, to abuse, to destroy, or to dispose of the owned thing in whatever manner the owner chooses, and to be able to do so without being answerable to anyone for it.  Thus, if a man owns (for example) a horse, then he and he alone ought to be in control of the treatment of the horse.  No matter what the man does or doesn't do to the horse, it isn't anybody else's business but his.  If somebody else disapproves of the man's treatment of the horse, then the disapproving individual has a limited number of legitimate options.  One legitimate option is to try to buy the horse.  If he succeeds, then he can give the horse better treatment.  After all, if he buys it then it will be his horse.  Another legitimate option is to try to persuade the owner of the horse to voluntarily give it better treatment.  That might reasonably include an offer of financial support for any additional expenses that might be associated with the better treatment of the horse.  Failing those two legitimate options, the third legitimate option is for the disapproving person to mind his own damned business.  Sadly, there's a fourth option, although it isn't a legitimate one.  That option is to let the gestapo thugs steal the horse.
Ownership is demonstrated by possession or control.  It is proved by force or by the threat of force.  People seem to be too stupid to understand that.  So, when the gestapo thugs take animals away from the so-called (previous) owners, the reason for the seizure being irrelevant, the gestapo thugs are proven to be the owners of the animals.  After that, the gestapo thugs are the ones who get to use, to enjoy, to abuse, to destroy, or to dispose of the animals in whatever manner they choose, without being answerable for it.
To believe that the rights of a dog, or of a cat, or of any other animal are more important than the rights of a human being to own the animal is a stupid belief.  It encourages and condones the destruction of any existing right of ownership that might so far have escaped the notice of the gestapo thugs who are in charge of the growing police state in this country.