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!
You are correct. Trump and the bill are wrong.
Trump is great in many ways. But far, far from perfect domestic policy-wise. Especially in regard to the 10th. Recall his horrendous behavior regarding Trump/Ryan-Care. Essentially another legislative crush video with Freedom under DC's highest honored heels.
Even at a site called FreeRepublic folks easily fall into the trap of debating who hates a bad thing more than you do - crush videos, for example. Without acknowledging that, obviously, this should not be a central govt matter. Same for murder, drug abuse, etc.
Assuming that a problem can't be solved unless the solution involves the remote central govt, who we all here agree to be uncontrollably bungling and intentionally unfair, is an emotional response. Not a logical or constitutional bit of reasoning.
Are we to assume that folks in favor of this heavy and ripe-for-abuse approach believe their individual states would give a thumbs up to crush videos? That seems unlikely. Either way, it would be an issue to address within state or lower govt.
There is zero chance this wrong-headed but theoretically well-intentioned 'act' will NOT be thoroughly distorted and weaponized down the road. Like nearly every bipartisan act.
Can I help?
You’re actually correct. Serial killers start with animals.
In West Virginia, we don’t use BB guns for feral cats and we follow the rules (SSS - Shoot, Shut Up, and Shovel.)
Damn, I boil and eat 1000’s of crawfish every year. Does that make me a mass murderer?
??????? What a pile of crap of an article....those who commit some of the most heinous crimes against other humans often started with animals....
Well done, The actual words count because so many laws have been written that are way too open for interpretation. But it is important that there is not also verbiage in there that nullifies even these written protections with “unless”. Ca does that, they add “protection” language and then somewhere else in the very same law they take those back away in some form. Sneaky stuff with the wording.
Sounds good to me!
The NEXT bill will allow unborn HUMANS to have the same protection!
Ask any fella that has tried to keep three; uh; cats in play at one time.
It can be quite a dangerous pastime if you drop one!
Peel them away from the pack; one at a time...
Yes, I'll need help with some of the heavy equipment. God, how I hate these people. There is no limit to my hatred.
Nah that ain’t cruelty. Their invading your property and they’ll survive the shot and maybe not be so snoopy in the future and you might have saved their lives because of that
This law should be used to stop institutionalized animal cruelty in kill shelters that are supported by the ASPCA, BESTFRIENDS, PETA, and HSUS. There is no humane euthanazia of healthy, adoptables kittens, puppies, dogs, cats, etc.
Any and every law can be subjected to abuse or unattended consequences. Basically this is a good law. Any attempts to tie it to stop hunting, etc, is wrong and against the intent of this law and should be fought in court and the ballot box.
Perhaps the hunting industry should have become involved in formulating this law. Or they can legislate a corollary or addendum to narrow the scope.
Reading legislation can be tricky. It is not a skill everyone has. Writing it and then inserting it into existing law can result in just the sneaky stuff you mention.
Poorly written laws are what given unelected functionaries too much power. They get to decide how the law is to be implemented and (unless challenged) its intention and even interpretation. It is not unusual to find contradictions in what the law reads and how an agency having the rule making authority implements it. And guess where the fun lands. On Joe Q. Public.
“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.”
“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.”
Thanks! As I read that, there are two justifications for me plugging cats with my BB gun:
It’s an animal management practice, and/or
It’s pest control
Time to pump that sucker up!
You can also do so if they are harassing or threatening your livestock.
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.