Posted on 12/02/2019 6:00:45 PM PST by Kaslin
President Trump signed a bipartisan bill on Monday that makes certain acts of animal cruelty a federal felony, saying it’s important for the nation to combat “heinous and sadistic acts of cruelty." The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT) prohibits extreme acts of cruelty, including intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, impalement, carried out against "living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians."
“Aaaw isn’t this wonderfully heart-warming!” respond some amigos. “Especially as President Trump cited the hero military dog Conan during the signing ceremony!”
Perhaps. But let’s look more closely at the issue—especially at some of this legislation’s most fervent sponsors:
“The barbaric torture of animals has no place in a civilized society and should be a crime — and thanks to this new law, now it is,” crowed Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D Conn, famous Kavanaugh inquisitor and bogus Vietnam vet.
"Special thank you to all the animal lovers everywhere who know this is simply the right thing to do. This is a major step to end animal abuse," said Rep. Ted Deutch, D. Fl., famous impeachment junkie.
The bill got to the house floor in the first place thanks to none other than House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY.), famous and legislatively-vital impeachment junkie.
Who knows? Perhaps for his signing of this Democrat-beloved PACT our crafty President has finagled a “quid-pro-quo” from these Democratic impeachment junkies. We can dream, can’t we?
"For crying out loud, Humberto!" retort some amigos. "So you favor torturing puppies and kittens!? ... I mean, Ok, so the act has some sponsors from across the aisle. So what's wrong with that? Big deal! This is common-sense legislation and should be supported by all decent Americans!"
Perhaps. But isn't that exactly how the gun-grabbers couch their legislation -- proposed and otherwise -- as "down-to-earth common-sense, common-decency" actions supported by all "reasonable people" but opposed by extremists like the NRA? Recall: "who needs an assault rifle to hunt deer?! ... Who needs a bumpstock to hunt rabbits?! ... Who needs armor-piercing bullets to shoot squirrels?! ... How many more innocent schoolchildren must be massacred until you gun-nuts wake up!? Blah blah blah."
It’s called “slippery slope,” legislation amigos. And thank goodness the NRA has been around to call out most of it, so far.
"We're pleased to be joined by some of the very important people that got this done,” said President Trump at the signing ceremony this week. “And they worked very, very hard on it….Kitty Block, President and CEO of the Humane Society.…Sara Amundson, President of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. Tracie Letterman, Vice President of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. Anna Marie Malloy, Senior Legislative Specialist at the Humane Society Legislative Fund.”
And speaking of "slippery slopes," let's look a bit more closely at this very Humane Society so instrumental in crafting this legislation, shall we -- especially the words of its former Chief Executive Wayne Pacelle:
"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment we would. ... We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”
Hummmmm? And note that I carefully wrote “former Chief Executive Wayne Pacelle.” Because in 2018, after 14 years at the helm of the very Humane Society President Trump so conspicuously hailed at the PACT signing ceremony, Pacelle resigned amidst scandalous accusations of sexual harassment.
But WHEW! Please note that this was harassment of fellow human beings, not animals. Hence the free pass he got for over a decade from his Humane Society colleagues and board.
It's not like most—if not all—states already have abundant laws prohibiting “animal cruelty.” And where in the Constitution does the federal government get this responsibility, anyway? Granted the PACT, as signed this week, allows for "hunting, trapping, fishing, a sporting activity not otherwise prohibited by Federal law, predator control, or pest control" and "the slaughter of animals for food."
Great. But that’s for now. After all, Rome wasn’t built overnight, and neither was Roe vs Wade.
Also encouraging is that President Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr are big-time hunters and might be expected to keep their dad on the straight and narrow regarding “animal rights.” But the President himself has publicly (but gently) spanked his hunt-loving offspring: "My sons love hunting. They're hunters and they've become good at it. I am not a believer in hunting and I'm surprised they like it."
Thing is hunters and fishermen fund more genuine wildlife propagation (conservation) than all the greenie-weenie groups and animal rights groups put together. Just last year, hunters and fishermen -- not birdwatchers, not rock-climbers, not kayakers, and not nature-hikers -- contributed $3.3 BILLION "big ones" to wildlife conservation in America.
And hunters and fishermen passed the laws themselves. First, the Pittman-Robertson Act (1937) which imposed an excise tax of 10 percent on all hunting gear. Then, the Dingell-Johnson act (1950) that did the same for fishing gear. The Wallop-Breaux amendment (1984) extended the tax to the fuel for my boat. All were passed and are supported by us sportsmen. All use the proceeds to fund state and federal conservation projects, as in buying and preserving woodlands, and all their denizens, huntable or not. Here's President Reagan himself while celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Pittman Robertson act: “Those who pay the freight for conservation are those who purchase hunting equipment."
So please note, to "preserve nature," they don't tax Birkenstock hiking boots and Yin-Yang pendants. They tax my shotgun. They don't tax Yoga manuals and Tofu tidbits wrapped in recycled paper. They tax my 30.06 deer rifle. They don't tax binoculars or birding field guides with cutesy photos of the red-cockaded woodpecker and spotted owl. They tax the shotgun shells I blast at Mallards before arraying them on my grill as Duck-K-Bobs --cooked rare and lovingly basted with plenty of butter, Cajun seasoning and teriyaki sauce.
Going further, they don't tax Kayaks and rock-climbing picks and ropes -- but do tax the bullet’s I shoot at deer before converting them into “Humberto’s Cuban-Style-Bambi-Fajitas.”
OH! And check this out if you're looking for the IDEAL gift for that hunter, fisherperson or fish & game cook on your Christmas list!
whatever
Trump usually has a pretty good reason for doing something.
Maybe this was one of the times or maybe it wasn’t.
Don’t think it will gain him a lot of votes.
But what do I know? :)
And in doing so toes the Muslims I’m a knot because the way they slaughter animals for food is now animal cruelty. Trump wins again.
Maybe this was one of the times or maybe it wasn’t.
I hear there's a new "animal torture video" fad. Maybe it's a response to that.
Well that’s pretty horrific.
What’s the slogan? “Animal torture. It’s not just for serial killers anymore”?
Huh?
He can use it to go after windmills.
Don Quixote style.
Impalement? That might cause problems for bow hunters, knowing the liberal judges.
Say what??
>>>And in doing so ties the Muslims in a knot because the way they slaughter animals for food is now animal cruelty.
Would do the same for Kosher slaughter.
Then the ASPCA is a guilty entity as they are not a “no kill” outfit and they have
(had) a suffocation process to keep they numbers down.
The Constitution does not grant general criminal law authority to the feds. Has Trump ever heard of the 10th Amendment?
I pointed this fact out to a Liberal anti-hunting and fishing hiker-rock climber a few years ago and he was stunned.
https://aidanimals.com/animal-cruelty/crush-videos/
Crush Videos, or ‘animal snuff movies’, are videos of animal cruelty showing innocent animals, including puppies, kittens, and other companion animals, being slowly crushed to death, often under the feet of women, for the sexual pleasure of sick individuals.
There are terms to describe the torture these films inflict on certain classes of animals. for example:
Hard Crush are videos where larger animals are crushed to death for sexual gratification. Larger animals include Birds, Reptiles and Mammals
Soft Crush are videos where smaller animals are crushed to death. For example invertebrates
Crush videos have been made for many years. Unfortunately, the downside of the internet and social media means it is impossible to stop the visibility and publication of such acts.
“Animal torture videos” would be a more accurate name, as not only do such videos involve torturing animals by slowly crushing their bodies, bit by bit, but they involve every other kind of animal torture conceivable, including burning or boiling animals alive. The aim is to cause the animal as much agony as possible.
Is this really an issue to die on? We all knew Trump is an independent and isn’t an orthodox conservative.
Think of the bigger picture folks
Does the bill outlaw beastiality? If so then B.O. should be arrested for boinking Moochelle.
This could lose him a LOT of votes. Rural votes is what won him Pennsylvania.
If this article is accurate the bill defined several ways of killing animals as cruelty and makes that a federal crime. Impalement could easily be used to make illegal the method most slaughterhouses use to kill animals.
By definition, impalement could also include arrows, bullets and knives. Ergo, hunting would be federally defined as cruel.
“IN GENERAL.—This section does not apply with regard to any conduct, or a visual depiction of that conduct, that is— ‘‘(A) a customary and normal veterinary, agricultural husbandry, or other animal management practice; ‘‘(B) the slaughter of animals for food; ‘‘(C) hunting, trapping, fishing, a sporting activity not otherwise prohibited by Federal law, predator control, or pest control; ‘‘(D) medical or scientific research; ‘‘(E) necessary to protect the life or property of a per-son; or ‘‘(F) performed as part of euthanizing an animal.”
Maybe the author should have read the bill. It is a response to animal crush videos. This legislation is in direct response to a case decided by the Supreme Court “U.S. v Stevens”.
“Impalement” is what caught my eye too. This is a standard liberal tactic. Include one thing that’s a game changer in a list of things that everyone agrees to.
I first saw this years ago when a local animal rights wacko used to give presentations at schools. She would have a display of pictures of abused animals and mix in pictures of a pet dog in an ordinary dog house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.