You want to know who is voting today? Here’s an example: these Tea Partiers think that Missouri’s Proposition B, which would regulate the state’s puppy mills, is part of the Humane Society’s “radical agenda.”

This Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act includes “radical” proposals such as requiring breeders to feed their animals daily and regularly.

A pro-breeder group called the Alliance For Truth is leading the fight against the legislation. Anita Andrews told TPM that the Humane Society is extremist because they think “humans and animals are on the same level, ownership of an animal is slavery,” and that “animals should have attorney representation.”

Alliance for Truth has the backing of local Tea Partiers and Joe the Plumber (apparently he’s still around?).

If you read this site regularly, you probably know I’m about the last person to put much faith in elected officials. I’ve written frequently on this site about how Obama has advocated national security policies that are in some ways worse than Bush, and how politicians lied about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Here’s the thing:

We have far too much work to do in fighting the Green Scare, and too few people doing it. If the people who believe this kind of nonsense are elected, it will lead to more legislation, more arrests, more media campaigns.

These folks, the ones who think that groups like the Humane Society are “radical” and “extremist,” they’re voting.

Regardless of how you vote today, or whether you vote at all, please think about that.

UPDATE: Prop B narrowly passed.

Tea Party poster.

By contrast, the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI, is the animal rights and environmental movements.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of three recent right-wing cases which have not been labeled terrorism, and how they compare to activist cases that have.

• Militia member incites brick attacks on lawmakers’ offices. Mike Vanderboegh, former militia member from Alabama, urged readers of his blog to throw bricks through Democratic offices in response to health care legislation. “So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party [that they] cannot fail to hear, break their windows,” Vanderboegh wrote. “Break them NOW…” The call to action worked: in the week that followed at least 10 lawmakers had offices vandalized or received death threats.

  Six animal rights activists were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for doing much less. They were part of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, and ran a website that posted personal information about executives tied to the controversial lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. They posted both news reports of both legal and illegal actions, and supported all of it. They also published essays about why they support non-violent direct action and sabotage. They were sentenced to between 1 and 6 years in prison. And the former militia member? He hasn’t even been arrested.

• Plotting to attack Muslims and police, and use a weapon of mass destruction. The Christian militia group called Hutaree is shown in one of their promo videos here. According to The New York Times, the defendants were “part of a group of apocalyptic Christian militants who were plotting to kill law enforcement officers in hopes of inciting an antigovernment uprising, the latest in a recent surge in right-wing militia activity.”

  The New York Times doesn’t call this racist, political violence “terrorism.” Yet a group of environmentalists who sabotaged property as part of the Earth Liberation Front, without harming or intending to harm a single person, were smeared as terrorists immediately upon arrest. The Times used the word in the headline, throughout the story, and in all subsequent coverage.

• Urging Tea Partiers to “reload.” Sarah Palin told a rally of 8,000 tea-partiers: “It’s not a time to retreat. It’s a time to reload.”

  Animal rights activists have been charged with terrorism for much less fiery speech. The AETA 4, for example, are not accused of property destruction or threats of violent. They are being charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for protesting and chalking slogans on the streets using children’s sidewalk chalk.

  To be clear, I am not arguing that Palin’s comments should be labeled terrorism. But what do you think would happen if an animal rights activists or environmentalist made the same comment, but about animal researchers?

The word terrorism is inherently malleable. There is not one true meaning of the word, no universal criteria for its application. However, these dramatic disparities extend far, far beyond any natural difficulties in using the term fairly.

People are being singled out for selective prosecution because of their politics and their threat to corporate profits. Once convicted, they are then being singled out again; Daniel McGowan, one of the Earth Liberation Front defendants, is in a secretive experimental prison called a Communications Management Unit.

Meanwhile, groups that pose a much more serious threat to human life, and have a demonstrated history of violence, go untouched. If the word terrorism is rhetorically and legally applied to non-violent animal and environmental activists, it must also be applied to much more dangerous groups.

That being said, it is not enough for us to respond by saying “They’re terrorists too!” or “We’re not terrorists, they are!”

Clamoring to label others as terrorists misses the point, which is that the word, the most dangerous and powerful term in the media and in our legal system, is nothing more than a fluid brand to attack the enemy of the hour.

A man intentionally flew his airplane into an IRS office in Austin as a part of suicide attack yesterday, and left behind a manifesto outlining his anti-government grievances, but politicians and the press are somehow unsure about whether it should be labeled terrorism. Meanwhile, a bill was introduced in Washington State this session labeling civil disobedience and First Amendment activity as “eco-terrorism.”

It’s not an isolated instance. Across the country, at the state and federal level, both pre-9/11 and post-9/11, corporations and the politicians who represent them have campaigned to label animal rights and environmental activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Even the most radical underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have never harmed a human being.

Yet those who have murdered abortion providers and flown planes into building escape the label.

Let’s take a closer look at the systemic disparities.

These have all been labeled terrorism in the press, state houses or the courts:

• Washington “Eco-terrorist” Bill Includes Civil Disobedience and First Amendment Activity
• Utah Bill Would Make Environmentalists Like Tim DeChristopher “Eco-Terrorists”
• Animal Rights Activists Charged As Terrorists for Chalking Slogans on Public Sidewalks and Wearing Masks at Protests
  
• Canadian Politician Says PETA Throwing a Pie is Terrorism
• ELF Activist Receives Longer Prison Sentence Than Racists Who Attempted to Assassinate Obama
• Ag Industry Calls for Prosecutions of Undercover Animal Activists
• Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience is Not Protected Speech

According to the FBI, none of these recent crimes are terrorism:

• Threatening to kill or injure police officers at a public tax protest assembly called a “Tea Party”
• Louisiana Man Convicted of Civil Rights Violation in Connection with Cross-Burning
• E-Mailing Threatening Communications to Judges
• Threatening Employees of Latino Civil Rights Organizations
• Man Held Hostages at Gun Point inside Post Office
• Homeland Security Says Timothy McVeigh Isn’t a Terrorist, But Peace Activists Are
  

Focusing scarce anti-terrorism resources on animal rights and environmental activists, while there are clearly domestic groups who have, and will continue, to carry out physical violence, puts all Americans at risk. Perhaps if the government spent less time preparing for attacks by environmentalists, events like this could be prevented.

A right-wing Christian group and an anti-gay Michigan church are suing gay activists who “terrorized” the congregation by protesting, distributing leaflets and kissing.

The far-right Alliance Defense Fund is taking on the lawsuit on behalf of Delta Township’s Mount Hope Church, which was “invaded” by queers in November.

Accounts of the day differ, of course, but they go something like this: Local activists affiliated with the Bash Back! protested the church, wearing pink bandanas and chanting slogans including “Jesus was a homo”.

That was all just a distraction, though, so other activists wearing their Sunday-best could proceed inside unnoticed. When security guards were lured outside because of the loud protest, two women went to the front of the sanctuary and began kissing, while others threw leaflets over the balcony and unfurled a banner that read, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”

The criminal complaint against Bash Back says church members were “terrorized by the Defendants’ conduct inside the church,” and that they felt the queers “might be violent.” [Interestingly, the next paragraph notes that the defendant's agreed to move their protest at the request of the pastor. Not exactly "terrorizing" behavior.]

Perhaps my favorite reaction to all of this has been from Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it. This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland.”

Urban fascism? If gay bashers “stormed a gay church,” it would be to use physical violence against people because of who they are. That’s much different than gay activists using non-violent protest to challenge the ideology that fuels gay bashing (an ideology we could label “suburban fascism,” if we’re adopting Donohue’s terminology).

Nevertheless, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, this “revealed how dangerous the homosexual agenda is.”

Hmm. You want to talk about “dangerous”? “Dangerous” is not queer kids kissing. “Dangerous” is racists opening fire at a museum. “Dangerous” is right-wingers, espousing many of the same anti-gay, fundamentalist Christian views as these plaintiffs, murdering people.

We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and opinion columnists) have not labeled the murder of an abortion provider as “terrorism.” It’s important to remember, though, that this isn’t an isolated incident. The word terrorism is used by the FBI and Department of Justice only when it fits a certain political agenda.

The government has systematically labeled animal rights and environmental activists who have never harmed anyone as “the number one domestic terrorism threat.” Yet the term is not applied to individuals who have committed much more serious (and often violent) crimes either for personal gain or for right-wing motives.

Here are 30 cases that the government has chosen to not label as “terrorism”:

1. Plotting to assassinate the president.
2. Beating African-American voters because they voted for Obama.
3. Threatening to assassinate the President and detonate C4 at the Mall of America.
4. Making death threats against biologists to “kill the enemies of Christian society.”
5. Attacking a black man with a chainsaw because of his race.
6. Using a noose to assault a black man at the Pentagon.
7. Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party.
8. Smuggling “shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other military weapons.”
9. Leaving an incendiary device at a federal courthouse.
10. Placing a pipe bomb near a hotel and then calling in a bomb threat.
11. Making bomb threats on an airplane.
12. Impersonating an armed federal agent.
13. Shooting at FBI agents in a drive-by.
14. Threatening federal agents with an assault rifle.
15. Offering to sell your own child for sexual purposes.
16. Attempting to buy a 9-year-old girl for sex.
17. Selling a 5-year-old for sexual purposes.
18. Forcing a young woman to engage in prostitution through force, fraud and coercion.
19. Kidnapping 3 children.
20. Sending white powder to John McCain’s presidential campaign with a note reading, “Senator McCain, If you are reading this then you are already DEAD! Unless of course you can’t or don’t breathe.”
21. Mailing 65 threatening letters to financial institutions with white powder.
22. Mailing the Social Security Administration and saying ““I’m going to blow up your office and the IRS office as well.”
23. Sending more than 25 threatening letters to federal, state, and local governmental agencies containing fake Anthrax.
24. Sending a white powder through the U.S. mail to the Internal Revenue Service with a note that says “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTRAX DIE!”
25. A former sheriff’s deputy forcing a teenage girl to perform sexual acts in his patrol car.
26. Three police officers shooting a 92-year old woman at her home “during the execution of a search warrant obtained by the defendants based upon false information.”
27. Using “deadly weapons including firearms, baseball bats, machetes, bottles or knives in the commission of numerous murders, attempted murders and assaults…kidnapping; obstruction of justice; and witness tampering.”
28. Stealing cattle for personal profit.
29. Setting fire at a petting barn and killing more than 40 animals.
30. Setting dozens of fires that caused “incalculable suffering.”

Of course we could keep going, there’s no shortage of examples to draw from. To be clear, I am not arguing that all of these examples are in fact “terrorism” (I’ll be outlining what I think are the top criteria for defining acts of terrorism in a future article). But if the government defines “terrorism” so broadly as to include releasing mink from fur farms and protesting legally while wearing masks, then why don’t any of these qualify?

Two federal Green Scare prisoners, Jonathan Paul and Daniel McGowan.

By all accounts, judges and prosecutors often say, there is every reason to believe that these activists can, and should, be leaders in their communities.

That’s exactly why new legislation called the Good Time Bill (H.R. 1475) is so vitally needed. It will reduce the sentences of people in federal prisons by increasing the “good time” credit they can receive. The bill would impact all federal prisoners (except those serving life sentences), but Green Scare prisoners would be some of the ideal candidates.

That being said, this is an issue that impacts everyone, regardless of how you feel about environmental issues or animal rights, and regardless of how you feel about these defendants. Along the lines of my previous post, “5 Reasons Why Republicans Should Care About the Government Labeling Activists “Terrorists,” here are three reasons why every taxpayer should support the Good Time Bill:

1. Money. The bill could save taxpayers more than $2-billion per year. It costs about $40,000 per year to keep each federal prisoner behind bars. With the greatest economic crisis since the depression, this money shouldn’t be spent on prisoners with a long, demonstrated track record of good behavior and rehabilitation.
2. Safety. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is over 40% overcrowded and many facilities are operating at 100% capacity. Increased incentives for good behavior will keep prisons at a more controlled level, and make them safer prisoners and staff.
3. Priorities. Nearly three out of every four federal prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence. They aren’t the only ones who suffer from being locked up: they have children, spouses, and friends whose lives have been impacted. People in federal prison deserve a second chance to make positive contributions to society.

The bill was introduced last week, and has 11 cosponsors. It’s still early in the process, which makes it a great time to get involved and take action. Visit GoodTimeBill.info for a list of things you can do.

Great example of how many people may not be sympathetic to people who commit crimes in the name of the environment or animals, but they do see the danger of this ever-expanding “War on Terrorism.” From James Jay Carafano at the Heritage Foundation (click through for his ridiculously-long Heritage style title):

Domestic radicalization is a domestic problem. The initial strategy emphasized that the purpose of homeland security was to combat transnational terrorism. The new strategy places emphasis on the threat of domestic radicalization. Dealing with all forms of domestic terrorism—from eco-terrorism to an al-Qaeda wannabe—is certainly a national responsibility. However, it is less certain that conflating all threats (whether they have an international affiliation or not) under the umbrella of a homeland security strategy is a good idea. Like the emphasis on natural disasters, this change in the homeland security strategy could eventually turn purely domestic public safety and criminal issues into national security concerns, leading to an overly intrusive federal role in domestic affairs.