The PETA people are back, and this time with a message regarding the selection of the Vice Presidential Pooch.

Christian Science Monitor blogs Jimmy Orr leads with the headline   "Biden gets new dog - animal rights advocates not happy". Their reason for discontent? The pooch was procured from a registered breeder and not the pound.
Referencing a PETA blog post by Christine Dore, Orr quotes "every time someone buys a dog from a breeder, a dog in an animal shelter is killed”. I personally had no idea the shelters and breeders were in such precise cahoots! Every time? As certainly as every time a bell rings, an angel gets it's wings? One has to wonder what monsterous tracking mechanism exists to regulate that whole setup.

Now let's leave aside our conservative argument for the moment, the one that invokes physically nausea at the idea of criticizing a man for his selection of dog or source of same. It could be argued that the V.P. pooch is politicized like his presidential counterpart. Expected to play it's part in the tranquil domestic portrayal of American values, they are public figures and therefore subject to public scrutiny and approval. In other words, presidential pets are fair game (couldn't resist).

And at that rate, all the other special interest groups can weigh in. Before long, we'll be picking their pets by public refferendum. The Latin groups can push for a Chihuahua, the cat people can argue dogs are too masculine alltogether, the black population can agrue that the dog isn't black enough and the Jewish population can scream about the selection of a "anti-semmitic breed" (German Shepherd in this case). I suppose us Patriots can complain that he didn't pick an American Bull Terrier or maybe a Chesapeake. But as we well know, such proscriptive behavior is best left to liberals. If given the chance, they would regulate all aspects of personal life.

And as I mulled over these concepts, I realized that the presidential pet issue was kind of like an incipient reverse-legislative reaction. Like the theory of reverse-racism where the punishment is applied retroactively to the punisher (with no apologies made), reverse-legislation might act against the elites who continually cram their ways down our throats.

And it occurred to me that given their way, the liberals would soon mandate that the president of the USA own a mutt, dress in rags, drive a junker, eat fast food 3 times a day and sleep in a camper out back of the White House.

AND I FOUND THAT TO BE A THRILLING NOTION.

Perhaps our message to liberals, in that proscriptive behavior is inherrantly usurpatory, is misguided. Perhaps we should give up on preventing them from dictating ALL human activity and focus them on dictating THEIR human activity. Legistlate the private affairs of public officials all you want liberals. The politicos have already destroyed our nation's economy for several generations to come and nothing they do has helped the situation.

Based purely on past track-record, if we were to simply dress Congress in clown suits, line them up and throw pies at them for the next 4-21 years it will almost certainly be more productive than anything they might otherwise accomplish.