Chickens & Ferrets are dangerous. Immigrants - not so much?
One of my good friends is moving from Oklahoma to a state in the Northwest to be closer to her family. She has a bunch of Speckled Sussex chickens that she is quite proud of and planning to take with her. However, she found out that, before she leaves the state, each of her chickens must have their blood work done. Plus, there is a great possibility that, anywhere along the road, she could have them confiscated and taken away, even after having their clean bill of health. I understand the need to make sure animals are healthy before you cart them off somewhere, but seriously? Poor chickens....
As some of you may know, I used to have two little ferrets (R.I.P. Popi & Tingting). If one wishes to take their ferret on a road trip with them, they must do a lot of research and map out detours. Some states, like California (boo, hiss), do not allow ferrets AT ALL. If you get caught even just passing through a ferret-free zone/state with a fuzzy in tow, the consequences could be dire. Some places, you can get off with just a warning. Others, you might get slapped with a $2000+ fine! And in other places, the officials will not hesitate to take your ferret from you for good. If that happens, your ferret maybe has a 50/50 chance of survival. It may be shipped to a ferret-friendly state and placed in a shelter where it can be adopted. But, most likely, your dear little pet will just be put down and thrown in a hole, all because some cities/states see them as an undomesticated critter that could be loaded with disease.
Now, here is where I am scratching my head in this whole thing: if you want to take a bunch of birds out of state, then you must have their blood work done, a written bill of clean health, and possibly face the fact that they could be taken away from you anyway. If you want to take your pet ferret with you on vacation, you must also have their clean bill of health and avoid certain cities and states, or else have your baby taken away from you and killed. But.... (and here is the kicker)..... it is TOTALLY OKAY to ship some dude from Africa (a country where disease is prominent) and throw him into society without a clean bill of health (much less a quarantine) and then we (we = the stupid idiot(s) in the Government who want to kill our innocent chicks and ferrets) just say "Oh, oopsie! He has Ebola. So sorry, everyone. I guess we just didn't see that coming."???
Does that seem right to you?
We all hope that we never have to face a situation where we find the need to defend ourselves or our loved one. I, however, am a firm believer in always being prepared, just in case. Self defense is one of those things that I like to have tucked into my pocket. The nice thing about some of the techniques in this video (that HOPEFULLY shows up below) is that you can disarm the assailant without causing him serious harm. However, one of the things about self defense to learn is this: when someone threatens your life, or the lives of others, be prepared to do whatever it takes to keep them from causing harm. Even if it means seriously hurting or killing them.
I have met some people, have some Christian friends, who say they would never kill an assailant - they know they are going to Heaven, because they have been redeemed. The assailant, however, is not. They want him to have every chance to change that. But my opinion on the matter is this: if he's a simple mugger, he'll have a better chance of getting saved in prison than he will walking off with your money. If he's crossed the line and is trying to kill people, he's made his choice and it is my duty to protect others. Because a killer will not stop with me. He'll keep killing until someone takes him down.
This is a really, really good YouTube video. Short, sweet, to-the-point, and oh so true.
Before you watch the video I would just like to back up some facts that they briefly mention:
(1) - "Following a vote in Congress to extend slavery into the Northwestern Territory in May, 1854, twenty House Members coalesced themselves into a group they titled "The Republican Party." Its declared purpose was to support the original anti-slavery principles of the federal government. The first Republican Platform (1856) therefore declared:
Resolved. That with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . . That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing slavery." - (Exert taken from WallBuilders.com - Black History Issue 2001)
(2) - Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 375, Rep. John R. Lynch from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on February 3, 1875.
(3) - Neglected Voices online, Representative Richard H. Cain, responding on February 3, 1875, to arguments that the Bill would unconstitutionally infringe the rights of whites (at ht tp://www.law.nyu.edu/davidp/neglectedvoices/RaineyFeb031875.html).