Vet kept supposedly euthanized dog alive - used it as blood donor

Six months ago, a family in Texas was advised by a vet that their four year old dog was suffering from a degenerative spinal defect and needed to be put to sleep. Just last week, the family were contacted by a vet technician who told them she'd quit working at the clinic because animals were being abused, and that the family pet wasn't dead, but was being kept alive to be used as a blood donor for other dogs.

Authorities raided a popular veterinary clinic Tuesday morning after a family’s shocking discovery that their pet that they thought was euthanized was kept alive.

The family alleges that a veterinarian at the Camp Bowie Animal Clinic kept their dog, Sid, alive for six months. Sid’s owner, Marian Harris said she gave Dr. Lou Tierce permission to put the four-year-old Leonberger down last October due to health problems. But eight days ago, Harris received a disturbing phone call from a former employee of the animal clinic. The employee told her that Sid was still alive, imprisoned in a cage.

“The betrayal is so incredibly intense that nothing you have prepares you for the emotions. There’s anger, there’s joy that you have your dog back, there’s betrayal of this intense trust. And so it’s just really hard to camp on one particular emotion,” said Harris.

Harris and her husband said they marched into the clinic and found Sid living inside a cage in a back room. “He was able to walk and jump in the back of my minivan so it was an excitement to be reunited,” said Harris.

Fortunately, you don't sit on the Supreme Court!

Seriously, and I say this as someone who is now retired but, over the course of my professional career was first a trial lawyer, then a law professor and finally a government attorney - this is an outrageously stupid and futile position for Obama and his Justice Department to take, and an egregious waste of taxpayer money - witness the fact that the justices across the political spectrum from Roberts to Sotomeyer have excoriated the Justice Dept. in oral argument.

And please, no more puffery about Obama being a constitutional law scholar.

He was NEVER a SCHOLAR on ANY legal topic, let alone Constitutional Law - i.e., he never published a scholarly paper, let alone book; never participated as a panel member at scholarly conferences; was known for NOT engaging in scholarly discussions/debate with fellow faculty members; wasn't even on tenure track. He was a "senior lecturer" - that's the lowest level of teacher at a law school, below Full, Assistant, Associate, Adjunct and or Visiting Professors -
- at University of Chicago. They are not on a tenure track. He never taught the basic, traditional course in Constitutional Law, required of all first year law students, and covered in detail in state bar examinations. He taught three courses:

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer. His most traditional course was in the narrow constitutional area of (1) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION of constitutional law. His (2) VOTING RIGHTS class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on (3) RACISM AND LAW.


Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites.

Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured.

He was a part-time, adjunct instructor - NEVER a professor at any level (assistant, associate or full), but merely given the courtesy title of "professor" by students addressing him.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/ppw.html

His publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort, much less any academic writings on constitutional law. Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of affirmative action in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

She'll be a hawk against Americans as well.

She's been building up an enemies list of everyone who crossed her, according to her close friend and confidant, the late Diane Blair, as documented in the recently released "Hillary Papers" - records kept by Blair. The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”

Electing Hillary would effectively give the Clintons a THIRD presidential term.

and would constitute an end run around the 22nd amendment. The Clintons said it in Bill's campaign - you get two for the price of one, i.e, Hillary was the co-president. And in fact, she was heavily involved in all policy matters and decisions.

Hillary's reign would definitely be Bill Clinton redux, only nastier, given her thirst for revenge and her enemies' list, as documented in the recently released "Hillary Papers" - records kept by her close friend and confidant, Diane Blair. The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”

Emanuel cuts pension benefits, raises prop. taxes, subsidizes corp. donors TO THE MAX.

Nation of Change/David Sirota has a scathing article about how Rahm Emanuel has embraced old-style Chicago corruption by diverting property taxes each year into a half billion dollars a year slush fund which he as mayor controls absolutely.

Immediately after taking office, he doled out a $7 million subsidy to benefit a grocery chain, the CEO of which gave Emanuel's campaign $25,000. That's a 280% return on investment/bribe/"campaign donation".

Another $29 million subsidy went to support a new skyscraper development plan, i.e., "a very expensive corporate plaza" for the building. I know you join in me in being shocked, I say, shocked to learn that the building will house the new Chicago headquarters of a law firm whose employees have "given" Emanuel's campaign $125,000. That's a 232% return on investment/bribe/"campaign donation".

The final example is Emanuel's $55 million subsidy for a new hotel near Chicago's convention center. The investment company which owns a major stake in the construction firm gave Emanuel's campaign $31,500.
That, fellow DUers is an unbelievable 1,745% -ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE PERCENT- RETURN ON INVESTMENT/BRIBE/"CAMPAIGN DONATION"

http://www.nationofchange.org/chicago-way-1397223853

Not to sound like a broken record, but again: This same thing occurs in states and cities across the country. The wealthy corporate interests who bankroll politicians have for years convinced those politicians to not make required pension payments and to instead spend the cash on taxpayer subsidies — the kind that happen to go to those politicians' donors. Now that the bill for such irresponsibility is coming due, those bankrolled politicians are trying to protect the subsidies their donors so cherish by trying to balance budgets primarily through punitive measures against taxpayers and public employees.

Documents show Margolies turned to own charity in time of need.

This expose of Congressional candidate Marjorie Margolies (in a crowded primary field of Dems for a congressional seat) has a tremendous amount of disturbing detail - my conclusion after reading the entire article(which I urge all to do) is that she and her ex-husband, ex-con, ex-Congressman, Ed Mezvinsky were two birds of a feather. No surprise that their son makes his millions from hedge funds. Both parents were very slick at scamming the system. She wouldn't stand a prayer of getting elected if she weren't now a Clinton in-law. There are several other candidates much more deserving of both respect and votes. But in such a crowded primary, sometimes the good guys divide the votes, and the least deserving ends up winning.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/marjorie-margolies-charity-_n_5043352.html?utm_hp_ref=politics