OVER BILLING SCAM against san mateo t...

OVER BILLING SCAM against san mateo taxpayers

Posted in the San Mateo Forum


San Mateo, CA

#2 Mar 2, 2014

San Mateo, CA

#4 Jan 4, 2015
San Mateo County looks to rebuild Peninsula Humane Society animal shelter
By Laura Dudnick @Lauradudnick
click to enlarge
COURTESY SCOTT DELUCCHI - The Peninsula Humane Society’s Coyote Point facility has flooding problems and poor ventilation, posing health risks to animals, according to Director Scott Delucchi.
The Peninsula Humane Society’s Coyote Point facility has flooding problems and poor ventilation, posing health risks to animals, according to Director Scott Delucchi.
San Mateo shelter's dyed-pink Chihuahua puppy has been adopted
By Bay City News
One-eyed owl released in Glen Canyon Park after treatment at Peninsula wildlife center
By Bay City News
Animals being cared for at the Peninsula Humane Society’s Coyote Point facility in San Mateo may soon have a new temporary home.
San Mateo County is seeking to construct a new shelter at its 12 Airport Blvd. site to replace the nearly 60-year-old deteriorating structure where surrendered, stray and lost animals are brought as a first stop.
“We have flooding in the parking lot; the roofs have been repaired several times,” Humane Society Director Scott Delucchi said.“The areas where the animals are held is probably the biggest concern. There’s not proper ventilation. It’s hard to keep animals healthy there.”
The facility in San Mateo is one of two centers where the Humane Society houses animals and provides a variety of care services. In September 2011, the nonprofit organization opened the privately funded Tom and Annette Lantos Center for Compassion at 1450 Rollins Road in Burlingame, where the center keeps its adoptable animals and administrative center. The Burlingame center also offers a pet and gift store, and it holds animal camps and other community-oriented activities.
“All the things we choose to do as a Humane Society and fund with donations happen at the Burlingame center,” Delucchi said.“The things we’re contracted to do [by the county] happen at the San Mateo center.”
That’s partly due to the condition of the Humane Society’s facility in San Mateo, according to Delucchi.
“Every building has a lifetime, and this one’s lived it,” he said.
The new shelter project is estimated to cost around $15 million to $20 million, according to S. T. Mayer, director of public health, policy and planning for San Mateo County, but an exact figure will not be determined until the cities that contract with the shelter are all on board.
The county has begun reaching out to the 20 Peninsula cities needed to sign memorandums of agreement for such a facility, which include 30-year leases where the costs will depend on each city’s population and shelter utilization rate.
On Feb. 19, Atherton became the first city to approve its memorandum of agreement. Daly City, San Bruno, Half Moon Bay and Foster City have since approved agreements as well, Mayer said.
As the largest city in San Mateo County, Daly City will see a minimum annual lease of $52,087 per year, and a maximum of $69,679 per year, according to Mayer.
The county is hoping to have the rest of the agreements approved in the next two months, Mayer said.
Once the cities agree to the leases, the county would provide a 30-year, no-interest loan for the cities, and ideally the new shelter would be completed by July 2015, according to Mayer.
Mayer said it’s less expensive in the long run for the county to rebuild the San Mateo site instead of continuing to pay for repairs.
“The current shelter has fallen into disrepair,” Mayer said.“It’s not up to current standards for animal care and control function. We’ve been sinking a fair amount in maintenance. It would be more responsible to rebuild rather than putting money into that endlessly.”
The San Mateo shelter is expected to remain open while the new building is constructed — on the same site, but next to the current facility. And it can’t come a moment too soon for the animals, Delucchi said.
“We like to say the Coyot

San Mateo, CA

#5 Jan 4, 2015
Man jailed after cockfighting bust behind restaurant
By Henry K. Lee on June 6, 2014 3:33 PM

A Colma man has been sentenced to three months in jail after pleading no contest to felony animal abuse for his role in a cockfighting ring, a prosecutor said Friday.

Rafael Huertamartin, 56, entered his plea Thursday in San Mateo County Superior Court. Judge Craig Parsons ordered Huertamartin to surrender July 19 to begin serving his sentence. The judge also placed him on three years of probation and ordered him to surrender all animals under his control within 10 days.

The investigation began Feb. 27 when police in Broadmoor, an unincorporated area surrounded by Daly City, received reports that roosters were fighting behind Estrada’s restaurant, said District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.

Officers found Huertamartin and another man with 12 roosters and eight chickens, Wagstaffe said. Peninsula Humane Society officers were called in, and they immediately recognized the fowl as gamecocks with their combs, wattles and earlobes removed by a blade, which is done to enable them to be better fighters, authorities said.

San Mateo, CA

#6 Jan 4, 2015
Title 18 section 1951 Interference with Commerce:“Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity…by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so…shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than twenty years…(2) the term ‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” Title 7, section 2 [Agricultural commodities] Definitions:“The word ‘person’…shall include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts. The word ‘commodity’ shall mean wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs,…[Irish potatoes], wool, wool tops, fats and oils…cottonseed meal, cottonseed, peanuts, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock, livestock products, and frozen concentrated orange juice, and all other goods and articles…” Title 7 section 2131 “The Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals and activities as provided in this chapter is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to effectively regulate such commerce, in order…(3) to protect the owners of animals from theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen.” Title 18 section 1962. Prohibited activities:(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce…(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a),(b), or (c) of this section.” Title 18 Stolen Property, section 2311 Definitions:“As used in this chapter…’livestock’ means any domestic animals raised for home use, consumption, or profit, such as horses, pigs, llamas, goats, fowl, sheep, buffalo, and cattle, or the carcasses thereof.” Title 7 Agriculture section 601: No state can restrict the raising of any commodity (chicken - hen or cock, other poultry, cattle, horse, goat, pig, sheep, parakeet, frog, fish, chinchilla, guinea pig, rabbit, etc.) for personal use. If the state is forbidden to restrict commodities, neither can the city or county. City or county employees get 20 years in prison for conspiring to restrict the free flow of commerce and agricultural commodities known as “chickens (roosters and hens),”“birds and poultry,” cattle,”“crowing fowl,”“pigeons,”“goats,”“horse s,”“pigs,”“sheep,”“other small farm animals (rabbits, fish, chinchillas, frogs, parakeets, guinea pigs, etc.),” and “animal/livestock feed” consisting of mill feeds: rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, and grain sorghums. The penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment or $250,000 fine.
Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997)“[I]nterprative canon is not license for judiciary to rewrite language enacted by legislature... Predominant elements in substantive Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations are:(1) conduct (2) of enterprise (3) through pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C.§ 1962(c).... Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy conviction does not require overt or specific act. 18 U.S.C.§ 1962(d).... If conspirators have plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate crime and others to provide support, supporters are as guilty as perpetrators.... Conspiracy may exist

San Mateo, CA

#7 Jan 4, 2015
Conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not substantive crime ensues, for conspiracy is distinct evil, dangerous to public, and so punishable in itself.” Judges and cities are forbidden to rewrite language enacted by legislature. They are forbidden to even think about using the courts to uphold bogus, fabricated charges for “hot pursuit of revenue.” By their “conduct” of falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt, participants violate 15 U.S.C. sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1681s-2, and became “principals” in a “pattern of racketeering” by putting “false liens or debts” on “court or credit records” without “verifying” that the liens or debts were “legally valid” as the result of “having the matter determined by a jury” prior to having an “abstract of judgment entered.” The fraud continues when these bogus judgments are used for “collection of unlawful debt.” The language of 15 U.S.C. section 1681s-2 is particularly clear:“A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.”

Amortization:“The World Book Dictionary defines ‘amortize’ as: 1. To set money aside regularly in a special fund for future wiping out of (a debt…); 2. Law. To convey (property) to a body, especially an ecclesiastical body, which does not have the right to sell or give it away.”‘Amortization’ is: 1. The act of amortizing a debt; 2. The money set aside for this purpose.” The County is liable for cities’ fraudulent misuse of the word “amortization” to mean an 18-month “grace” period before county agents crack down on all livestock and other small farm animal owners, 4-H, and FFA. The correct definition of “amortization” means that the county and cities need to set money aside right now for “conveying property (deeds/bundle of rights/chickens/chicken feed/livestock) to a body,(city or county agents), which does not have the right to sell or give it away. This is hard evidence of County’s liability for fraud – they know they have no right to con citizens into amending their own Deeds by giving up their property, but count on the public being too ignorant to look up the real definition of “amortize.”

CIVIL RICO by DAVID B. SMITH and TERRANCE G. REED, 1999 Edition published by MATTHEW BENDER, publication update September 1999, front page:“Injuries to “Business or Property:” Interpreting the scope of compensable “business or property” injuries under section 1964(c), THE Sixth Circuit recently held in Isaak v. Trumble Savings & Loan Co., 169 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 1999), that the use and enjoyment of real estate constitutes “property” within the meaning of RICO so as to trigger the accrual of a RICO claim.” The county and its cities are liable for racketeering conduct of its employees/agents’ use of fear, threats, and intimidation to “interfere with the use and enjoyment of property” by citizens who pay city and county employees to “protect and serve” their property rights.

San Mateo, CA

#8 Jan 4, 2015
California Civil Code section 3482.5 Preexisting Agricultural Uses Not Nuisance.“(a)(1) No agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after it has been in operation for more than three years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began.” County is liable for their agents’“racketeering and extortion” in using threats, fear and intimidation by going door-to-door issuing citations for having too many parakeets, fish, frogs, goats, guinea pigs, fowl, pigeons, pigs, horses, etc., which information they obtained illegally through criminal trespass or violation of property owners’ Fourth Amendment.

U.S. v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) at 793:“To establish conspiracy under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) does not require proof that individual defendant participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses; rather, the conspiracy must contemplate the commission of two predicate acts by one or more of its members. 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d).” More than two predicate acts occur when private individuals conspire with public employees to violate state and federal law by restricting property ownership without just compensation in furtherance of a racketeering scheme or artifice (denial of honest government services and theft under color of law); therefore, the County is the municipality upon which the “liability is imposed” for conduct constituting RICO conspiracy through fraud and deceit to effect “takings” without due process and without just compensation, which is theft under color. The county needs to remember the “judicial officers” who went to jail in this Frega case for operating the courts as a racketeering enterprise, the $42 million that went back into Uncle Sam’s Treasury as “fruits of a racketeering enterprise,” and needs to remember the 1,500 crooked employees who used to work for the DMV and who took “bribes” to “do favors” and manufacture fake licenses for their friends. In the Frega case, the feds only collected $42 million, because it was pled improperly, and a lot more big fish escaped the net.

Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997):“[C]onspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the public, and punishable in itself.” City and county employees are liable for conspiring to restrict property (including old cars) and agricultural commodities (Title 7, section 2) without just compensation, and conspiring to target disenfranchised livestock owners and feed mills in violation of Title 42 section 1983, and admitted to having “met”(conspired) with code enforcement and private persons in violation of the Brown Act in order to steal. The county is liable for its employees’ intent (conspiracy) to conduct city and county business as a racketeering enterprise.

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 1996) at 378:“Attorney need know nothing about client’s ongoing or planned illicit activity for crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege to apply.” The County is liable for city employees’“planned illicit activity” to turn property ownership into a crime, and any attorney representing the city or county agents in a lawsuit is liable under crime-fraud exception, and their malpractice insurance will not cover RICO allegations; nor can any of their clients recover ANY attorney fees (this notion was rejected by the full House in 1970 see CIVIL RICO, footnote 25)

San Mateo, CA

#9 Jan 4, 2015
Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1995):“A preanswer Motion to Dismiss action for failure to state a claim admits facts alleged in complaint but challenges plaintiff’s right to relief based upon those facts.” The County would have no hope of using a 12(b)(6) motion to deny the fact that any of its citizens exists, and that one citizen was subjected to Animal Enterprise Terrorism, threats, fear, intimidation, trespass, and robbery by city employees.
Guerrero v. Gates, et al, CV 00-7165, WILLIAM J. REA, August 28, 2000, United States District Court for the Central District of California, quoting pertinent parts relating to nationwide news the LAPD CONDUCT SUBJECT TO CIVIL RICO: DISCUSSION: Legal Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): A party may bring a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims if the plaintiff’s allegations “fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Generally,“[a] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Thus, dismissal is proper where the complaint lacks either a cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must construe all allegations contained in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738 (1976). Thus, no matter how improbable the alleged facts are, the court must accept them as true for the purposes of the action. See Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989). The first amended complaint alleges planting evidence and extortion by Rampart police, which are both racketeering violations under Title 18. Attorneys for the defendant police made a motion to dismiss based on “failure to state a claim.” The court recommended that this motion be denied, and encouraged the plaintiff to pursue his racketeering claims.” Likewise, it would be very easy to “prove the set of facts” that the city and county employees aided and abetted racketeering activity by restricting property use, and by conspiring with private individuals and corporations to terrorize tax-paying citizens.
AR zoning:“Existing animal keeping uses in the AR Agricultural-Residential District which become nonconforming by reason of development on an adjoining site which was vacant when the animal keeping use was established may be continued indefinitely; provided, however, if the animal keeping use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of eighteen (18) months, it shall not be resumed except in conformity with the provisions of Section 9-3.420 of this article. The County is liable for illegally proposing (extortion) that citizens be given 18 months to get rid of chickens or face charges” in order to threaten and intimidate citizens to give up their property rights, which is a “scheme or artifice to defraud under color of official right.” The County is liable for any of its employees/agents using extortion, threats, fear and intimidation to coerce citizens to “amend” their Deeds and give up their property rights without just compensation or due process, and for falsely purporting that if the chickens or other livestock/small farm animals are gone for 18 months, the County can then fraudulently “amend” the owner’s deed, illegally convert the title, and get rid of the Prop 13 tax break.

San Mateo, CA

#10 Jan 4, 2015
Jones v. United States, 529 U.S.__, 146 L Ed 2d 902, 120 S.Ct___(May 22, 2000):“Held: Because an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property ‘used in’ commerce or commerce-affecting activity, arson of such a dwelling is not subject to…prosecution…” The Supreme Court says that you cannot be prosecuted by anybody for damaging your own property. The county is liable for its employees/agents’ fraud, perjury, and extortion to steal property under the guise of “rescuing” it from its lawful owner.


Rotella v. Wood, 528 US__, 145 Led 2d 1047, 120 SCt.__, at pg. 1047:“The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)(18 U.S.C.S §§ 1961 et seq.) provides that (1) it is unlawful to conduct an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity (18 U.S.C.§ 1962(c),(2) a pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, the last of which occurs within 10 years after the commission of a prior act (18 USCS § 1962(c),(3) a person injured by a RICO violation can bring a civil RICO action (18 USCS 1964(c)).” Any person injured by racketeering activity can file a civil RICO lawsuit.“Racketeering activity” is anything which interferes with land use and property rights – threats, fear, false process, false liens, etc.

Title 18 U.S.C. section 666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds.“Whoever…being an agent of…a State, or local…government, or any agency thereof-(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner…shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both…The circumstances referred to…is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance…As used in this section-(1) the term ‘agent’ means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or government and…includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative; (2) the term ‘government agency’ means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a governmental or intergovernmental program.” The County is liable for its “servants or employees, boards, etc.” embezzlement of federal funds in excess of $10,000 for restricting federally funded and protected “animal enterprises” including hobbyists, petting zoos, fairs, aquariums, 4H and FFA, pigeon shows, etc. by “stealing, obtaining by fraud, or otherwise convert to the use of any person other than the rightful owner” livestock and small animals lawfully owned within the County. The county does not get to receive federal funds for protected 4H and FFA programs, then turn around and restrict them. Not only is this a crime against the tax-paying citizens in the County, it is a crime against the United States. Anything which interferes with land use is racketeering.


San Mateo, CA

#11 Jan 4, 2015

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Hitler's Nazi Germany was marked by a preoccupation with "animal rights." Hitler's Third Reich passed numerous animal protection laws, such as declaring that shoeing a horse was cruel, and declared an end to dissection. This reduced Man’s status to that of animals, and justified treating men as animals. Before the war was ended, the Nazis stepped up experiments on the best way to castrate a Jew without anesthesia, and turned countless men, women and children into lampshades and soap. These Nazi actions were justifiable by their belief that it was possible to "...increase the moral standing of animals and decrease the moral standing of people, thus integrating human characteristics to animals... elevating animal life to the level of cult worship...which would lead to the spiritual and ideological changes necessary... for a new national identity."

The real political objective of “animal rights” is to eliminate "unalienable rights," and to make way for all these other supposed rights and pervert our Bill of Rights to the point where only the perverted are protected. A favored socialist strategy is to separate the population from common sense and its own laws by bringing about chaos, clouding real issues, then bring about “change” through gradual “legislation from within.” Ruling by planned crisis is the favored method, as this short-circuits the brain’s ability to think and reason clearly about true issues. This planned chaos (such as “animal cruelty,”“puppy mills” and “cock fighting”) is designed to rob the nation of its creativity and life force, degrade human existence, make everything seem uncontrollable and bad, which then allows the introduction of a tyrannical form of government.

The Gestapo was first used by Goring to do away with political opponents. A "temporary" state of emergency was declared after the Reichstag fire, but was never rescinded. This allowed the Gestapo to enforce conformity at every level of society. Block wardens monitored their neighbors, and children were recruited to inform on their teachers and parents. The Gestapo was authorized to hold people in "protective custody" which was really arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. At first, only political prisoners were taken under the guise of "preventive protective custody" and placed in SS-controlled concentration camps; later, anyone was hunted down and taken who was deemed to not fit in with SS and Gestapo vision of a perfect Aryan society.("SS" came from Schutzstaffel which means "elite guard").

Today we see this same conduct and set of circumstances appearing in some of our civic institutions. The only way for one man to achieve dominion and control over another is through the darkness of IGNORANCE. Let’s get educated about our own laws, so that tyranny cannot gain a foothold in America, and so that we can once again have “happiness and good government flowing forth” as paraphrased by all our early education laws. We do have some beautiful laws. Let’s learn them, and insist that our civic institutions obey them for the good of our nation. God Bless America.

-Compiled by: Janet I. Fischer and S.A. Martin

17954-A S. Euclid Ave.

Chino, CA 91710
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#14 May 10, 2015
few yrs back peninsula humane society OVER BILLING SCAM with Bogus NON PErformed services COST SAN MAteo TAXPAYERS over 4 million dollars, NOT a Single person went to jail or prosecuted by DA,

AS TAXPAYERS , let's DEMAND from the city Officials to Investigate peninsula humane society for OVER BILLING SCAM for NON-performed Services....

call/write our public officials in San Mateo.

Chicago, IL

#16 Aug 3, 2015
Un agenda 21 and HSUS wrote:
few yrs back peninsula humane society OVER BILLING SCAM with Bogus NON PErformed services COST SAN MAteo TAXPAYERS over 4 million dollars, NOT a Single person went to jail or prosecuted by DA,
AS TAXPAYERS , let's DEMAND from the city Officials to Investigate peninsula humane society for OVER BILLING SCAM for NON-performed Services....
call/write our public officials in San Mateo.
Un agenda 21 and HSUS

San Mateo, CA

#19 Jan 14, 2016
Un agenda 21 and HSUS wrote:
few yrs back peninsula humane society OVER BILLING SCAM with Bogus NON PErformed services COST SAN MAteo TAXPAYERS over 4 million dollars, NOT a Single person went to jail or prosecuted by DA,
AS TAXPAYERS , let's DEMAND from the city Officials to Investigate peninsula humane society for OVER BILLING SCAM for NON-performed Services....
call/write our public officials in San Mateo.

Have you ever gone to the circus...?
Let me begin by asking you a few personal questions.(Don't be shy!) Have you ever gone to the circus or rodeo with your family? Do you own or wear leather belts, shoes, wallets, or purses? What about a fur coat or a parka with a fur-lined hood? Ever visited the zoo? Do you eat meat, poultry, or fish? What about honey or dairy products? Do you own pets of any sort? Do you ever wear clothing made of wool, silk, or goose down? Do you take comfort in swallowing a prescription knowing it was tested on a lab animal and found to be safe for humans before the pharmacist dispensed it to you?

...you are a primitive, arrogant, cruel, barbaric, murdering "speciesist,"

If you answered "yes" to any of the above, the animal "rights" movement would like you to know that you are a sick, exploitive, bloodthirsty person. Furthermore, you are a primitive, arrogant, cruel, barbaric, murdering "speciesist," not fit to lick the boots of a crustacean. Such kind words of encouragement are actually just a collection of animal rights rhetoric seen frequently in their publications and literature and used regularly against their enemies - namely, you and me.
Sounds a bit strong, doesn't it? It's the sort of ranting and raving you would expect from some fringe radical refugees from the 60s; greying hippy-dips that burnt-out a few too many brain cells on their last trip. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The grass roots popularity of the animal rights movement continues to grow rapidly with each passing year; it attracts a broad cross-section of society, and it is highly organized, heavily financed, and politically sophisticated.

Roll-over Marx and Lenin!
The membership of the larger animal rights groups is widely diversified and includes the young, the not so young, blue collar workers, professionals, the unemployed, politicians, and (surprise!) Hollywood celebrities. Did you ever wonder what became of the left wing "intelligentsia" following the humiliating collapse of the Soviet Union and its Communist puppet states? Well, they are alive and well, and they are continuing to promote the Communist ideals of state control over resources. The only things that have changed are the terminology they use, and the names of the organizations they belong to. Roll over Marx and Lenin! Today's trendy and leftist causes are animal rights and radical environmentalism.

Just how large and influential has the animal rights movement become? In the United States alone, it is estimated that there are over 7000 different animal rights advocacy groups. About 56 of these groups maintain fully staffed offices in Washington, D.C. to lobby and harass federal politicians. These offices employ over 700 people, and hav

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

San Mateo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Steve Barrett (Feb '15) 16 hr ALM 6
News Large hotel planned for downtown Redwood City Sep 7 nita singler 1
News Business Owners Raise More Complaints About Yelp (Dec '08) Sep 6 Ralph P 96
News Portola Valley: Three bicyclists injured in col... Sep 5 Blacksaredumb 1
News Martins Beach bill bounces forward Sep 2 Anna Wright 1
News Michael Juricich Cleared of All Charges for Imp... (Oct '12) Sep 1 Crock of CRAP 9
News 'Patriot Prayer' organizer says he's willing to... Aug 27 Christsharian Dee... 1

San Mateo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

San Mateo Mortgages