NPR’s “On The Media” invited me to discuss the attempts by multiple states to outlaw undercover investigations of factory farms, animal experimentation labs, puppy mills and other industries.

My interview with Bob Garfield of NPR is online now. And the interview is even more timely because, as I reported yesterday, New York is now considering similar legislation.

If you’re not familiar with the program, On The Media is one of NPR’s most popular shows, airing on over 200 stations. It has won Edward R. Murrow Awards for feature reporting and investigative reporting, along with a National Press Club Award and a Peabody. (In short: I had to do my best not to totally geek out with joy about being on one of my favorite shows).

You can listen to this episode of NPR’s On The Media online here.

A bill introduced in New York would criminalize undercover investigators who expose animal cruelty at factory farms and animal experimentation labs. The proposal is similar to other “Ag-Gag” legislation recently introduced in other states.

The bills targeting undercover investigators in Iowa, Florida, and Minnesota have been met with such public outrage that two of them (Florida and Minnesota) have already failed. The remaining bill in Iowa has faced bipartisan opposition, including national Republican political pundit Mary Matalin.

Because of the overwhelmingly negative public response, the New York bill is slightly different. Proponents of the Ag-Gag bill have tried to shift the discussion away from undercover investigators. Instead, sponsor Patty Ritchie describes S5172-2011 as a tool to fight “meth addicts” and protect “the safety of our food supply.”

But this bill is not about “meth addicts.”

S5172 criminalizes undercover investigators and whistleblowers by targeting “audio recording or photography done without the farm owner’s written consent.”

What are these factory farms trying to hide? Well, a recent investigation by Mercy for Animals at New York’s largest dairy factory farm, Willet Dairy, exposed calves having their tails cut off without pain killers and being dragged away from their mothers. And a Compassion Over Killing investigation of Hudson Valley Foie Gras in New York showed workers forcing tubes into ducks’ throats.

It is no coincidence that politicians like Patty Ritchie (who campaigned on an ag-friendly platform) and Catharine Young (who has championed the $30 million Dairy Assistance Program) are introducing legislation that would shield their corporate constituents from public scrutiny. This has been the pattern nationally. As this map reveals, the states with the highest concentration of undercover investigations are also the states that have introduced legislation criminalizing those investigations.

This New York bill, like all the others, is about criminalizing and prosecuting anyone who threatens corporate interests. Like the Iowa, Florida and Minnesota bills, this legislation is a response to the effective campaigns of animal protection groups that have exposed systemic animal cruelty.

In some ways this New York bill is more dangerous than the others, because there is a greater chance of it passing. Senators Ritchie and Young are attempting to deflect opposition by misleading the pubic. The bill is titled as “relates to unlawful tampering with farm animals,” while it is actually about stopping anyone who exposes animal cruelty. The bill is summarized as pertaining to meth addicts and homeland security, but the text makes clear that is focused on animal rights activists.

Everything about this bill, from the undercover investigators it criminalizes to its false and misleading re-branding, is about keeping New York consumers in the dark.

The Huffington Post just published my op-ed on new bills being considered to criminalize undercover investigators, and punish anyone who exposes what goes on at factory farms.

Here’s an excerpt:

Undercover investigations by the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals and other groups have exposed systemic animal cruelty at factory farms. The video footage has led to criminal convictions in Iowa, voter referendums in Florida, and consumer outrage at the most egregious animal welfare abuses.

Rather than put an end to these practices, though, corporations and agriculture industry groups have hit back with another plan: criminalize anyone who exposes their wrongdoing.

Read the whole thing on Huffington Post, and please share it and leave a comment! This is my first time writing for Huffington Post, and it would be great to show that people care deeply about these issues.

Chances are, you have never heard of the Inkerman Group. I certainly hadn’t, until I began researching the web of faceless “risk mitigation” companies that help corporations identify threats to their profits.

These companies produce briefing documents that identify business “threats,” including special interest groups, key activists, and legislation. It is a niche industry built upon fear: the business of risk mitigation depends upon the identification of a constant stream of threats. Corporations commission briefing documents which identify (or create) threats to corporate interests, which leads corporations spending money addressing these threats, which leads to more reports… you get the idea.

This financial motivation to identify threats results in some interesting reports. For instance, I previously wrote about the Society of Toxicology commissioning a “threat analysis” that included such detailed information as who animal rights activists are dating.

It is impossible to know the true scope of these reports, and the impact they have had on the broader political climate of the Green Scare. It is fair to say, though, that for many corporate executives, these think tank documents may be the only exposure they have had to the history, motivation and tactics of the animal rights and environmental movements. They are a critical component of broader efforts to label activists (the “threats”) as “terrorists.”

One such report is by the Inkerman Group, called “The War on ‘Eco-Terror’: An analysis of the use of anti-terrorism legislation on activist movements in the UK & US.” It was sent to me with the request that I not identify the commissioner of the report. (The report, from 2007, is marked “confidential” and does not show up in a search of the Inkerman website, but a Google search of the volume number returns a back-end link to the source document on the Inkerman server. Good thing Inkerman is not a security firm, I guess.)

Like many other risk analyses, the Inkerman report is hilariously bad at times. The authors of the report appear to either be quite clueless about the true nature of the radical environmental movement, or quite malicious in their attempts to label mainstream, non-violent tactics as “terrorism.”

For instance, its timeline of “eco-terrorism” begins with the formation of the Sierra Club in 1892, and the formation of the Humane Society of the United States in 1954.

It goes on to identify key developments in the radical environmental movement, including… stickers.

Towards the end of 2000, a new form of eco-terrorism emerged in the US against Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs). Activists, some reportedly part of the ELF, decided to demonstrate against the environmentally-unfriendly vehicles by placing homemade stickers on them. These ‘Mad Taggers’, as they became known, used to sticker the cars in question, chosen at random with messages such as “I’m Changing the Climate. Ask Me How”, “Bin Laden Used Your Gas Money”, “If You Love America, Get Rid of Your SUV” and “I Don’t Care About the Air”.

However, despite these claims and despite the financial interests involved in this report, the authors do not side in favor of more “eco-terror” legislation.

The introduction of new anti-terror laws seems only to be further complicating the definition of terrorism and what constitutes it, rather than clarifying it. This inherently implies that the Government is still struggling with legally defining the term ‘eco-terrorism’.

In today’s terror climate, the authorities’ fear that terrorist individuals and organisations may ‘slip through the net’ has justified the use of wide-ranging legislation against activists. Many times, actions of ‘eco- terrorists’ are perpetrated to induce fear, and this should rightly be clamped down upon and prosecuted. However, where peaceful protest such as the Camp for Climate Action 2007 intends not to disrupt or threaten human security, the threat alone of anti-terrorist legislation being used against protest is extreme. The issue lies in the blurring of lines between those extremists willing to carry out eco-tage, and those looking to undertake peaceful protest, which should be encouraged in a democracy. This is especially problematic where the two kinds of protests exist side by side at a demonstration, or within groups.

In contrast with the US, which declares eco-terrorism to be the most serious form of domestic terrorism today, the UK must respect the fine lines between democratic voice, illegal activity, terrorism and scare- mongering. [Emphasis added]

Unfortunately, corporations in the United States have not gotten the memo.

Scare-mongering against radical animal rights and environmental activists has become so easy that it is hard for some folks to resist joining the attacks. POM Wonderful, the juice company, tried to label lawful protesters as part of the Animal Liberation Front. Groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom have warned of “violence” when PETA moved to DC. The Humane Society of the United States went out of its way to blame underground groups for an arson, when the police had no evidence linking the crime to them. The list, unfortunately, goes on and on. Perhaps the most absurd addition to the list to date comes from within the animal rights movement.

Gary Francione, a law professor at Rutgers, and Steve Best, a philosophy professor at the University of Texas–El Paso, have been going back and forth about animal rights issues, specifically the use of direct action. It almost led to a debate (which looks like Francione pulled out of) and has currently turned into a shining example of all that a post-newspaper Internet future heralds: trash talking, trash talking and more trash talking. It came to a head recently when Adam Kochanowicz warned of “ALF to vegan death threats” after receiving a message from Gary Francione that said:

I have received several messages from people informing me that they have received threats and/or violent communications because they have posted messages in support of non-violence or critical of the views of Steve Best.

If you feel threatened, you should go to the appropriate authorities.

You might want to go through your FB list. The administrators of “Go Vegan or Die,” which promotes violence (including personal violence) and the harassment of those who promote non-violence, are: Mary Xanthos, Karen Challenges, Ward Chanley, Kerri Millam, Holly Donna Balaclava, Gina Maltese, and Camile Marino. People communicate with Steve Best at their own risk as he distributes emails to those whom he knows will respond with threats of violence.

If you are a member of this group or otherwise support violence, please respect my wishes and leave this site.

This continues to get circulated around on blogs and Facebook pages, so I think it’s important to clear up a few things. These are the same types of smear tactics being used by animal industries against activists as “terrorists.” Specifically:

1. Linking above-ground individuals who ideologically support direct action with underground activists who carry out direct action. Regardless of how you feel about people who support illegal tactics, warning people to communicate with a professor of philosophy “at their own risk” because he “distributes emails to those whom he knows will respond with threats of violence” is idiotic. It’s a heavy accusation, and one that, in this political climate, is surely not taken lightly by the FBI.
2. Singling people out by name as the “leaders” because of their ideology or the alleged actions of those involved with them. Francione lists individuals by name not because of anything they have done, but because of a Facebook group that promotes ideas he disagrees with.
3. Labeling the ALF as “violent” or prepared to become violent. There has not been a single act of physical violence in the history of the U.S. animal rights movement. To think that the Animal Liberation Front or any underground animal rights activists would choose to break that history and make their first target a VEGAN is pretty laughable and egotistical. But with scare-mongering like this, it doesn’t matter how laughable it is. It is intended to end a debate by labeling people as “violent.”

Francione has made it a point–like many academics, Steve Best included–to single out people he ideologically opposes and attack their positions. At times, he has done so pretty shamelessly. For instance, when Austrian activists were rounded up and detained without charges, Francione went out of his way to attack the “welfarist” campaigns of the activists arrested.

Here’s the thing: everyone involved can continue the name-calling and chest puffing and other nonsense that has come from all sides in this debate as much as they like. The vast majority of people, including activists, probably will not pay much attention.

But sweeping, serious allegations of violence, along with naming names and encouraging people to contact law enforcement, only serves to follow in the footsteps of industry groups that have turned activists into the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

What do you think?

I wrote this for the latest issue of Bite Back Magazine, which just came out. I know it’s a bit long for online reading, so click on the image to download the pdf if you like, then come back and leave a comment.

“Making an Animal Rights ‘Terrorist,’” Bite Back Magazine, Issue 14.

Shortly after midnight on November 11th, 1988, Fran Trutt exited the passenger side of a rented Chevy pickup and approached the headquarters of U.S. Surgical with a package. She still had doubts about the evening. The day before, as she prepared for the trip to Norwalk, Connecticut, from her home in Queens, New York, she called a friend three times. She had cold feet. Could she go through with this? Was it taking things too far? What if someone got hurt? No, no, the voice on the phone reassured her. Remember the dogs.

U.S. Surgical had become the nation’s largest supplier of surgical staplers, a speedier alternative to stitches. The company used about 1,000 dogs each year in training doctors to use the product, stapling dogs and then killing them. Behind the invention of the surgical stapler, the rise of U.S. Surgical to a $1 billion company, and the deaths of tens of thousands of dogs was the CEO, Leon Hirsch.

To Trutt, Hirsch murdered the only creatures who seemed to understand her. She was a loner and uncomfortable around
people, neighbors said. But dogs were different, especially the four she called her “babies.” She felt a special kinship with them. To Trutt, the dogs were unconditionally loving and affectionate. To Trutt, Hirsch was unconditionally evil.

She placed the package in some bushes about ten feet from where Hirsch would park his car the next morning. Inside the package, a foot-long radio controlled pipe bomb had been wrapped in roofing nails. Maybe Trutt still had doubts as she hid the package and then turned back to her waiting driver. By the time she reached the truck, though, it was too late for second thoughts.

Fran Trutt had been set up. U.S. Surgical, the press and most animal rights groups, would soon condemn her as a violent extremist. But over the coming months it would be revealed that the plot—the only act of attempted murder in the history of the U.S. animal rights movement—had not been an organic occurrence.

The money for the bomb, the truck, the logistics, the encouragement—U.S. Surgical and a “counter-terrorism” firm had been orchestrating it all.

Hired Guns

When Trutt returned to the truck, police moved in. They arrested her and found a radio-controlled detonator. They also arrested her driver, 30-year-old Marc Mead.

That afternoon, New York City police and bomb squad searched Trutt’s basement apartment in Queens and found a sawed-off shotgun, another weapon they described as a hybrid of a bazooka and a shotgun, and two more homemade bombs. The bombs were made of M-80s—large firecrackers—wrapped with nails and BB pellets, and stuffed into 3-by-6 inch pieces of standard plumbing pipes. One had a fuse, and one had a radio. Trutt had few other possessions, not even a telephone, but police also found pictures of tortured animals.

Trutt faced two sets of charges. In New York: federal charges of possessing two bombs. In Connecticut: attempted murder, possession of explosives and manufacturing a bomb. The press called the case a thwarted “terrorist” plot. The FBI announced a “terrorism” investigation. News stories said Trutt “may have been supplied with the explosive device by a terrorist group.”

All this talk of terrorism and murder didn’t sit well with Mead, Trutt’s driver. He had been released without charge, but worried that news reports implicated him. Mead, the owner of a window washing company, felt he had to do something to distance himself from this animal rights terrorist. He walked into the newsroom of the The Westport News with a press release he wrote—headlined “WINDOW WIZARD THWARTS ASSASINATION [sic] ATTEMPT”— hoping to clear his name.

The local newspaper’s expose, and the national headlines that followed, revealed a long-term plan by U.S. Surgical to infiltrate and disrupt the animal rights movement. To do his dirty work, Hirsch had
hired a counter-terrorism firm called Perceptions International. The firm was the brainchild of Jan Reber, a self-styled “terrorism” expert who had experience demonizing animal rights groups: he also published
a newsletter called the Animal Rights Reporter, a dossier on the activities of animal activists crafted for the vivisection industry.

Perceptions International had hired a woman named Mary Lou Sapone to infiltrate the movement. Sapone met Trutt at a U.S. Surgical demonstration in 1988, and reported back to Perceptions International and U.S. Surgical that Trutt had made threatening comments against Hirsch. Keep tabs on Trutt, they said. Talk to her. Befriend her. She did, and Trutt opened up about her anger at Hirsch, her sex life, and, of course, her dogs.

Sapone urged Trutt to take action. The spy had already approached other animal activists, saying someone should bomb U.S. Surgical, but they had written her off as a drunk or a lunatic. With Trutt, she found a more receptive audience.

Two months before the night of the bombing, Perceptions International brought Mead into the operation. The firm paid Mead $500 a week to befriend Trutt. Following Sapone’s lead, he used dogs to do so. He approached her in a pizza parlor, and asked for advice on finding homes for puppies.

They became friends, talking about animal rights and U.S. Surgical. Mead soon gave Trutt about $300, which she said was explicitly to be used for hiring two non-activists in New York to make the bomb. Although Mead denies this, and says the money was to help her pay her rent, he admitted that the president of Perceptions International went so far as to tell him when to bring Trutt and the bomb to the U.S. Surgical office.

When Trutt began to lose her nerve en route, she called her friend Mary Lou Sapone.

No Way Out

With evidence of his covert plans mounting, Hirsch finally acknowledged using paid informants. He told the Associated
Press that animal rights “terrorists” had left him no choice. “Many of them are very dangerous organizations,” he said. “They don’t believe in right and wrong as most people in society do. They believe that human beings are on the same par as rats and dogs and they are prepared to take violent actions to enforce their beliefs.”

Trutt maintained the she never intended to kill Hirsch; she intended to explode the bomb as he walked into the building. “It would have been purposeless to kill him,” she told The Advocate of Stamford. “But to scare him at this time might have affected some change.”

Yet the media circus and aggressive prosecution wore her down. On the New York bomb possession charges, she pled guilty and received time served in prison. On the Connecticut murder charges, she agreed to a plea agreement, and then rescinded upon learning she would not be allowed to visit her dogs. Abruptly, in April 1990, she agreed to plead no contest in exchange for one year in prison followed by three years of probation.

“The sex tapes—I think that’s what did it. It was just disgusting,” said John Williams, her attorney. “I have been fearing this from the first day: How long will Fran be able to stand up to this?”

Prosecutors had threatened to introduce tape recordings between Trutt and Sapone, he said. On the tapes, Trutt rails against Hirsch, and also discusses a sexual relationship with a woman.

Even the federal prosecutor in the New York case opposed using the tapes in court. Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Caldwell had written a letter to a U.S. District Judge questioning the handling of the case by Connecticut police.

“Like a sports ‘highlight film’ made for the benefit of home team fans, the tape contains many of Trutt’s most menacing and outrageous remarks,” she wrote. “However, it omits the operatives’ goading, encouragement and offers of money.”

Lessons Unlearned

By giving national exposure to so-called “animal rights terrorism,” the foiled plot marked a turning point in the history of the animal rights movement and in the sustained corporate campaign to surveil, disrupt and demonize activists. Trutt’s case should be a reminder of the dangers of jumping to conclusions. It should also be a reminder of the importance of focusing on true enemies, not placing blame. But for some of the activists involved in this
scandal, these lessons of terrorist scare mongering have gone unlearned.

Wayne Pacelle, for example, was executive director of the Fund for Animals, which filed a government complaint against U.S. Surgical’s experiments. He is now the head of the Humane Society of the United States, the largest animal protection organization in the country.

“[Sapone] was at every meeting of at least three people, always milking people for information,’’ he told the New York Times in 1989. “She served not only as an informant, but as a provocateur, often suggesting illegal activities.’’

Despite Pacelle’s firsthand experience with provocateurs, and firsthand knowledge of the dangers of jumping to conclusions, he has done exactly that in recent months. When a bomb exploded in California at the home of UC researchers, animal activists issued no communiqué or claim of responsibility. Nevertheless, Pacelle and HSUS not only issued media statements condemning underground activists, but also donated $2,500 to law enforcement for their “ecoterrorism” witch hunt.

Similarly, Friends of Animals led the demonstrations against U.S. Surgical beginning in 1981. Members recalled that Trutt attended at least one of their protests.

“It’s a classic frame case,’’ Priscilla Feral, president of the group, told the New York Times. “This is a concerted effort to discredit a movement that is having an effect.’’

Despite Feral’s firsthand experience with corporate smear campaigns, Friends of Animals has repeatedly focused its efforts on discrediting other animal activists. Instead of placing blame for this “Green Scare” on corporations and government agents, Friends of Animals says underground activists have brought these tactics upon themselves.

As Lee Hall of Friends of Animals has written, “government seizes opportunities provided to them by apparently dangerous activists to begin treating all kinds of dissenters as terrorists.”

History Repeats Itself

Time and again, these “dangerous activists” are in fact government and corporate creations, the product of cloak and dagger maneuvers to frame individual activists and discredit entire movements. In a contemporary case eerily reminiscent of Trutt’s entrapment, an environmental activist named Eric McDavid was recently sentenced to 20 years in prison for “conspiring” to blow up the Nimbus Dam in California.

His Mary Lou Sapone was a young FBI operative named “Anna.” McDavid fell in love with Anna. Anna provided McDavid and friends with bomb-making recipes; at times financed their transportation, food and housing; strung along McDavid, who had hopes of a romantic relationship; and poked and prodded the group into action.

While Trutt was sentenced to about one year in prison for attempted murder and possessing bombs, McDavid, who wasn’t accused of either—only “conspiracy”—was sentenced to 20. Post-9/11, the tactics of government and corporations haven’t changed, but the stakes for activists have clearly risen.

From Bombs to Boards of Directors

The media coverage of Trutt’s case, and the role of Perceptions International, seemingly should have ruined Sapone’s career as a mole. Instead, she just switched social movements. A 2008 investigation by Mother Jones magazine revealed that Sapone—going by Mary Lou McFate, her maiden name—had been spying for years on gun control groups. She wasn’t orchestrating bomb schemes or murder plots. This time, on the payroll of the National Rifle Association, she was hired to spy on the upper echelons of the mainstream movement.

She posed as a gun-control activist for more than a decade, even landing positions on two boards of directors. As both a local and national activist, she gained access to the internal deliberations, lobbying strategies, media plans, and internal gossip of the entire movement.

Bryan Miller, the executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, told Mother Jones that Sapone’s story “would confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules no question of fairness or honesty. Anything that they can do they would do to protect the profits of the gun industry.”

If one substitutes “animal research” for “gun,” the story remains the same.

What is the True Threat

The FBI has labeled the animal rights and environmental movements the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” But
the true threat posed by these movements is not violence. As we saw in the Trutt case, and recently in the McDavid case, the most serious acts of “violence” in the movement have been the work of provocateurs.

These corporations and politicians are not after the Fran Trutts of the movement. They’re not after the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Revolutionary Cells, or any other underground group. The true target of these terrorist witch hunts is not “violent extremists,” but the movements themselves.

It’s telling that Mary Lou Sapone’s career took a drastic turn, from coercing activists into bombings to infiltrating boards of directors. Sapone and the “terrorism” firms she worked for evolved in their understanding of how to squash and repress social movements. Activists must evolve, too. These corporations and government agents might single out an individual like Fran Trutt in order to make headlines and demonize the movement. But that’s merely a single step, a stop along the way to their bigger goal. Infiltrating and sabotaging the activities of grassroots activists and direct action supporters is simply the low hanging fruit. When grasped, these corporations and government agents become bolder and start trying to hack down the entire tree.

Sapone realized this. U.S. Surgical, Perceptions International and the NRA realized this. And until mainstream animal protection and environmental groups realize this, there will be many more Fran Trutts.

American Idol star Carrie Underwood is donating a portion of the proceeds from her new single to the Humane Society of the United States, and getting accused of supporting “animal rights terrorists.” One of my favorite lines so far: “Carrie Underwood may think she is supporting puppies and kittens, but she needs to understand that she is supporting domestic terrorists instead.”

Let’s pause for a second and take a look at how idiotic this has all become. The Center for Consumer Freedom needed a hilarious flow chart to attempt to connect HSUS to “terrorism,” and failed miserably. Now, Carrie Underwood is being smeared as a terrorist for being “connected” to HSUS and, as Ecorazzi reports, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is trying to put pressure on Fox. What’s next?

Underwood’s single, “Home Sweet Home,” is a cover of a Motley Crue song. Maybe that means they can go after Tommy Lee for supporting terrorism, too? (I mean, he also produced that, ahem, “terrorist training video” with PETA spokesperson Pamela Anderson).

It wasn’t long ago when HSUS donated money to an “eco-terrorism” witch hunt in California, hoping to protect themselves from this kind of guilt by association. They gave the green light to the Green Scare in the hopes of saving their own behinds.

What do you all think? Did HSUS get its money’s worth?

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!