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!
I’m the only livestock on this ranch.
Absolutely, they can be too broad and vague as to targeted intent. My own education with this began when I started my first business in Ca. Using purposeful wording, once you get a commercial business license in Ca. they own you in one way or another through laws and regulations. You had better do very extensive homework and understand the laws and regulations that might affect your particular situation front to back with out a doubt.
Example, I was in the auto/truck service business and once got a ticket on a vehicle that was sitting inside my shop being worked on. The ticket was for “operating an expired vehicle on or near a highway” because the tags had expired. In this wording the one word “near” makes the law completely open ended and totally up to the officer’s discretion as to what “near” means. It means ANYWHERE they want, even if it is not being “operated” and on private property inside an open repair shop unless “non-operation” fees and permit have been purchased for the vehicle.
I have been fortunate enough to have gone to court with different Ca agencies many times over the years because of the broad wording of laws and regulations that do not pinpoint detailed definition and are open ended. And there is no way to win, If you are not in violation of one they have one that they can claim you are indeed violating because of broad language. It’s a scam...
And you are being harassed, are you not.
I totally agree. My old job was to make sure building plans complied with codes and I also did inspections. “Go by the written” was a concept I had to explain to my co-workers. The building official supported me so that helped. He also allowed common sense to play a part- I know, who would believe it? Going beyond the obvious would get you reined in very quickly.
In a incident similar to yours I had a lady come into the department telling me she needed a permit to screen over her garbage cans which were behind a fence. I turned her away because I could not believe code-enforcement required this and she may have misunderstood. Nope. The code read that garbage cans had to be in an enclosed area unless out for pick up. Behind a fence out of view was not enough. But if she added a screen they would be o.k. Well what to do? I asked my boss if we could just issue her a permit for $1.00. We did and code enforcement was happy. But really- that poor lady being put through such nonsense.
I see in your case the officer ignored the whole “operating” part of that ordinance.
“IN GENERAL.—This section does not apply with regard to ...”
I am not really interested in the language of the bill.
I mainly just point out that it is being imposed by the most wrong level of govt. The feds should have no role here.
And, yes, regardless the level of govt, it is a quite safe bet that even the most well-intended/crafted language will be later changed, bureaucrat-interpreted, adjudicated and weaponized.
Oh yes, code enforcement and ignorant codes were my worst enemy. It was a never ending process, about the time I went through a lot of time, effort, and cost “educating” the officers themselves, such as the difference in codes that apply or do not apply to residential, agricultural, and commercial zoning they get transferred and I had to start all over again with a new one.
Again the new one would start off writing violations of residential zone codes against commercial zoned property where they do not legally apply. They didn’t even understand the difference and it just went right over their heads and I would be in court again when it should have never been written in the first place. I had to keep every new year’s codes handy like a bible all the time to ward off the evil. lol
They do not even educate their own officials and they don’t care at all how much time, effort, and expense it costs the public. And because they don’t even truly understand the very laws they are supposed to enforce they just make up their own laws. And then the authoritarian complex makes them Gods with absolutely no appeal process and you have to sue them just to prove they are wrong.
“I see in your case the officer ignored the whole “operating” part of that ordinance.”
Actually it gets even worse, just as their legal definition of the word “near” a highway is very very broad so is their definition of “operating a motor vehicle”. Basically if the keys to the vehicle are available then it can be legally deemed as being operational therefore equal to being operated. They are always written to assume you are guilty of operating it just because it happens to be operational and you have the keys available.
Even if they didn’t “catch you in the act”, just because you “can or might have” makes you guilty of it. They are now arresting folks for drunk driving just because the keys were available in the house and you happened to be drinking while you were working on your car in your own driveway. Just because you “could have/maybe” makes you guilty of doing it. It is all really getting out of hand. No longer can a person maintain a reasonable status of being “a law abiding citizen”, it is now almost impossible if they enforced all the broad language.
Yep. Re DUI. In days of old it was not uncommon for an officer to come across a parked car with a guy who had obviously parked because he knew he should not be driving. The solution was often the cop would take the keys and toss them. That way the guy could not drive off and finding the keys in a drunk state was not going to happen. Parked car-good. Now even being parked (because you know to drive would be a great no-no) keys in ignition or not= DUI arrest.
Since this legislation is in direct response to a SCOTUS ruling it certainly warrants such.
Ayn Rand comes to mind.
Well, there goes the commercial beef, pork and poultry industry...
All targets to the inevitable Fedzilla Department of Animal Rights.
Read the bill.
Amen. People who would do such things for fun have no place among civilized peoples.
Trump is right once again.
I never knew of this fad.....in fact, I wish I didn’t.
The pythons in Florida are completely out of control. The state has been paying python hunters to find them & eradicate them.
Will this bill end all of that???
How about coyotes & wolves that are causing ranchers massive losses???
who cares
Who is against animal torture?
NOPE! One smack- dead rat.
No torture involved.
Happy wife happy life. This has Melania written all over it.
Just like the ban on fake cigarettes.
Humans are the worst creatures of the nature, by far.
I love people.. even though 95% piss me off..
Sorry, but Animals are better than people!
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.