As McCain’s campaign is sinking, and it’s getting harder and harder to differentiate Sarah Palin from Tina Fey, his campaign team has pulled out a tactic straight from the “Green Scare” playbook. Palin has said Barack Obama “pals around with terrorists” because he has worked with the same organizations as Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground.

As background: In the 60s, Ayers was involved with bombings against government buildings in protest of the Vietnam War and U.S. imperialism. Now, he is highly regarded by the mayor of Chicago, and he has been named citizen of the year. Check out this video of Ayers speaking about his long-time work on education issues, and his crazy, terrorist ideas about teaching children to think for themselves. What a radical!

I’ll leave it to you all to post comments about whether Ayers and the Weather Underground are “terrorists,” but that’s really besides the point. McCain and Palin are saying Obama is guilty by association.

Sound familiar? Yeah, kind of like how the Center for Consumer Freedom said the Humane Society is “consorting with terrorists” for allowing another organization to simply set up a table at an animal welfare conference.

These tactics are fluid. They aren’t limited to animal rights activists, environmentalists, or communists. The T-word can be used against any enemy of the hour, and anyone who even associates with those recklessly labeled as “terrorists.” I guess by that skewed logic I’m a “terrorist” (I’ve even–egad!–had drinks and dinner with “terrorists.” And enjoyed it!) What about you?

And McCain, listen up. I’m calling you out. GreenIsTheNewRed.com has already exposed the Earth Liberation Front’s Retirement Cell, and it’s only a matter of time before you’re exposed for associating with them. Attacking Obama won’t protect you: you’re either with us or against us, gramps.

After the recent bombings in California–which the press, industry groups and FBI recklessly rushed to attribute to animal rights activists—I reported that the Humane Society of the United States donated money to the “eco-terrorist” witch hunt. That didn’t sit well with many people, even those who oppose direct action. Now, HSUS’ Wayne Pacelle has come out to not only defend the donation, but endorse California’s version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Much of Pacelle’s blog post is standard rhetoric condemning illegal activity. But what truly surprised me is that Pacelle acknowledges that nobody even knows if animal rights activists were involved in the attack.

So, if the perpetrators of the Santa Cruz attacks turn out to be agents hostile to animal protection, it would not surprise me, because this is a tactic that malicious forces have used in the past to discredit many good causes. I’d feel especially good if our reward money helped to catch an infiltrator and exposed this person to the harsh glare of public opinion.

Huh? So let’s get this straight: HSUS gave money to this Green Scare witch hunt and condemned “extremists,” without even knowing if animal activists were involved. But if they were involved, this donation would help oust infiltrators?

Fat chance. HSUS’ actions will never help reveal an infiltrator, in part because the FBI are the ones doing the infiltrating (remember Eric McDavid’s case?). And besides, the damage has been done. The FBI, corporations and even animal groups have blamed this on animal activists, and those parties won’t be coming out and saying, “Oops, we were wrong.” Why? Because, at best, they don’t care that they’re wrong, and, at worst, they know it and are recklessly smearing animal activists anyway.

Pacelle writes as if the actions of HSUS exist in a political vacuum, and completely ignores the larger political climate. It’s bad enough that some groups are remaining silent about all of this “eco-terrorism” rhetoric, but for the largest animal protection organization in the country to come out and support it… that’s another story entirely. It lets law enforcement know that their actions can proceed unchecked and unquestioned by the few groups in the country who are actually paying attention.

The government and corporations have responded to this endorsement accordingly:

• “Eco-terrorism” legislation. Surprise surprise, corporations used the bombings to rush through “eco-terrorism” legislation called the California Animal Enterprise Protection Act (here’s a critical look at the CA AEPA). And, disturbingly, here’s Pacelle applauding the legislation (in its original, even-more-absurd form, no less).
• Police raids. FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces have raided a college activist house and an anarchist bookstore. The bookstore, the Longhaul Infoshop, is also a community space, with public computers (14 were seized by the police).
• Frivolous arrest. One activist, Nathan Pope, who lives in the raided house, was arrested for felony perjury. He is being held in lieu of $100,000 bail. What was Nathan Pope’s crime? Investigators said Knoerl [Pope] checked the ‘no’ box in response to the questions ‘have you applied for a driver’s license or identification card in California or another state/country using a different name within the past 10 years?’” The police acknowledge the arrest was “”unconnected with what we were searching for,” and had nothing to do with the crimes. They still have no suspects in the bombing cases.

It’s clear that HSUS needs to distance itself as much as possible from the firebombing because of the pending factory farming ballot initiative in November. It’s already going to be a dirty fight: the egg industry admits Proposition 2 would be a “major blow”. But guess what: the loyalty oaths and condemnations haven’t protected HSUS from “extremist” and “terrorist” smear campaigns.

The Center for Consumer Freedom is waging a media campaign to wrap up mainstream, national organizations with underground saboteurs. The CCF’s David Martosko writes: “If law-enforcement agencies are serious about attacking the growing problem of animal rights violence, they should start looking for clues inside some of the better known animal-protection charities.” It looks like they should also start investigating the Wu-Tang Clan.

[On a bittersweet note, as this Green Scare continues in California, the California Senate is finally trying to gut Red Scare legislation: under this bill, membership in the communist party would no longer be a fireable offense. Geez. It's 2008. Kudos to lawmakers for their speedy, principled stand against the Red Scare.]

Wayne Pacelle’s blog doesn’t allow public comments. But he posted a few messagesthat he received, and whaddayouknow, every single one is supportive of HSUS’ donation to the witch hunt.

So I’ll open it up to you all for a more honest discussion: Is HSUS justified in donating money to the “eco-terrorist” witch hunt and supporting legislation against so-called “animal rights extremists,” in hopes of passing this ballot initiative? If not, what should HSUS have done?

Santa Cruz bombing at the home of a university scientist who tests on animals. Associated Press.

First, it should be noted that no animal rights group like the Animal Liberation Front has claimed responsibility. Yet the FBI has recklessly labeled this “eco-terrorism,” just like the recent Seattle arson, before the smoke had even cleared. We’ve seen plenty of instances when the government later says “oops, it wasn’t ‘eco-terrorism’ after all.” And we’ve seen other instances, like the attempted murder of Judi Bari, when the FBI framed activists. In short: reporters, activists, and the general public need to slow down, step back, and stop blindly trusting the “official” story provided by the FBI.

In this “with us or against us” War on Terrorism, though, facts don’t really matter. All that matters, in the eyes of the government and corporations, is whether you are in the “with us” camp or the “against us” camp.

In hopes of avoiding the latter, the Humane Society of the United States has offered $2,500 to the “eco-terrorism” witch hunt in California.

It’s strategic for HSUS to try to stay far, far away from this mess, since the organization is pushing a historic ballot initiative for farmed animals in the state. But corporations and industry groups have already responded to the PR gesture, loud and clear: all the donations, press releases and sound bites in the world won’t protect you.

From the Center for Consumer Freedom:

“Nobody should be fooled by HSUS’s paltry gesture. While pretending to be part of the solution, the group continues to be a significant part of the problem—an over-zealous social movement bent on extending legal rights to animals, whether or not thinking people like the consequences. The entire community of Santa Cruz is learning this week what can happen when human beings resist the sort of evolution the animal rights community has planned for them. And it’s not pretty.”

We’ve already seen how the New McCarthyists are exploiting crimes like this to push a broader political agenda. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and a new California “eco-terrorism” law. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support home raids. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support hauling activists before grand juries.

Their goal here is not to solve this crime, or stop underground groups. Why? Because the true threat here is not the tactic, the true threat is the belief system. This is a culture war. Don’t just take my word for it. Feedstuffs, an “agribusiness” publication, said the HSUS ballot initiative in California represented the threat of a “vegetarian nation.” Fight them with everything you have, it warned: The “dam must not be breached.”

In many ways, Feedstuffs and CCF are absolutely right. This is a turning point in history. Not just for the animal rights movement, but for a country showing frightening parallels to the worst eras of government repression. The question, then, is this: Should we all, like HSUS, try to buy ourselves a little time? Or should we step up and fight the New McCarthyists head on?

[And to continue the heated discussion on a previous post... Where do you draw the line in terms of activist groups proclaiming their disapproval of other activists? With awards for arresting activists? With counter-protests? With press releases? When (if ever) is it appropriate and effective?]

What do you think?

Capitalism Magazine (yes, there is such a thing, and no, I have no idea why capitalism needs its own magazine… in a way, isn’t nearly every mainstream magazine Capitalism Magazine?) has a series attacking Obama. In this installment, they play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with an “eco-terrorist” twist. It seems Obama is supported by George Soros, and George Soros has given money to the Tides Foundation, and the Tides Foundation has given money to groups like the Ruckus Society, and there’s a chance (according to Capitalism Magazine) that groups like Ruckus may have “condoned or engaged in eco-terrorism.”

And to complete the loop: I think those individuals, in turn, were in that one movie about whitewater rafting, which starred Kevin Bacon.