What's next...regulating the Hemingway cats?!?
Having visited the Floriday Keys earlier this year, a recent story in the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel got my attention. The story, written by Lizette Alverez of the New York Times, was called: "Hemingway house in legal cat fight - Museum's 45 six-toed felines are subject to federal regulations." For those who may not know, famed author Ernest Hemingway lived in Key West for several years. He penned "For Whom The Bell Tolls" and "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" while living at his estate. Hemingway committed suicide in 1961. The beautiful house and lush tropical grounds were purchased after Hemingways death by Bernice Dixon, who later turned the property into a museum. The house, the biggest toursit attraction in Key West, averages 250,000 visitors per year. Michael Marowski, the great-nephew of Bernice Dixon, is currently the chief executive of the Hemingway home and museum.
Aside from being designated a National Landmark, the Hemingway property is home to many cats (approximately 40 to 45 at last count). Most of them are the "polydactal" variety, meaning they have an extra toe (or claw) on their paws. (Our family became familiar with the term when we adopted a kitten 8 years ago. He, too, is a polydactal. He has big feet that look similar to oven mitts, and the extra toe on each of his front paws is very noticeable - and part of his charm.) The cats are rumored to be descendants of Hemingway's cat, Snowball, and are said to provide a true "link to the past."
Anyhow, while in the Keys we toured the Hemingway site. We were treated to seeing many of the cats. They are, to be blunt, very well-fed, lazy, and have the run of the household. Visitors are told to refrain from petting them and instructed not to pick them up, and for the most part they are left alone, only to be featured in many pictures taken by the tourists. The cats are well-taken care of, with weekly vet visits and most are spayed or neutered. They really live the good life!

The cats have their own apartment complex, aside from having the run of the main house and grounds.

Note the polydactyl cat on the left - his big paws are similar to those of our family feline.

Cats do have the run of the place! Here is one getting a drink out of the swimming pool...

Cats can be seen everywhere!

And when cats finally use up all of their nine lives, they are buried in the Cat Cemetery.
To sum it all up, the Hemingway property is well-maintained, the resident cats live the good life, and all is well.
Or is it...
Nope. The United States government just had to insert itself where it doesn't belong and is clearly not needed. For ten years, Michael Morawski has had an on-going legal battle with the United States Department of Agriculture. The USDA contended that it had the authority to regulate the Hemingway home cats. They believed that Congress gave them the right under the "Commerce Clause" and Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Sadly, the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court agreed with the feds.
What was truly ironic in the proceedings was this little blurb that came from an American Thinker article ("In Key West, the "Hemingway Home" battles the Feds over cats."):
--- One issue still puzzles Morawski: How come his cats can be regulated under the Commerce Clause which, after all, is only supposed to regulate interstate commerce? (Where have we heard this one before? Obamacare???) Morawski stated: "We're a local business...our goods don't go outside of Key West. So how can we be involved in interstate commerce?"
(By the way, the judge who made the ruling explained that tourists visit the home, see the cats, and in that regard the "exhibition is integral to the Museum's commercial purposes." A stretch? Sure! But we've seen such ridiculousness before in court decisions. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts' pathetic ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare comes to mind...)
Mr. Morawski, who spent an estimated $500,000.00 to $600,000.00 fighting the feds in court was dismayed. He had this to say: "I'm still dumbfounded. This is overreach by the federal government." Morawski's lawyer, Cara Higgins, summed up the ruling: "It's silliness. It just got insane. This is what your tax dollars are paying for. The agents are coming down here on vacation, going to the bars, and taking pictures of the cats."
Exactly. What we have here is yet another in a long list of government "over-reaches." Government butting in where they do not belong. This story is just one of many out there. Wasted taxpayer dollars, regulatory nonsense, and silly court rulings. Imagine the money that could be saved by simply using common sense. Sadly, common sense seems to be MIA in government these days. And now the Hemingway cats are subject to oversight by the USDA. Ms. Higgins added: "we are now at the whim of the agency."
At least Mr. Morawski is not taking the ruling sitting down. He has vowed to enlist the help of politicians in Congress to work on legislation that would "rein in the scope of the federal government." This stance, of course, flies in the face of what Americans are currently facing - Obama purposely focused on growing and expanding the role of government in everyone's lives. Morawksi could have quite a battle ahead.
Maybe those USDA agents sent to police the Hemingway cats will suffer from cat allergies...
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Obama waves the white flag on the War on Terror (8)
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (271)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts






50 Comments
jman99 - Dec 30, 2012 11:04 AM
Does "That’s to gut our military and raise taxes." not cut spending on one of the biggest spending lines in government and one that the public has the least control over?
That would be a great idea. any idea it takes to run an aircraft carrier group for just one day?
And in the next breath you say:
" Raising taxes that will only amount to .08 of every dollar our government spends, or curtailing our debt and spending?"
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 12:04 PM
That cut has no bearing on your comment: "one that the public has the least control over?" Control is not the reason for any spending cut. But for our national security to be cut by 800,000 military jobs, and cuts with our defense equipment, in a time when terrorism has grown to very alarming levels, plus the Middle East and some of South America are at peak levels with hate and terrorism directed at us, is a very poor decision.
You forgot to paste my entire sentence group. It’s a question to those who support raising taxes and don’t ask our President and the Senate to address the nation’s highly dangerous game of deficit spending. Mainly on entitlements. Not our nation’s defense. President Obama wants no spending cuts outside the military.
I’m in the group where we all must suffer over the horrendous financial mistakes coming from Washington. But for President Obama to not address all needed cuts and other ways to generate revenues is upsetting. It should be for those who are also in his party. He is our leader. It’s now time to take off the training wheels and lead. Cuts across the board with entitlements #1. No tax hikes until the economy recovers. Work on jobs and GDP growth. 8 cents of tax hikes for every dollar our President spends is not going to help.
Carl Hicks - Dec 30, 2012 12:56 PM
It isn't either-or but both a revenue and debt problem.
The only ones going over the cliff will be
Carl Hicks - Dec 30, 2012 12:58 PM
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 1:29 PM
Your poll has nothing to do with my comment. My point was that many Americans concur with Amy that president Obama would prefer to go off the fiscal cliff. It is not about which side is dealing with the cliff or what channel news or paper you so happen to read. I hit both sides with this mess. The CNN data below also disputes your % numbers. Though not by much. Isn’t CNN a highly liberal cable news channel?
You might want to look at more “balanced” data. “A new survey suggests that most Americans would oppose big defense cuts. About 40 percent of Americans believe that current levels of spending are “about right,” while 23 percent believe that we’re spending “too little,” according to a poll commissioned by the Foreign Policy Initiative.” Source – Washington Post
“Two thirds of those questioned in the poll say that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, with just under one in three saying a deal should only include spending cuts.
Democrats questioned in the survey overwhelmingly support an agreement that has both, and six out of ten independents feel the same way. By a 52%-44% margin, Republicans also favor a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases instead of a deal that only includes spending cuts.” Source- CNN Nov 26, 2012
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 1:47 PM
When do we tell those who are unemployed that the money runs out at some point in time? I assume you are or have been collecting those checks for quite some time. When does mom and dad tell the kid it’s time to move on and get a job? By having a party or gorup of politicians that can only survive on the votes from the many who need the government to support them in nearly every aspect of their lives, is not only a party that destroys a country, but also a party that destroys the family values of hard work, discipline, respect, dedication, and the attempt at the American dream.
I find it very cynical for any politician to depend on the poor and needy for their supply of votes and power, when in fact it’s best to make attempts to grow jobs and family values. The former has never been successful in this world for as far back as we can recall or read about. I’m sorry to say this, but this current President has failed with jobs and our economy. He needs both sides to help him solve the mess he inherited and the one he created and or made worse. That is what a great leader will do. During these negotiations, President Obama has stated that tax hikes (only .08 of taxe increases for every extra dollar borrowed that he spends) are HIS priority and not his trillions in deficit spending.
You and the others seem to not want to address our debt and deficits either. Are there good reasons why this goes unnoticed by so many Democrats?
Carl Hicks - Dec 30, 2012 2:30 PM
The Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent without spending cuts to
pay for them. They were irresponsible from the beginning since the government
never ran a true surplus even under Clinton as there was still the debt to pay
down. Which an annual budget surplus could have eliminated over several years.
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 2:50 PM
Why is it that so many, including our politicians, keep ignoring this question I presented to you? I’m not picking on you in particular. I sense your political beliefs are closer matched to President Obama and the Democrats. Maybe I can get you to answer.
"You and the others seem to not want to address our debt and deficits either. Are there good reasons why this goes unnoticed by so many Democrats?"
Carl Hicks - Dec 30, 2012 3:15 PM
attitude that your employment status went unchanged during this economic
downturn. In case you had not noticed many others have been affected
somewhat differently then you.
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 3:34 PM
Explained well. I will take that under advisements. But could you address this question please?
Why is it that so many, including our politicians, keep ignoring this question I presented to you? I’m not picking on you in particular. I sense your political beliefs are closer matched to President Obama and the Democrats. Maybe I can get you to answer.
"You and the others seem to not want to address our debt and deficits either. Are there good reasons why this goes unnoticed by so many Democrats?"
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 3:35 PM
Im retired
Carl Hicks - Dec 30, 2012 3:49 PM
a common variety. Obama spends like Bush did only difference is now that there
is a democrat president congressional republicans act fiscally responsible.
Sad that the results of your opinion poll don't match the actions of the party that
you support.
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 4:08 PM
Your lack of addressing the growing debt and spending issues answered for me. Your avoiding what our President is also avoiding is very dangerous. What Bush spent per year is no comparison to the debt and deficit President Obama amassed over the past 4 years. And this is Obama's Presidency and his four years. No one else’s
America needs to start addressing the debt and spending problems we have. It would be nice if our President would lead the way.
Carl Hicks - Dec 30, 2012 4:30 PM
of the government budget goes to preexisting programs and the reason for
current deficit levels has more to do with millions of unemployed unable to pay
taxes then new programs put in place by Obama.
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 4:46 PM
You are not addressing the issue. It's not why we have a deficit or who we pay entitlements to. There’s more to it than that. But that is the most of our debt and deficits. The issue is why do you ignore this most important issue as does our President. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you and so many Democrats like Obama to admit and at least try to fix. We are about to hit $20 trillion and no way to pay this back. How can you not be concerned?
jman99 - Dec 30, 2012 7:34 PM
Sounds like Mr. B is trying to corner and control what you say so that he can score some points in his/her mind.
We've seen these game previously.
jman99 - Dec 30, 2012 8:10 PM
First Bush sr. in hospital with complications now Hillary with a blood clot
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/30/politics/hillary-clinton-hospitalized/
That's the nasty thing about concussions at that age, the blood vessels are not as resilient as they are in a 20 year old.
Hope this works out for her.
jman99 - Dec 30, 2012 8:11 PM
Mr Balanced - Dec 30, 2012 8:38 PM
Yes, we are off topic. In that respect you are right. But no one is trying to control what Mr Hicks is saying or wishes to say. Except maybe you.
Carl engaged in the conversation that MGarber started and Mr. Resident expanded upon. I was trying to find out why Democrats and our President refuse to address the debt and deficit issues. If My Hayett likewise is also in pursuit, God bless him.
We need to know why the huge amount of debt President Obama has added and the ever increasing deficit is not part of Mr. Obama’s fiscal cliff negotiations. We should all be upset over this. $20 trillion is the next level if you look at President Obama’s request with his budgets. That not even the Senate would pass. But now?
That’s all I asked of Carl. But he seems to not want to talk about his. Neither does President Obama. Do you know why Mr. 66?