Screwing the Pooch. Again. Dog laws strip away civil rights Turn your head and cough, brother. Dog laws are the new back door to demolishing the civil rights and liberties that progressive Democrats love to get teary-eyed and maudlin about.

The icing on the cake? Liberal Dems are in it up to their dainty nostrils.

Is anybody awake there at the DNC?

Tacoma, Washington: Julie Anderson and her continuing war on caring pet owners Well, hell. Nobody ever claimed that Tacoma City Councilmember Julie "having an unaltered animal is no longer a right" Anderson was a quick learner. Julie-the-liberal-Dem was beaten back on last year's plan mandating the surgical sterilization of all Tacoma dogs and cats unless their owners have the money to buy a breeder's permit. Julie doesn't like pet owners When making it really difficult to own an intact dog or cat without plenty of money to pay for the privilege failed, Julie developed a stunning new plan to solve the myth burning issue of "pet overpopulation": let's take pets out of their homes and send them to shelters. That's right. Julie's newest, most modest proposal offers all kinds of artificial thresholds and limitation on pet ownership. All designed to make it harder to own dogs and cats. Julie Anderson apparently subscribes to PETA's "better off dead" theory: killing dogs and cats is morally superior to letting the "wrong" [limited income, young, politically incorrect] people continue to enjoy their company. For example: Three animal control violations in two years, and you can be stripped of your private property. Under the proposal, failure to scoop poop is a violation. Three violations in two years and all of your pets can be taken from you and sent to an underfunded shelter. Where the chances are pretty good that they will die. Under the current Tacoma proposal, kids can't license their pets. You have to be 18 years old to buy a dog license. Why? Julie, why don't you just cut to the chase and require competency in English, an income of $150,000 per year and maybe five acres of fenced woodlands and meadows? Huh? I hear you knocking. "Pit bulls" and no knock searchs We were all supposed to cheer when an appeals court in that most brilliant of blue of states, Massachusetts, found that the mere presence of a "pit bull" was insufficient to justify a no knock search warrant. Give me a break. The decision in Commonwealth v. Santiago leaves the door for no knock searchs based on dog ownership wide open. Shit, the court reasoned that any dog can be a weapon: While we agree with the Commonwealth that a pit bull (or a mutt) may, under the appropriate circumstances, pose a serious enough threat to an officer's safety to justify a no-knock warrant, no such circumstances were present here. There was no information in the affidavit that the defendant might actually use the pit bull as a weapon. Dogs are weapons. And they lurk in 45% of U. S. homes. Why am I not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling from the phrasing in that decision? Maybe its the suggestion that any dog could be used as a justification for a no knock search? Lemme tell ya, I was way happier when no knock searches were illegal and dogs weren't weapons. When dog-hating freaks like Democratic New York City Councilman and ex Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Peter Vallone Jr. rants on about "pit bulls" as "street weapons". . .is he paving the way for no knock search warrants and other civil rights violations against their owners? Vallone pretends he's got a real hard on about graffiti, baggy pants, and "pit bulls". So let's face it. Vallone thinks discriminating against urban youths is a winning political formula. Is race a factor in that Democrat's thinking? Oh, baby. You better believe it. I'm just wondering what its got to do with the Democratic Party. New Rochelle: keeping the undesirables O U T. How? With a dog law. When the entrenched Democratic Party-controlled New Rochelle City Council moved to require a $250 permit, per dog, per year, in order for non-residents to walk a dog in a public park what was the intended effect?

Keep those Bronx dogs and their melanin-rich owners the hell out of New Rochelle.

The City Council wanted to keep New Rochelle safe for the right kind of people. Their kind of people.

Get it straight. This is not about dogs. This is NOT about saving puppies, open spaces for off-leash dogs, or "pet overpopulation." Its not about "pit bulls" or whether microchips cause cancer. The issue is civil rights. Your civil rights, and mine. My Dog Votes. My dog only votes for dog-friendly candidates, and the preservation of civil rights and liberties. He's a sensible dog, and he has his priorities straight. I hope yours does, too.