Answer this question: Is any law or piece of legislation that targets and singles out a specific breed or type of dog considered “breed-specific legislation”? Yes or no? If you answer “yes” then we have nothing more to talk about. If you answer “no” then I’d pray that you please look into what BSL really is, and do it fast.

Nothing changes the fact that Tia Torres or someone with the access to speak on behalf of Villalobos came out and stated that they were “in support of what Councilman Green is proposing.” Those are her (or the page’s words). Everyone continues ignoring the fact that that actually happened. And what Glenn Green has proposed is out in the open. I simply pointed it out and I’m immediately villainized. Tia could have easily taken it back, said she didn’t fully understand what BSL was, anything from that realm of a response… Yet nothing like that has ever come. Over the last week I’ve been treated as if I’m enemy #1 for simply daring to ask them a question. This thing has snowballed repeatedly, and gotten more childish and personal with each post that Villalobos makes. You’ve seen absolutely NONE of that with me.

Villalobos keeps doubling down, and they want it both ways. They continue claiming that a “compromise” on what Green wanted, which was a ban, is still not breed-specific legislation. Yet, the sheer definition of BSL is any bill or law that targets a specific breed or type of dog, in any way. The mentioned “compromise” still targets breeds or types in a plethora of ways. Yet they refuse this reality, and then want to repeatedly belittle me for simply trying to force the true definition out there. There’s been this massive unleashing of her support onto me, and with it, the further bastardizing of the BSL debate. People are completely losing sight of this simple question in a fit of rage meant to put me down. This is about BSL, that’s it. Look no further than the fact that Colleen Lynn is actually able to come out and disingenuously praise you. Lynn, a despicable person, is the same demon that has made it her life’s work to see to it that each and every last Pit Bull be killed. You don’t need to look any further than that, Villalobos. Even last night (until Tia or the page admin deleted it) VRC posted yet again, and I quote… “Villalobos DOES NOT support the banning of Pit Bulls (for those that don’t know what BSL means).”

The “banning of Pit Bulls” is not the only thing that represents BSL. Clearly Tia and Villalobos are the ones that don’t know what BSL means… That quote, and that wording, was just another way to deflect and confuse people. The pridefulness on display from Villalobos–at the expense of myself and others, and far bigger and more importantly, at the expense of the BSL issue in general–is astonishing.

I personally don’t think that Tia was promoting BSL or backs it in theory, I said so myself on the radio. I just think that it’s pretty clear that she either doesn’t understand the issue, or has genuinely thought that compromising on BSL is the necessary move. If either of those are the case, come out and state as much. It’s got to be one or the other, or a combination of both. What she hasn’t done is come out and admit that she didn’t understand what BSL really was. Okay. So if that’s not it then it’s got to be the other. She’s admitted to “compromising,” but with that, has refused the notion that what she has compromised on was and still is BSL. She flat out refuses it. So she either doesn’t understand what BSL is, or she does and has just chosen to compromise on it. With that, she’s dodging the admittance of what she’s done. And trying to scapegoat me in the process.

I think everyone is asking for some accountability here… Either admit that you didn’t originally grasp what BSL is, or admit that you’ve compromised and accepted a “lesser” version of BSL. Those are the 2 choices. Yet she acknowledges neither. Instead it’s easier to spin the issue and lay the blame on me… While calling me a “nut job” who wants to “close them down” and capture his “15 seconds of fame.” It’s all so degrading, and disappointing and embarrassing. All while I’m publicly getting blamed by a massive group of people, many literally resembling zombies at this point, for not “working together.” I’m getting blamed for being “divisive,” divisive for simply asking a question.

And watch… Defenders and avoiders will zone in on the fact that I used the phrase “zombies” as a way to describe certain folks that continue flooding my page with hateful jargon. I’ll then be blamed for being “disrespectful.” As they ignore their own repeated disrespect towards me for simply posing a question to someone that so many people idolize. They’ll see that 1 word and flip the script as a way to deflect all of the substance that I just presented here. Do you not think I went out of my way to do that on purpose? I did. Just to call out the reaction before it happens.

The BSL debate is a hugely important issue and it’s not to be discarded and dismissed. It’s not something that you need to become irrational about simply because I used the words “hell” and “Villalobos” in a blog post title. I’m not here to blanketly kiss anyone’s ass. Read what I wrote. Read what I wrote. This is not wasted time. This is not me ranting. This is BSL, the most prominent issue that affects the lives of the dogs that we all love. Again, the dogs THAT WE ALL LOVE. It should be everyone’s duty to hold this anti-BSL principle up at all times, and if someone as powerful as Tia Torres doesn’t understand it, it’s the job of everyone to make sure that she does. If I have to be the “bad man” that starts this dialogue, so be it. I’m glad to be demonized up 1 side and down the other so long as Villalobos’ position merges into the appropriate one. I’m done responding to anyone representing Villalobos in any capacity, and especially their fan base that continues spilling all over this page (and my Facebook page), until ^the above question is answered. I will just keep copying and pasting the question, over and over again. I propose that everyone do the same.