Steve Best, Pamelyn Ferdin, and Jerry Vlasak
Animal Liberation Front
hat tip to Calpernia
Posted on 06/30/2006 9:12:45 AM PDT by JSedreporter
America’s universities are both the major targets as well as the incubators of a rapidly growing class of criminals—eco-terrorists.
“The Department of Justice named them the number one domestic terrorist threat,” Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, told a college-age audience at the Eagle Forum’s annual summit on Capitol Hill in Washington, D. C. “Their direct actions include bombings, stalking of individuals and teaching members how to commit arson.”
“They attacked and destroyed a ski lift, an SUV dealership, and an apartment complex.” Four hundred tenants were evacuated from that complex.
Sen. Inhofe chairs the U. S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In that capacity, he has discovered just how radical environmentalists can be.
“The killing of an animal and the killing of a human are morally equal,” Dr. Jerry Vlasak of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) told Sen. Inhofe in a hearing. “At American University, he tried to show college students how to commit arson,” Sen. Inhofe remembers. Dr. Vlasak has called such acts “a morally justifiable solution to the problem” of alleged animal abuse.
He has also said, “A mouse is the moral equivalent of a child.”
Two other groups—the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front—are responsible for 1,200 acts of violence and $200 million in damages, Sen. Inhofe notes. He points out that they have attacked the labs at:
• The University of Iowa
• The University of Michigan
• Louisiana State University
• The University of Wisconsin
On the other hand, as noted earlier, universities can serve as a breeding ground for eco-terrorists as well, frequently sponsoring talks by the likes of Dr. Vlasak. “Yes, I believe they do enable the eco-terrorists,” Sen. Inhofe said. “At Oklahoma University people who advocate the overthrow of the government are brought in as speakers.”
And their nurturing stance towards such groups has a real world impact that goes even beyond the university labs such groups repeatedly target. “Employees of GlaxoSmithKline were stalked,” Sen. Inhofe recounts. “The New York Stock Exchange refused to list them because of terrorist threats.”
In his effort to bring such information front and center in congressional hearings, Sen. Inhofe can rarely count on bipartisan support. “Democratic Party funding comes from such groups,” Sen. Inhofe says. “The Democrats were funded by organized labor until about 15 years ago, then by the American Trial Lawyers Association, which conspicuously exempted itself from Campaign Finance Reform.”
“Now, far left environmental groups provide most of their funding.”
Sen. Infhofe’s committee oversees 17 bureaucracies. “It is poetic justice that I head this committee,” Sen. Inhofe told the Eagle Forum Collegians. “I spent 30 years in the private sector.”
“I built buildings,” he remembered. “My greatest obstacle was the federal government.” “I tried to get a permit in Texas and had to go through 28 offices.”
Malcolm A. Kline is the executive director of Accuracy in Academia.
Steve Best, Pamelyn Ferdin, and Jerry Vlasak
Animal Liberation Front
hat tip to Calpernia
Animal welfare celebrates the bond between animals and humans; animal rights
wants to sever that bond.
"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept
of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be
ending the concept of pet ownership." -Elliot Katz, President, In Defense
of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997
Animal welfare grows and improves as we learn more and more about animals,
their behavior, and their management. Animal rights remains stagnant with its
dogma of “no more animal use ever.”
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from
our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it."
– John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington,
DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
Animal welfare is inclusive; its belief in stewardship of species and individual
animals embraces a human connection to the Earth through interaction with animals.
Animal rights is divisive; by separating the destiny of man from the destiny
of animals, the movement shows it cares nothing for the Earth.
"...the animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction.
An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is
no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would
argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited
continually in laboratories, zoos and circuses." (Barbara Biel, The Animals'
Agenda, Vol 15 #3.)
Animal welfare makes room for a broad spectrum of animal relationships that
include raising and using animals for food, fiber, labor, and medical and behavioral
research; managing animal populations by hunting; keeping animals in zoos and
other educational venues; and enjoying animal sports and animals in movies,
circuses, and on stage.
Animal rights opposes all traditional relationships with animals, from eating
meat and wearing leather and wool to biomedical research, pet ownership, dog
and cat breeding, circuses, zoos, hunting, trapping, ranching, fishing, and
learning about animals by hands-on experience.
"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference
to me." –Chris DeRose, director, Last Chance for Animals, as quoted in
Elizabeth Venant and David Treadwell, "Biting Back," Los Angeles Times, April
12, 1990, p. E12.
"My dream is that people will come to view eating an animal as cannibalism."
– Henry Spira, director, Animal Rights International, as quoted in Barnaby
J. Feder, "Pressuring Purdue," New York Times Magazine, November 26, 1989,
p. 192.
“Founded in 1980, PETA operates under the simple principle that animals
are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” –
PeTA’s website, August 2000
Animal welfare requires humane treatment of animals on farms and ranches,
in circuses and rodeos, and in homes, kennels, catteries, laboratories, and
wherever else animals are kept. Animal welfare endorses a quick death when death
is inevitable and a scientific approach to commercial use and management of
wild populations.
Animal rights works for the day when we will have no interactions with animals
but will view them from afar.
“I don’t approve of the use of animals for any purpose that involves
touching them – caging them” – Dr. Neal Barnard, Physician’s Committee
for Responsible Medicine
“We don’t want cleaner cages, we want empty cages.” – Tom Regan,
animal rights leader
In short, animal welfare works to enrich and celebrate human/animal interactions
in an atmosphere of concern for animal well-being; animal rights yearns for
the day when human life will be impoverished because we can no longer enjoy
the company of non-human animals.
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/spca.pdf
Excerpt:
The movement [SPCA] had its roots in the efforts of Henry Bergh, a European aristocrat who, following his appointment in 1863 to a diplomatic post at the Russian Court of Czar Alexander II, championed the cause of animals against inhumane treatment. Bergh soon immigrated to America, but only after stopping in London to confer with the president of England's Royal Society. In February 1866, Bergh delivered an impassioned speech at New York City's Clinton Hall before an audience that included influencial government and business leaders.
In recounting the horrific practices in America of the inhumane treatment of animals, he emphasized that the protection of animals had neither class lines nor political boundaries. Bergh's speech was covered extensively by the press. Recognizing that anti-cruelty statutes were meaningless in the absence of enforcement, Bergh's approach was two pronged. His efforts culminated in the New York Legislature's passage of a charter incorporating the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on april 10, 1866, and nine days later, of an anti-cruelty law that vested the society with the authority to enforce it. Bergh, whose successes were due largely to his political and social connections, was elected as the society's first president.
(snip)
Excerpt:
The SPCAs are accountable to no governmental authority. Because there are no standards, rules or guidelines governing their composition, operation, training or activities, there is no consistancy or uniformity in their make-up, functioning or enforcement of the laws. These autonomous organizations present a true hodgepodge of extreme diversity and a danger to the state's structured system of law enforcement. Once individuals in a county receive a charter from the state SPCA, they control the selection, discipline and removal of their members, officers and agents; the election of terms of office of members of the board of directors; the content of any by-laws; the formulation of any rules or regulations; what training, if any will be provided; how they will enforce the animal cruelty laws, and how they will spend the income. As a result, the SPCAs run the gamut in effectiveness of operation, scrupulousness in financial matters and enforcement of the cruelty laws. While some are operated in a highly professional manner, according to set rules and regulations, others are run as the personal domain of a well entrenched few who discard the rules on whim. Many individuals involved in these societies are dedicated to the welfare of animals and committed to functioning within an organized, structed environment, while others are 'wannabe cops' or motivated by personal gain. Because the SPCAs operate outside the realm of government, they have become havens for those who cannot obtain legitimate law enforcement positions.
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/spca.pdf
Excerpt:
The Honorable Reginald Stanton, J.S.C., recognized, but refrained from ruling on, the issue of the constitutionality of the statutory scheme. His comments are compelling:
"The powers granted under the various statutes [regarding the enforcement of the animal cruelty laws, adoption of a common badge, making of arrests and carrying of weapons] are significant law enforcement powers. It is important to note that all of the members of the state society and the county societies are self-selected. They are simply private persons who are interested in protecting animals. They are not selected by the public. They are not subject to managerial control by any public. They are not subject to managerial control by any public officials. They are not subject to any publicly imposed training standards or discipline.
At an early stage in this litigation, it occurred to me that the broad grant of powers to the state society and to the county societies might involve an unconstitutional delegation of governmental powers to the private persons...
...Although I have serious misgivings about the wisdom of granting extensive law enforcement powers to private persons, there is, of course, a vital difference between what I might view as an unwise legislative policy and an unconstituional policy. Furthermore, the record in this action is particularly ill-suited for making a sound adjudication on the issue of possible unconstitutionality of the statutory scheme. I have decided to refrain from any ruling on constitutional issues in this case."
Excerpt:
ARREST POWERS: The legislative provision governing arrests for violations of the animal cruelty laws is contained in N.J.S.A. 4:22-44. It empowers only the state society and not the county societies. Arrests may be made with a warrant or without a warrant when the violation occurs in the individual's presence. Since the provision was first enacted in 1880, the power to arrest has been conferred not only upon the NJ SPCA's officers and agents, but also upon its members. However, nowhere in the statutes governing the societies is the term 'member' defined. Therefore, it includes dues-paying members and those members of the Board of Directors who are not agents or officers. These individuals receive no law enforcement training.
Excerpt:
POWER TO CARRY WEAPONS: Perhaps the most disturbing area of unbridled authority bestowed upon SPCAs is the ability of their officers to carry firearms without being subject to governmental oversight or to most of the stringent requirements governing legitimate law enforcement officers. While some SPCAs do not allow their officers to carry weapons or do not use the designation 'officer' in order to eliminate the firearms issue, the officers of nine SPCAs are armed. Both county and state SPCA officers are exempt under NJSA 2C: 39-6c(7), which empowers SPCA officers to carry weapons in the actual performance of their official duties.
Excerpt:
SPCA Officers in the Bergen and Warren County societies admitted that even though they did not investigate any cruelty complaints and owned no guns before joining the SPCA, they purchased numerous weapons after they became qualified to carry as SPCA officers.
Vlasak and his wife, the former child actress Pamelyn Ferdin, are both directors of a militant “direct action” Los Angeles group called the Animal Defense League (ADL-LA).
Ferdin herself is the president of SHAC USA, a violent animal rights group described by the United States Department of Justice as a “domestic terror threat.”
And Vlasak has stumped publicly for SHAC, appearing at rallies and protests in support of the group’s “no compromise” plan to rid the world of animal laboratories.
Vlasak has personally been arrested several times for animal-rights-related activity...
http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/3437
"Jerry Vlasak was defending his 2003 statement (made as a PCRM spokesperson) that political assassination "could be used quite effectively from a pragmatic standpoint ... for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives."
Great Britain has banned Vlasak and his wife (former child actress Pamelyn Ferdin) because of this and other threats."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510429/posts
hat tip to Constitutionalist Conservative
Is it ecologically justifiable to burn Ann Coulter's book?
Does the good (riddance) justify the destruction of bio-dgradable material and the creation of global warming gases?
To find out, place a display of books in the Student Union or Quad and see what happens.
/^:)
bttt
Thanks SO MUCH for pinging me on this one george76. You wouldn't believe how timely this is for me (I'll explain it in a private reply).
Yank you might want to check into this organization.
I'm about to run out the door; but wanted to get this nugget up.
Here is a sample of a law office that recruits and trains 'agents of animal rights'.
Is there one doing this by you?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1562040/posts
NJSBA Animal Law
State of NJ and New Jersey Law Center, New Brunswick | NJSBA
LITIGATION & DEFENSE OF ANIMALS
NJSBA Animal Law Committee
Finances for tax year ending 7/31/2004 |
||
| Income | $28,926,924.00 | |
| Expenditures | $25,063,060.00 | |
| End-Of-Year Net Worth | $11,479,793.00 | |
| Tax Status | 501(c)3 | |
 |
|
|
| Selected Grants |
|
| Glaser Progress Foundation | |
| Grant | $153,000.00 in 2000 |
| Source | Chronicle Of Philanthropy |
| Details | For Web-site and technological development; (IRS Form 990 lists : For Website and Anti-Fur Campaign) |
|
|
| Glaser Progress Foundation | |
| Grant | $26,488.00 in 1999 |
| Source | IRS Form 990 or 990-PF |
| Details | For a fundraising event |
|
|
| Comedy Central Network | |
| Grant | $200,000.00 in 2005 |
| Source | Lexis News Archive |
| Details | Donation made in exchange for Pamela Anderson's appearance on a "celebrity roast" |
|
|
| Top Funders and Grantees |
|||
|
|
|
|
| Funding From Foundations & Corporations |
Total Donated |
Time Frame |
|
| Animal Charities of America | $1,137,299.00 | 1997 – 2001 | |
| Glaser Progress Foundation | $304,488.00 | 1999 – 2002 | |
| American Foundation Corporation | $272,794.00 | 1998 – 2002 | |
| Park Foundation | $250,000.00 | 1996 – 1999 | |
| Alexander Foundation | $200,000.00 | 1998 – 2002 | |
| Comedy Central Network | $200,000.00 | 2005 – 2005 | |
| Sparrow's Song Foundation | $150,000.00 | 1999 – 2001 | |
| Komie Foundation | $90,000.00 | 1998 – 2001 | |
| Bryan C. & Christina I. Cressey Foundation | $61,000.00 | 1999 – 2002 | |
| Haber Family Foundation | $60,000.00 | 2000 – 2001 | |
| Lee-Kahn Foundation | $60,000.00 | 1999 – 2002 | |
| Pond Foundation | $59,400.00 | 1998 – 2002 | |
| W.K. Gordon Jr. Family Foundation | $56,000.00 | 1997 – 2002 | |
| DTS Charitable Foundation | $55,000.00 | 1999 – 2001 | |
| Gary Broad Foundation | $50,000.00 | 1998 – 2002 | |
| Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors | $31,600.00 | 1997 – 2001 | |
| Keith & Mattie Stevenson Foundation | $30,000.00 | 2000 – 2002 | |
| Judi & Howard Strauss Foundation | $28,500.00 | 1998 – 2001 | |
| Jain Foundation | $25,000.00 | 2000 – 2000 | |
| Black Cat Foundation | $25,000.00 | 1998 – 2001 | |
| show complete financials » | |||
|
|||
| Funding From Other Activist Groups |
Total Donated |
Time Frame |
|
| Tides Foundation & Tides Center |
$69,258.00 | 2003 – 2003 | |
|
|||
| Funding From Individuals | Total Donated | Time Frame | |
| Doris Duke | $1,000,000.00 | 1993 – 1993 | |
|
|||
PETA
Old Indian word for "bad hunter".
Arrest, try them for eco terrorism and if found guilty, lock them up with Brutus or worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.