7/27/2010 -

(Gainesville)—Tom Graves this week cast one of only three votes against stopping the sale of so-called “crush videos” – pornographic productions involving animal cruelty and mutilation.

Graves voted “no” to the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010, which would stop sales of “video depictions of drowning, impaling, burning and crushing of animals.”

Republican Lee Hawkins said he is amazed that Graves would decline to side with an overwhelming majority of his colleagues and animal lovers to end the shocking, pornographic sales.

“There are more reasons to make a stand against this type of practice than there are to ever allow it to continue,” Hawkins said. “I believe the people of North Georgia would loudly voice their support for banning pornographic videos showing animals being trampled to death.”

Hawkins said that if he were in Congress, his name would have appeared in the “yes” column in passing the proposed House legislation.

“There is a very small and disturbing market in this country for these perverse videos, and the right thing to do is end access to these materials,” Hawkins added. “I support this effort to bring closure to the ‘crush video’ genre once and for all.”

Hawkins name will appear on Republican ballots during the Congressional runoff election on Aug. 10. He is the only candidate to receive an “A+” rating from the Christian Coalition.

For more information about the Lee Hawkins campaign, visit LeeHawkinsforCongress.com.

Graves' response
Dear GA-9 Freedom Fighter:

In recent days, you may have received an email from my challenger criticizing a vote I made last week in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding H.R. 5566, the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010.

As one who lives on a farm in Ranger, Georgia, and who has horses, raised cattle and consider my dogs Nilla and Moose along with our cats, Snickers, Wally and Oreo part of our family, I am strongly opposed to animal abuse.

However, the legislation I voted on last week falls short in preventing animal abuse, as well as, it does not fall within the constitutionally, limited role of the federal government.

For the past 62 weeks, I have been campaigning and said if given the opportunity to represent you in Washington, I would read each piece of legislation and apply my 5-Way Conservative Test prior to voting in the U.S. House.

Unlike many of my colleagues in the Congress, I read this bill and found that it did not clear the first hurdle of my 5-Way Conservative Test: Adherence to the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is this authority given to the federal government. This is a state issue and that is why every state in the nation has laws on the books against animal cruelty. This is why I voted the way I did.

In addition, I opposed this legislation because it no way makes it a crime to harm any animals or film animals being harmed or punish those that actually film these heinous acts. All this legislation does is criminalize the sale, offer to sell, distribute or offer to distribute videos or images of animal cruelty, but only if it is traded across state lines.

While I've never seen any of these types of videos, I am completely disgusted by the thoughts of these horrible acts.

As mentioned before, every state in the Nation, including the state of Georgia already has laws on the books that make it a crime to harm or abuse animals.

Robust enforcement of existing law by law enforcement would be more than sufficient to reduce or eliminate animal cruelty, without requiring an expansion of the all powerful federal government.

My challenger says he is a "Constitutionalist" and "believes in the Constitution." Unlike him, I am under oath not just to "believe in the Constitution," but to uphold and defend the Constitution no matter the subject being considered....whether it is ObamaCare, bailouts, buyouts or animal videos.

I did not seek your trust to only cast the easy votes in Congress. And I will not shy away from the tough votes no matter how difficult they may be.

If we're going to get this country back on track, we must adhere to a limited government and a Constitutional foundation, no matter the issue, all the while, rejecting "Constitutional convenience."

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this important matter.