Last week the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry front group, took out a full-page ad in The New York Times accusing the Humane Society of the United States of supporting “terrorism.” Their crime? A speech at a “holiday gala” for a group called the Humane League. If you’re not following, well, you’re not the only one. The ad included a flow chart to explain CCF’s convoluted logic, and their website has a 70-page document trying to support the flow chart.

CCF argues that they connect the Humane Society to bullhorn-wielding “eco-terrorists” in six steps, and in response I created a little contest called “Six Degrees of Consumer Freedom.” I asked you all to trump CCF by connecting them to real terrorists in fewer steps.

I’m proud to say… we have a winner!

Karen left a comment connecting CCF to terrorism in two steps: CCF was created by Philip Morris, and Philip Morris has ties to cigarette smuggling, which directly funds terrorist groups. (Congrats Karen! You’ll be receiving your “domestic terrorist” apron!)

Below, I’ve added in my own research to substantiate the claims.

• In 1995, Philip Morris created the Guest Choice Network. It’s a front group that was proposed by Rick Berman in a letter to a Philip Morris executive. Here’s the letter.
• In January, 2002, the Guest Choice Network renamed itself the Center for Consumer Freedom. Rick Berman is still in charge.
• Philip Morris has been exposed for its involvement in illegal cigarette smuggling, including smuggling into Iraq in violation of United Nations sanctions. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says cigarette smuggling funnels millions of dollars to groups like Al Qaeda [See Washington Post, ""Cigarette Smuggling Linked to Terrorism" and the UK Telegraph, "US tobacco companies face claims of smuggling to Iraq," and the six-month investigation by PBS and NOW with Bill Moyers.]

I created this new and improved version of the CCF ad… what do you all think?

As you all are playing “Six Degrees of Consumer Freedom” and investigating CCF’s ties to terrorist organizations (keep posting your entries!), I wanted to follow up on that New York Times ad.

A few things stuck out as being really odd. Of all the images that could have been used for the ad, they chose activists wielding…wait for it… a bullhorn. EGAD! They are using it to amplify their voices! And be heard! Come on now, all us non-terrorists know that the First Amendment isn’t meant to actually be USED, right?

It gets weirder, because I recognized both activists in that photo. (You’ll remember one of them from that State Department PowerPoint show. He should totally get royalties for this, or at least make the cut on America’s Next Top Model: Terrorist Edition.) To my knowledge, neither are in Philly. You’d think CCF would have actually found a relevant photo.

But then I zoomed in on the bullhorn, and that upside-down sticker looked familiar. It took me a second, and then I placed it.

Are you ready for this?

Raise the threat level! “Pigs are friends, not food.” That’s some terrorist propaganda if I ever heard of it. I’m surprised CCF didn’t pick up on this link between Peta, the maker of the sticker, and these “terrorists.” Because look at the face on that cute little terrorist. That piggy smile is hiding some suicide bomber intentions.

But let’s go back to that ad for a moment. Scroll all the way down to the final “flow chart” box, and note that the Humane Society vice president will be speaking at a “holiday fundraising gala.”

It seemed kind of odd to me that terrorists would have a gala. A tea party, perhaps, or maybe a cotillion. But a gala? But then, using my investigative reporting skills, I found this image of another prominent terrorist at a holiday gala. Now that everyone seems to have forgotten about him, he must be relaxing and having a happy holiday.

A full-page ad in today’s The New York Times accuses the Humane Society of “helping an animal rights terrorism group.”

The ad was bought by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group that represents the fast food, meat and dairy industries. You might remember CCF from when they attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving (yep, they represent big alcohol, too).

Here’s the gist of the ad: a Humane Society vice president is speaking at a holiday event sponsored by the Humane League. CCF says the Humane League has members from a group “Hugs for Puppies,” and Hugs for Puppies had members from SHAC Philly, and SHAC Philly had members from SHAC USA, and six members of SHAC USA were convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges for running a controversial website.

Whew. Got that?

If not, don’t worry… the ad has a flow chart!

You know, folks, it really is a sad day when good old scare-mongering needs a six-step process. (Hell, I could connect the Humane Society to Kevin Bacon with fewer steps. And even Sarah Palin could scare-monger with fewer connections!)

And all of those steps are used to connect the Humane Society to what, exactly? A speaking event? Is that really the best CCF can do?

They’ve tried stunts like this before. When Hugs for Puppies had a table at a Humane Society conference (a table alongside dozens of other groups), CCF said they are “consorting with terrorists.” It didn’t get much media play. So now, it looks like CCF is using their deep corporate pocketbooks to get their scare-mongering to the public.

Likewise, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen ads in the The New York Times calling activists “terrorists.” But when those ads ran, they were directed at the so-called “extremists” with Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.

These ads, though, are going straight for the throat of mainstream groups. And I hate to say it under these circumstances, but… I told you so. When the Humane Society offered a reward for the “eco-terrorist” witch hunt in California, I wrote here that naming names and pledging loyalty oaths wouldn’t be able to protect them, just like it wasn’t able to protect people during the Red Scare.

These corporations and industry groups don’t just want to stop groups like the Animal Liberation Front. They don’t just want to stop the animal rights movement. They want to stop the animal welfare movement. They want to destroy all of them, together. This is a culture war, and it’s time the “mainstream” groups start fighting back.

On that note, I have a proposal. CCF’s ad says it connects the Humane Society to “terrorism” in six steps. I bet we could connect CCF to terrorism (the real kind, not this terrorist-activist nonsense) in fewer.

To play Six Degrees of Consumer Freedom, leave a comment on this post explaining how CCF is connected to terrorism. The best answer gets a free “domestic terrorist” apron!

We’ve seen Adidas endorsing “eco-terrorism” in their ads. Now HSBC, one of the largest banks in the world, has an ad that’s an epic terrorist love story complete with tree sitters, folk music, and happy, apolitical ending.

Here’s the summary: Cops are attacking environmental activists, pulling them from tree sits, using pain compliance holds, carting them off to jail (as “terrorists” I’m sure). As one activist is being hauled off, she sees her husband/boyfriend is one of the loggers. He bails her out of jail, she’s pissed, but she puts her arms around him on the way home. Awww. The message from HSBC? “We recognize how people value things differently. So what we learn from one customer helps us better serve another.”

Blargh. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

You know what really disturbs me about this? It’s not even that corporations are trying to capitalize off of social movements (I don’t think this is nearly as offensive as Nike’s blatant rip-off of Minor Threat). What really disturbs me is that the big message here is: Politics don’t matter.

Well, you know what, HSBC, political beliefs DO matter. They matter a lot. They matter more than your interest rates and profit margins and advertising campaigns.

There’s good and bad, right and wrong, and I’m so sick of people acting like “to each his own.” As Howard Zinn says, “You can’t stay neutral on a moving train.” The train has left the station, folks. And I hope I don’t sound too curmudgeonly and grumpy and jaded in saying this, but there ain’t going to be hugs at the end of the ride.

I can almost see the FBI putting out its own little YouTube propaganda. They could cast Anna the provocateur. It would show her working undercover for the FBI, poking and prodding environmental activists to commit crimes, and then when lives are ruined and people are sitting in prison, there can be a sweet hug at the end and the FBI logo. See? We can all get along. Right? Right?

Blargh. There I go again.

I got a kick out of how this Norwegian enviro/animal/anarchist group took a scare-mongering ad campaign, used to label activists as “terrorists” in major media outlets, and spun it into activist propaganda.

[UPDATE: From a comment on this blog post, I learned that this flier was actually created by the UK chapter of the group and then translated into many languages. I swapped out the image for the English version, because I think it gives a better idea of how the original ad was turned on its head. Thanks for clarifying!]

Click here for the original.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been introduced and reintroduced in Congress for years, always floundering, and this year it looks like industry groups are making a full-court press to get the draconian law passed. The Senate and House Judiciary committees may markup the bills as soon as next week.

The National Association for Biomedical Research took out a full-page ad in Roll Call, a newspaper covering Capitol Hill that is read daily by Congressional staff and many members of Congress. It includes a photo a black-and-white photo of a vandalized office, with “Your home is next” spray painted on a wall (or seemingly spray painted–I don’t know if this is a photograph or another PR stunt).

The threat is growing and is so serious the FBI has classified these extremists as one of the most serious domestic terrorist threats in the U.S. today. That’s why we urge you to support legislation designed to counteract the increasingly violent activity aimed at shutting down research in this country.

Under a section of small print called “What the AETA Does,” the final bullet is: “Expressly protects everyone’s First Amendment right to protest.”

The abrupt, dismissive wording of this, and the fact that it looks like it was tacked on as an afterthought, made me laugh out loud.

The legislation has language stating: “Nothing in this section shall be construe to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Well, how very kind of lawmakers and industry groups to remind everyone that there is still a First Amendment. But that language doesn’t “expressly protect everyone’s First Amendment right to protest,” as NABR says, because that shouldn’t have to be expressed. Making a notation like that in federal legislation is the equivalent of lawmakers admitting that the language is vague and overly broad, and can be construed as violating basic constitutional rights. They’re trying to cover their butts.

The truth is that this bill is broad, so vague, that it can wrap up activity like undercover investigations and whistle blowing. On top of that, the bill spells out penalties for

an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise or a business having a connection to, or relationship with, an animal enterprise, that may result in loss of profits but does not result in bodily injury or death or property damage or loss

In other words, a terrorism law includes nonviolent civil disobedience. And much, much more.

The same ad that “mysteriously” appeared in The New York Times earlier this month also ran in The Washington Post this week.

Clearly these folks have big money and they’re not afraid to toss it around. I wasn’t shocked to see another ad in one of the top five newspapers in the country, and won’t be surprised if more follow. I was surprised, though, to see the feigned confusion by industry hawks like Jacquie Calnan, president of Americans for Medical Progress. She told The Washington Times:

“I can only say every instinct, after 10 years of being in this field, is that it’s not any pharmaceutical company behind this.”

Are you kidding me? I don’t know about Calnan’s “instincts,” but I do know common sense. The NYSEhostage.com site is primarily devoted to the SHAC campaign. Also note that it links to the Americans for Medical Progress website. That group has been at the forefront of the campaign to label animal rights activists as “terrorists,” and is lobbying hard for the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Their website also has “opposition profiles” of groups like SHAC and PETA.

Mainstream reporters are dropping the ball here, and running canned quotes from industry hacks like, “Gee golly, who could ever do such a thing? I mean, we’ve been calling activists terrorists for years, and are pushing for terrorism legislation, and are smearing the same groups on our personal websites, but we would never, ever, run an ad.”

To the legal eagles out here: Perhaps it will take a lawsuit to get the records on who is running this front group…

As a follow up to yesterday’s post, I thought I’d dig up a bit more on the heroic individuals out to protect the New York Stock Exchange from “terrorists” like the Teamsters, Greenpeace and the Communication Workers of America.

No such luck. The full-page ad placed in The New York Times last week was anonymous. That’s extremely rare, because if a group is willing to shell out big money for an ad in The Times, they generally want the credit and branding that goes with it. Ad costs vary based on a few factors, like size, placement, and run date. I’ve worked in PR and coordinated national advertising buys, and a full-page ad in The Times, in the A section facing the National Report, on a Friday, can easily top $100,000. I may even be grossly underestimating.

It looks like the drafters went out of their way to hide their names in webhosting databases as well. Running the anonymous website through WhoIs shows it was placed through GoDaddy.com. Then if you run it through GoDaddy, it shows that it was registered by proxy:

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.

DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: NYSEHOSTAGE.COM
Created on: 29-Mar-06
Expires on: 29-Mar-07
Last Updated on: 31-Mar-06

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration NYSEHOSTAGE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration NYSEHOSTAGE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599

NYSEHostage.com says, “This website, and the advertising associated with it, is a project of individuals and businesses who were disturbed by the New York Stock Exchange’s decision to abandon Life Sciences Research International.” The site also puts a call out to companies “targeted by anti-business radicals” for anonymous information.

Corporations would probably say they aren’t revealing their identities because they fear attacks by “eco-terrorists.” That’s a load of crap. The animal rights and environmental movements in the United States have never taken a single life. Not one. (The same can’t be said for the corporations they target, but I digress). If corporations fear anything, it’s a lawsuit for running a smear campaign labeling activists as “terrorists.”

The corporations behind this Green Scare are trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths. If activists don’t reveal their identities, or wear masks at protests because they fear government surveillance and harassment, they’re called “terrorists” and cowards. But if corporations hide their identities so they can green bait without fear of reprisal, it’s something else entirely.

And here’s the rub. The activists that do reveal their identities, like the SHAC 7, are charged with animal enterprise terrorism. Their big crime? Running a website that allegedly hurt corporate profits, harassed individuals and created a climate of fear.

Let’s turn the tables. If activists wanted to place an ad in The Times (assuming they had corporate-sized bank accounts) that called corporations “terrorists” without evidence, do you think it would run? And do you think the Department of Justice will go after NYSEHostage.com for “harassment” and “creating a climate of fear” through terrorist smear campaigns?

Not likely. This War on Terrorism is not based on any objective criteria. It’s based on profits, and the ideology of those in power. On both counts, activists are seen as a national security threat.

An anonymous ad that ran in The New York Times on Friday praised the conviction of activists on “terrorism” charges, and signaled that the Green Scare is only just beginning.

On September 7, the New York Stock exchange announced it would not list Life Sciences Research, the counterpart to the notorious animal-testing company Huntingdon Life Sciences. No explanation was given, but it could be for a few reasons. The big one is that HLS has been dropped from the NYSE, dropped from the Over the Counter Bulletin Board, and dropped from the Pink Sheets. To say the company has hit rock bottom is an understatement.

But the ad, dominated by a dapper-yet-menacing man sporting a black ski mask and leather jacket (I hope his vegan eco-terror pals don’t see him in the animal skin) implies that the decision was influenced by “terrorism.” HLS is the target of an international grassroots campaign, and activists openly said they would email and phone NYSE leaders to drop the controversial company. The ad says NYSE is “running scared” from the “terrorists,” and refers readers to a website.

Buried in the fine print, the authors of the anonymous site admit that, “It’s not clear whether the stock exchange received polite phone calls, death threats, or something in between.” They also cite a National Public Radio story that said: “The stock exchange reserves the right to decide who it will and won’t list. But generally its concern is a company’s bottom line, not whether or not it’s popular with protesters.” Yet the authors of the site recklessly label the activists “terrorists.”

But they didn’t stop there:

If one gang of unfiltered extremists can successfully hijack Wall Street, another can too. And another. And another. Given fervor, time, and the right set of tactics, any publicly traded company could be similarly targeted.

Is it completely clear yet that this has nothing to do with terrorism or national security, and everything to do with corporate profits? The T-word is being adopted as an anti-activist PR tool. Today it is animal rights activists and environmentalists. Yesterday it could have been civil rights activists (with “terrorist” bus boycotts) and anti-apartheid activists (who did an exceptional job holding Wall Street “hostage”). And tomorrow?

Campaigns by “anti-business activists” like the Teamsters, Communication Workers of America and Greenpeace “could turn much uglier without warning.” It looks like the architects of the Green Scare are taking a few cues from George W. Bush’s “pre-emptive war” strategy, and labeling activists as terrorists before they even, well, act.