Praying that the birth of the KING of KINGS blesses every living being today and for all of their days on earth. Merry Christmas from my home to yours and from my ♥ and the ♥s of my kids with paws to each and every one of God's creations.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Obama signs law banning 'crush videos' depicting animal cruelty
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
December 10, 2010 4:48 p.m. EST
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama has signed a law that specifically bans so-called "crush videos" -- depictions of small animals being tortured to death by humans. The legislation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling this year striking down a broader congressional law dealing with animal cruelty.
The Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act criminalizes the creation, sale, and marketing of these specific kinds of videos, which lawmakers had labeled as "obscene." Penalties of up to seven years in prison would be possible.
The videos mostly depict women -- with their faces unseen -- stomping helpless animals such as rabbits to death with spiked-heel shoes or with their bare feet. The videos apparently satisfy a sexual fetish for those who produce and watch them, said animal rights activists who supported the new bill.
"By cracking down on the creation and distribution of crush videos, this bipartisan law effectively protects both animals and free speech," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, one of the co-sponsors of the bill.
Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, and Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, also helped draft the legislation.
Supporters said the high court ruling opened the door for Congress to craft a "narrowly tailored" bill aimed at banning this specific type of commercial activity.
"We are thankful that countless animals will now be spared from intentional torture for sick entertainment and profit," said Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States, which has worked for years to stop the mostly underground activity.
The justices by an 8-1 margin struck down a broader 1999 federal law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfighting and other acts of animal cruelty, saying it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. That specific case dealt with a Virginia man who sold videos of dogs fighting each other at an overseas location.
But the lone dissenter, Justice Samuel Alito focused his attention on crush videos. "The animals used in crush videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty," he said. The courts, he said, have "erred in second-guessing the legislative judgment about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals."
Alito at the time predicted mores crush videos would soon flood the underground market, because the ruling has "the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos."
Lawmakers had promised to craft bills banning those types of videos. It was unclear if further legal challenges would result, following the president signing it into law.
When it came to dog-fighting videos, "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown "depictions" of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.
Nearly every state and local jurisdiction have their own laws banning mistreatment of wild and domesticated animals, and usually handle prosecutions
Several media organizations had supported Robert Stevens -- the man behind the dogfighting videos -- worrying the federal law could implicate reports about deer hunting, and depictions of bullfighting in Ernest Hemingway novels. Stevens has defended his dogfighting videos as educational in nature, and has said the confrontations themselves did not violate any state laws since they were taped overseas.
The Humane Society, other animal rights groups, and 26 states backed the government's original high court challenge appeal.
If that 11-year-old law had been upheld, it would have been only the second time the Supreme Court had identified a form of speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment. The justices in 1982 banned the distribution of child pornography.
There was no immediate criticism of the president's action, but even this new more narrowly written law may face future legal challenges. The crush videos do not specifically depict a sexual act, and so there may be questions over whether the videos are in fact "obscene," at least by traditional legal and social standards.
The justices are currently considering a separate case dealing with so-called "violent" video games, and a California law that would ban the sale of such material to minors. The high court is being asked to treat violent material -- as defined by the state-- the same as obscene material, when imposing restrictions on their sale.
December 10, 2010 4:48 p.m. EST
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama has signed a law that specifically bans so-called "crush videos" -- depictions of small animals being tortured to death by humans. The legislation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling this year striking down a broader congressional law dealing with animal cruelty.
The Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act criminalizes the creation, sale, and marketing of these specific kinds of videos, which lawmakers had labeled as "obscene." Penalties of up to seven years in prison would be possible.
The videos mostly depict women -- with their faces unseen -- stomping helpless animals such as rabbits to death with spiked-heel shoes or with their bare feet. The videos apparently satisfy a sexual fetish for those who produce and watch them, said animal rights activists who supported the new bill.
"By cracking down on the creation and distribution of crush videos, this bipartisan law effectively protects both animals and free speech," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, one of the co-sponsors of the bill.
Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, and Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, also helped draft the legislation.
Supporters said the high court ruling opened the door for Congress to craft a "narrowly tailored" bill aimed at banning this specific type of commercial activity.
"We are thankful that countless animals will now be spared from intentional torture for sick entertainment and profit," said Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States, which has worked for years to stop the mostly underground activity.
The justices by an 8-1 margin struck down a broader 1999 federal law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfighting and other acts of animal cruelty, saying it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. That specific case dealt with a Virginia man who sold videos of dogs fighting each other at an overseas location.
But the lone dissenter, Justice Samuel Alito focused his attention on crush videos. "The animals used in crush videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty," he said. The courts, he said, have "erred in second-guessing the legislative judgment about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals."
Alito at the time predicted mores crush videos would soon flood the underground market, because the ruling has "the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos."
Lawmakers had promised to craft bills banning those types of videos. It was unclear if further legal challenges would result, following the president signing it into law.
When it came to dog-fighting videos, "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown "depictions" of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.
Nearly every state and local jurisdiction have their own laws banning mistreatment of wild and domesticated animals, and usually handle prosecutions
Several media organizations had supported Robert Stevens -- the man behind the dogfighting videos -- worrying the federal law could implicate reports about deer hunting, and depictions of bullfighting in Ernest Hemingway novels. Stevens has defended his dogfighting videos as educational in nature, and has said the confrontations themselves did not violate any state laws since they were taped overseas.
The Humane Society, other animal rights groups, and 26 states backed the government's original high court challenge appeal.
If that 11-year-old law had been upheld, it would have been only the second time the Supreme Court had identified a form of speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment. The justices in 1982 banned the distribution of child pornography.
There was no immediate criticism of the president's action, but even this new more narrowly written law may face future legal challenges. The crush videos do not specifically depict a sexual act, and so there may be questions over whether the videos are in fact "obscene," at least by traditional legal and social standards.
The justices are currently considering a separate case dealing with so-called "violent" video games, and a California law that would ban the sale of such material to minors. The high court is being asked to treat violent material -- as defined by the state-- the same as obscene material, when imposing restrictions on their sale.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Jimmy's Journey: The story of a dog who wouldn't give up on living and loving
Jimmy's story is sad but at the same time it lifts you up to read about the people who didn't and won't give up on him and his tenacious will to live and to love.
PeeEss: When you go to visit with Jimmy start at the first entry of his bloggy. We promise that you will be inspired. He's new to blogging so it's an easy read - not too many pages.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
♥A new star in the midnight sky - my dear friend, Jessie♥
 |
| Jessie 'n her dad (notice her life jacket, how sweet) |
Then, one day a lady came to the shelter because her dog of 15 years had passed away. She didn't know if she'd adopt that day but she came to look. When she walked through the door Jessie, with her warm smile and sweet nature, greeted the nice lady and decided to make her furry best imPURRession - something inside of Jessie told her that this lady was different. This lady would see Jessie for who she was - a really great dog with lots to give to a new family.
The nice lady took notice of Jessie, and after talking with her husband, came back to the shelter and took Jessie home with her. Jessie had a family. Over the years she went camping and hiking and swimming and walking - nearly every day, rain or shine or snow, a walk. Jessie wasn't just a dog any longer, she was a true member of her family - a treasured part that made the family whole.
The years took their toll on Jessie - heart failure, allergies, pneumonia, arthritis - and her family stood by her giving her the best of the best that canine medical care had to offer. But one day Jessie knew, and her family knew, that it was time for her to complete her Circle of Life. With her head on the lap of her adoptive mother Jessie closed her eyes for the last time listening to the words she loved most in her life, "You are such a good dog".
My friend Jessie completed her Circle of Life yesterday, November 22nd. Her mother is one of my dearest friends - someone who feels about all living creatures as I do - that all life is valuable and precious. I will miss Jessie and remember her always.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
♥Verifiably many paws up Thanksgiving Cookies for us doggies♥
Let those humans have their punkin' pie. Scout 'n Freyja can verify that these cookies are some of the best they've ever had the pleasure to munch on when they 'sit nice'.☺
1 ¼ cup whole wheat flour (or rice flour for a limited ingredient diet)
¼ cup pure canned pumpkin
1 tablespoon all natural peanut butter
½ teaspoon cinnamon
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C)
In a large bowl, beat the egg. Add flour, pumpkin, peanut butter, and cinnamon. Roll out the dough and cut with a very small cookie cutter to make pieces no bigger than the size of a silver dollar. Bake in your preheated oven for 15 minutes until hard and golden brown.
TIP: If your dough is too dry and won’t stick together, carefully mix in a bit more pumpkin until the dough is just moist enough to stick together without being sticky. (Original recipe from SPCA web site.)
Milo’s Pumpkin Cookies
1 egg1 ¼ cup whole wheat flour (or rice flour for a limited ingredient diet)
¼ cup pure canned pumpkin
1 tablespoon all natural peanut butter
½ teaspoon cinnamon
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C)
In a large bowl, beat the egg. Add flour, pumpkin, peanut butter, and cinnamon. Roll out the dough and cut with a very small cookie cutter to make pieces no bigger than the size of a silver dollar. Bake in your preheated oven for 15 minutes until hard and golden brown.
TIP: If your dough is too dry and won’t stick together, carefully mix in a bit more pumpkin until the dough is just moist enough to stick together without being sticky. (Original recipe from SPCA web site.)
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Our momma cried in happiness - H.R. 5566 HAS PASSED THE HOUSE!
Mimi's note: No cute photos. No funny words. An issue as important as this one stands on its own.
WASHINGTON — The House on Monday voted to ban so-called crush videos that depict the abuse and killing of animals.
The measure would revive, with some modifications, a 1999 law that was struck down by the Supreme Court last April on the grounds it was too broadly written and violated First Amendment free speech protections.
Congress has been trying since then to come up with a more narrowly crafted law, and the measure the House passed still differs slightly from a version approved by the Senate in September. It now goes back to the Senate.
"We need a law that stays on the books," House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said in explaining the decision to tinker with the Senate language.
The bill was the first to be taken up in the lame-duck session of Congress that opened Monday.
The legislation, which the House originally passed in July, would make it a crime to sell or distribute videos that violate bans on animal cruelty by showing animals being burned, drowned, suffocated or impaled.
Such videos appeal to a sexual fetish by showing women, often barefoot or wearing high heels, stomping small animals to death.
Every state bans animal cruelty, but it has been difficult to apply those laws to crush videos because they often do not show faces, dates or locations. The legislation makes interstate sale of such videos a crime subject to fines and imprisonment.
Conyers said the House took out a Senate provision that made punishments for attempting or conspiring to make the videos equal to punishments for a completed product. He said that could cause constitutional issues.
Betsy Dribben, vice president for government relations at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, expressed frustration at the delay. "We're concerned about the animals being killed and we're also concerned about the social ramifications," she said, citing opinions that cruelty to animals can be a catalyst to violence against humans.
Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., a sponsor of the original bill in 1999, said in a previous statement that famed killers such as Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski tortured or killed animals before killing people.
The legislation makes exceptions for films depicting hunting, trapping and fishing.
__
The bill is H.R. 5566
WASHINGTON — The House on Monday voted to ban so-called crush videos that depict the abuse and killing of animals.
The measure would revive, with some modifications, a 1999 law that was struck down by the Supreme Court last April on the grounds it was too broadly written and violated First Amendment free speech protections.
Congress has been trying since then to come up with a more narrowly crafted law, and the measure the House passed still differs slightly from a version approved by the Senate in September. It now goes back to the Senate.
"We need a law that stays on the books," House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said in explaining the decision to tinker with the Senate language.
The bill was the first to be taken up in the lame-duck session of Congress that opened Monday.
The legislation, which the House originally passed in July, would make it a crime to sell or distribute videos that violate bans on animal cruelty by showing animals being burned, drowned, suffocated or impaled.
Such videos appeal to a sexual fetish by showing women, often barefoot or wearing high heels, stomping small animals to death.
Every state bans animal cruelty, but it has been difficult to apply those laws to crush videos because they often do not show faces, dates or locations. The legislation makes interstate sale of such videos a crime subject to fines and imprisonment.
Conyers said the House took out a Senate provision that made punishments for attempting or conspiring to make the videos equal to punishments for a completed product. He said that could cause constitutional issues.
Betsy Dribben, vice president for government relations at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, expressed frustration at the delay. "We're concerned about the animals being killed and we're also concerned about the social ramifications," she said, citing opinions that cruelty to animals can be a catalyst to violence against humans.
Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., a sponsor of the original bill in 1999, said in a previous statement that famed killers such as Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski tortured or killed animals before killing people.
The legislation makes exceptions for films depicting hunting, trapping and fishing.
__
The bill is H.R. 5566
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
