If Jesus Was a Vegetarian, the Pope Is a Lutheran

I'm tired, and I don't really feel like doing any work today (in fact, this was written yesterday), so I'm going to steal candy from a baby and shoot fish in a barrel, so to speak. I am addressing the claims that Jesus was a vegetarian.

Now, I don't know about any of you, my faithful readers (all five of you, according to Feedburner data), but I, for one, consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on the Bible. I am by no means a Christian, though. I just know a lot about the Bible. I used to be Christian, and, in this past life, I went to a Bible college program in Brampton, Ontario. Plus, in my free time, I studied what was in the Bible like mad, so I would say that my perspective on Biblical Christian theology is pretty enlightened. Not to toot my own horn, or anything...

Okay, I Googled the words "Jesus" and "Vegetarian", and I got a lot of sites saying that Jesus was a vegetarian. I decided to only comment on the first few results. So, here we go.

Probably the most absurd site I got in my results was this one. They say that Jesus was not only a vegetarian, he was also a "raw-foodist". They then cite the Essene Gospel of Peace to support their claim. I'm sorry, but the Essene Gospel of Peace is apocryphal, if not downright pseudepigraphal. I spent two hours searching for scholarly opinions about it on Google and I can find none. The fact that the only information about it is from Essene sources seems to tell me that the Essene Gospel of Peace is nothing but bullshit. It's not even on the same level of being fake as the Apocryphon of James!

If you examine the evidence as put forth in the only historical accounts of Jesus' life, the Gospels, you will see that Jesus did not advocate raw food at all. Jesus ate bread. The last time I checked, bread had to be cooked.

Now, take a look at this site. It claims that the Bible does not mention Jesus eating meat at all. Well, I distinctly remember Jesus causing Simon Peter to catch an assload of fish not once, but twice. I also remember Jesus multiplying fish and loaves not once, but twice. Jesus also ate fish after his resurrection. Of course, they claim that the fish is a symbol of Christianity, so those passages are symbolic. Symbolic my ass! The fish didn't become a symbol of Christianity until AFTER Jesus died. He never instituted it as a symbol, and in fact fish would have been a staple of his diet. He lived in fucking Galilee, where the Sea of Galilee is located. The ichthus ("Jesus fish") became popular during the various Roman persecutions that took place infrequently. Not only that, but I also remember the Last Supper, which took place on Passover. The last time I checked, lamb was part of the Seder. If these people wish to claim that Jesus did not follow Jewish law as it relates to the Passover, then they had better be able to prove it.

This site also claims that Jesus was an Essene, despite the obvious fact that Jesus never once advocated communal living or property in common. He also routinely dined with rich people, particularly Pharisees and tax collectors. If he was an Essene, he wasn't very good at being one. From what I can gather, the only label you could give Jesus would be "Pharisee", because of his belief in the resurrection, the defining belief of a Pharisee.

Then these people go on to claim that Paul, if he was being consistent with his teachings, was also a vegetarian. They use 1 Corinthians 8:13 to support this argument. I say, "Bullshit!" Do they even know what the context of that verse is? Let's examine what 1 Corinthians 8:1 says:

"Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies."

And, to make sure that the context is inescapably clear, let's look at Verse 4:

"Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one."

Hmm... You know what this says to me? Paul was talking about meat sacrificed to idols. Back in the day, throughout the pagan parts of the Roman Empire, all animals were sacrificed to idols during slaughter. Some early Christians had a problem eating the meat from these animals, because the Old Testament forbade eating meat sacrificed to false gods. However, here, Paul gives a dispensation from that law, and then goes on to say that the early Christians should be careful with this freedom. If someone who does not know as they know sees them eating meat sacrificed to an idol, what would they think? Their faith would be weakened, and they might not become Christian. Paul said that he would never eat meat again if it would cause a Christian to stumble in his faith. There is no evidence that this was actually the case, so this claim is, of course, bullshit.

Then this site goes on to claim that a few Apostles and Jesus' brother, James the Less. They then say that, if James the Less was raised as a vegetarian, then Jesus probably was, as well. First of all, scholars can't even agree on what James the Less' relationship with Jesus was. Secondly, there is absolutely no historical data that supports this. Hearsay from Augustine and Hegisuppus doesn't cut it, especially when you consider that the canon of the New Testament hadn't even been set at that point, and there were a lot of apocryphal gospels floating about. Show me an authenticated letter written by an apostle that says that James the Less, Peter, Paul, and Matthew were vegetarian, or shut the fuck up. Seriously.

The rest of the sites that Google returned were more of the same, including PETA's JesusVeg.com. If you want an article that addresses PETA's claims specifically, Slate has a good one. They addressed all of PETA's claims, even the more absurd ones of Essenes being vegetarians, while I only really addressed the less absurd claims of the whole "Jesus was a vegetarian" school of thought.

Ingrid Newkirk Hates Pit Bulls

For a group that proclaims to love animals, you would think that their love would extend to a breed of dog that is currently being persecuted vis-a-vis "Breed Specific Legislation" (BSL). Specifically, Ingrid has her panties, or knickers, as they are called where she is from, in a knot over pit bulls.

If you were to ask Ingrid if she loves bulldogs, she would probably say that she does, and then recount the time that she was bitten by one as she was trying to "rescue" it. Knowing her closeness with the ALF, I wonder if that "rescue" operation was even legal to begin with... Perhaps the dog didn't feel like it needed to be rescued. If I was a bulldog, I wouldn't want to be "rescued "by PETA, either. Of course, I know that PETA has a policy of euthanasia for the bulldogs they rescue. Don't believe me? Here are some of Ingrid Newkirk's own words on the issue:

"People have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any "pit bull" who comes through the front door goes out the back door -- in a body bag...This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover. ..Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very people who are trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur, or frogs for dissection, supports the pit bull policy..."

"Those who argue against the euthanasia policy for pit bull dogs are naive."

"I have scars on my leg and arm from my own encounter with a pit. Many are loving and will kiss on sight, but many are unpredictable."

"People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own."

"We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note. "

Here's a news flash, you fucking bitch: Dogs are only as good as their owners. You can train any dog to be vicious, and you can train any dog to be docile and loving. It isn't the dog's fault that its owner has decided that he wants an attack dog. An entire breed shouldn't be punished because a few of them are used as attack dogs. Nor should an entire category of breeds.

Anecdotal evidence time: I have a friend. Big shocker, eh? This friend has a pit bull mutt. This dog is one of the friendliest dogs I've ever seen. It is not territorial at all. When I come over infrequently, it jumps on me, knocks me over, and licks me. That's a real malicious dog, eh?

I haven't even gotten to PETA's press release concerning pit bulls, have I? Well, let's examine that. Ingrid Newkirk justifies her position that these dogs should be euthanized because they were bred from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which was designed for bull-baiting. And? Does she have any idea how many breeds of dogs were originally designed for bloodsports (not including legitimate hunting)? Should we euthanize all those dogs, too? Oh, wait. I forgot that PETA hates the idea of pets anyway and wants to see us "admire animals from afar". Well, Ingrid, I've got something you can admire from afar...

Ingrid Newkirk also claims that pit bulls are the most abused class of dogs in America. Well? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's sterilize black people because they are more likely to become single parents! Pit bulls are more likely to be abused, but that shouldn't matter. Instead of endorsing BSL, they should be going after these people who train these dogs to be vicious and who use them in dogfights. Applying a statement that may be true for certain members of the collective to the entire collective amounts to the logical fallacy of Converse Accident. There exist plenty of responsible pit bull owners out there, and pit bulls, when raised properly, are loving and affectionate dogs, Newkirk's own experience nonwithstanding.

In the opening of the press release, Newkirk claims that a growing number of animal shelters have a "zero tolerance" policy concerning pit bulls. They are euthanized as soon as they come in. Well, considering that these are the most often abused dogs, that kind of makes sense. You cannot put a vicious dog up for adoption. It must be destroyed. Also, with the ever growing number of municipalities that have enacted BSL, is it any surprise that these shelters have to destroy the pit bulls that come in?

Newkirk claims to have amassed a small collection of news stories of pit bulls attacking people. Well, it has been my personal experience with pit bulls that they are very nice dogs. In fact, I've been attacked by a dog once that I can remember (I'm told that a dog we had when I was a toddler got jealous of me and bit me, but I don't remember that), and that dog was a dalmatian. It bit me on the head, and I've still got the scar from the attack. In fact, the scar will never go away. I have never been so much as growled at by a pit bull. I have been nuzzled by a pit bull, and I have been licked by a pit bull, but never attacked by one. Maybe Ingrid could do a little math and figure out what the percentage of viscous pit bulls to the entire pit bull population in this country is. Maybe she could do the same for all other medium to large breed dogs, as well. She may be surprised... Pit bulls get more media coverage because they are more popular right now. Did you know that, until recently, it was illegal to import German Shepherds in Australia? Any dog that size can be trained to be vicious. It is senseless to ban a certain breed or class of dogs just because a few pet owners are irresponsible or decide to break the law.

Ingrid's last comment pisses me off royally:

"People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones."

No, you can stop killing pit bulls by enforcing laws already on the books. And some people have a preference as to what kind of breed of dog they want. If you get a purebred dog, you are more likely to be aware of the breed characteristics and you are more likely to find a dog suited to your personality. My mom loves beagles, for example. Beagles are very social animals and love attention. My mom loves giving attention to our beagle. Beagles are also energetic, and my mom loves watching our beagle run around the house (she runs up the back of our couch). I completely understand that some people like mutts. My dad likes mutts. But I also understand that some people like to know what they are getting when they get a puppy, and the best way to do that is to get a purebred. With that said, I encourage responsible breeding, as advised by the American Kennel Club. I also encourage going to breed rescues, if possible. If you don't mind not knowing what your dog's temperament will be like, then, by all means, adopt from your local animal shelter. I also encourage adoption.

Okay, off the rabbit trail. PETA is full of morons. Of course, they do have a point about the animals in shelters, but you shouldn't get on the backs of people who like a particular breed for that. If you want to reduce the number of dogs in shelters, encourage spay/neuter programs. BSL is not the answer, especially if the aim of your organization is to encourage ethical treatment of ALL animals. Is it just me, or is PETA getting a bit Orwellian?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Of course, in the case of PETA, we ARE talking about animals. Seeing as they are quick to claim "specieism" when arguing against using animals in experiments, entertainment, or for food or clothes, shouldn't they be trying to avoid discriminating against certain animals themselves?

Children Chumps

My friend Stephanie brought the PETA propaganda campaign "Chicken Chumps" to my attention, saying that it was probably more damaging than the "Your Mommy Kills Animals" campaign. I Googled the relevant words and, lo and behold, I came upon a news article that explained everything I needed to know.

PETA markets these trading cards that feature a slightly mean-looking boy, a fat girl, a sick girl, and some chickens. Here are what the backs of each card say:

"Sickly Sally":

"Most chickens in stores have germs on them that can make you sick, and often those germs are really just poop! Sally feels awful after eating that poop-covered, germ-filled chicken sandwich. Her head is pounding, her stomach hurts, and she can’t get out of bed without throwing up."

"Cruel Kyle":

"Kyle is mean because he scarfs down legs, wings, and bony things. The chickens he eats live in big sheds, where they can’t breathe fresh air or feel the warm sun. Bored to death, they have to sit all day in their poop and pee with no room to move. When they grow up, their throats are cut with a big knife. Help these chickies: Say “no, thanks” to chicken sandwiches or chicken anything. Tell your friends, too!"

"Tubby Tammy":

"Chicken doesn’t have any fiber at all and is packed with fat and cholesterol. Eating buckets of fingerlickin’, grease-drippin’ drumsticks, nuggets, and wings has made Tammy’s tummy so big that she can barely button her pants—and she has to use a bungee cord for a belt!"

"Feathered Friends":

"Scientists who study chicken intelligence say that chickens are as smart as dogs or cats. They form friendships and remember each other. Some have lots of friends and others prefer to be by themselves. They love their families, want to spend time with them, and don’t want to be eaten any more than you do."

Well, I've been searching Google for hours, and I can't find a single scientific study where they said that chickens were as smart as cats or dogs. I did see an article on Science NetLinks that mentioned chicken intelligence in passing, saying that parrots were much smarter than chickens. I searched AnimalScam.com as well, and I couldn't find anything. If anyone can find something about chicken intelligence, I'll amend this article to reflect that. But I think that PETA is utilizing their usual strategy, which is talking out of their ass.

Now, let's address "Tubby Tammy". I have the biggest problem with this card. Have these PETA nutjobs forgotten what grade school is like for fat kids? Don't they have enough problems? Especially girls. Of course, who am I to think for even a moment that PETA gives a shit about these kids? All they care about is spreading their radical ideology to whoever they can.

Not only that, but does it really matter whether or not chicken has any fibre? The last time I checked, the meat and protein food group wasn't where you were supposed to be getting your fibre anyway. It's the grain group and the vegetable group that supply one's dietary fibre.

Onward, to "Cruel Kyle". PETA is trying to paint every single person who eats chicken as "mean". Bullshit. You know what's mean? Taking another kid's lunch money. Shoving a kid in a locker. Ostracizing someone. That is mean. Eating chicken can hardly compare. The best PETA could possibly say is "apathetic", or "indifferent". But, again, since when did PETA give a shit about rationality?

Finally, we arrive at "Sickly Sally". PETA again shows its utter disregard for facts by claiming that whatever germs are on chicken are really just shit. Microbes and shit are two different things, although shit is a breeding ground for microbes. PETA bases this claim on a USDA study that found E. Coli on 98% of the chicken carcasses it studied. The thing that PETA doesn't consider is that E. coli levels are used to test fecal contamination in WATER, not meat, and that E. coli is not a fecal bacteria. According to Wikipedia, E. coli also grows well in other environments, like paper mills. Hey, maybe our nation's paper mills are contaminated with shit!

Ah, I love the smell of bullshit in the morning...

PETA and Homeland Security

I have come to a conclusion: Ingrid Newkirk is fucking nuts, and not the "Let's go drive the people at Walgreens fucking nuts" kind of nuts. The OTHER kind of nuts. She must be. Anyone who honestly believes that the Dept. of Homeland Security is anything like McCarthy or the House Un-American Activities Committee is fucking insane. Note to PETA: The FBI and Homeland Security are both interested in you because you trade members with the ALF/ELF, your leadership has advocated terrorism in the past and they encourage it now, you gave the ELF money in 2001, and you refuse to distance yourself from the terrorism that occurs in the name of your ideology. If you were supporting international terrorism, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Your 501(c)3 status would have been taken away and your leadership would probably be in jail.

Anyhow, Ingrid Newkirk seems to think that the Dept. of Homeland Security is the new Un-American Activities Committee, and she has warned PETA members not to talk to either the FBI or Homeland Security. Newkirk was quite paranoid in her warning, saying that the FBI was looking into the entire animal rights movement. Well, there is no evidence that they are, and, in fact, an agent even told me that they aren't. However, they should. I, for one, would love to know just where the hell Farm Sanctuary gets all their animals, despite the fact that they turn away most animals from above ground sources, and send them to smaller farm sanctuaries like OohMahNee Farm. Farm Sanctuary was the mouthpiece of the ALF until PETA took on those responsibilities in 1989... I smell something funny here.

Now, I don't know what the present strategy of the FBI or of Homeland Security is, but domestic terrorism needs to be addressed. It seems as if domestic terrorism is like the redheaded stepchild of our homeland security policy. I mean, we're so worried about protecting our country from outside invaders, we neglect to keep an eye on the people among us who would wish to do us harm simply because they don't agree with our lifestyle. Granted, there isn't much they can do about domestic terrorism, due to the First Amendment, but I'm sure that there are some things they could do. They could sanction those who give the terrorists money, for example.

Anyhow, getting back on track, Ingrid Newkirk was quoted as saying, "As you may know, the FBI has a massive current investigation into the ALF and ELF and, by default, as with McCarthyism, into the entire animal rights community," in 2003. Does she have any fucking idea what McCarthyism is? Investigating groups that trade members with the ALF/ELF and SHAC (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty) is not McCarthyism. It is running a criminal investigation. If Ingrid Newkirk doesn't like the fact that the FBI and Homeland Security routinely investigate her organization, then maybe she should cut ties with the terrorists, publicly denounce terrorism, and come clean about the $1500 that PETA gave the ELF (I called PETA this morning and they said they would get back to me with answers. So far, no call.. Next time I call, I am going to lie through my teeth if I have to). McCarthyism involves putting pressure on someone or a group of people to conform to prevailing political beliefs. It does not involve investigating criminals and those that associate with criminals. Ingrid, there are a couple of wonderful websites that you should check out before you start misusing words again. Ever hear of Dictionary.com? How about Wikipedia?

Seriously, when you are a member of an organization whose president tells you not to cooperate with federal authorities investigating terrorism, to willfully obstruct investigations designed to make this country more safe, that should tell you something about the moral bankruptcy of that organization. Of course, this won't cross the mind of the average PETA member, because PETA preaches that the ends justify the means.

Holy Fucking Shit!!!

I head heard about PETA's "Your Mommy Kills Animals" (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) propaganda campaign, which targets children, but I never was able to look at the leaflet they had distributed. Until now, that is...

The cover of the pamphlet says this:

"Your Mommy Kills Animals"

"Animals were killed for the fur coat that your mommy has on her back"

"Ask your mommy... how many animals she killed to make her fur coat? The sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner animals will be safe."

"Visit furisdead.com for more info."

The cover has a picture of what looks like a Stepford wife from the 1950s killing a rabbit with a hunting knife.

This is what the other side says:

"Do you have a puppy you take for walks or play ball with? Or a kitty who likes to chase string? Everyone knows that it's fun to love and play with out animal friends."

"But how would you feel if someone took away your kitty or puppy, stomped on their head, and ripped their skin off their bodies?"

"It would make you feel sad, wouldn't it? Why would anyone be so mean? But there are terrible people who cause our furry friends to die that way every day. And guess what? One of those terrible people is your mommy. Your mommy kills animals! I bet you didn't know that."

"Lots of wonderful foxes, raccoons, and other animals are kept by mean farmers who squish them into cages so small that they can hardly move. They never get to play or swim or have fun. All they can do is cry -- just so your greedy mommy can have that fur coat to show off in when she walks in the streets."

"In the forest, nasty men in boots catch animals with traps that have metal claws that snap shut on animals' legs. Ouch! Some animals bite off their own paws to get away! Mommy foxes do this because they want to get back to their babies to feed them, but they usually die anyway and their babies slowly starve to death, scared and all alone. Trapped animals who don't escape from the traps get stomped to death by the nasty men. Ask your mommy how many dead animals she killed to make her fur clothes. Then tell her that you know she paid men to hurt and kill the animals. Everyone knows. And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner the animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy -- she's an animal killer!"

The pictures on the inside feature raccoons and foxes in cages, and then the carcass of a skinned animal.

Honestly, after pulling a stunt like this, PETA has lost whatever moral authority they thought they had. Targeting propaganda at children is wrong, and it is even worse to try to undermine the mother-child relationship. The leadership of PETA deserve a particularly warm place in hell, and I, for one, have no moral issues with sending them there. If a PETA member ever tried to give this shit to my kid, I would put them in the fucking hospital and then sue PETA.

I like one idea that I saw in another blog. No, I'm not talking about firebombing PETA, even though that is the name of this blog. I am talking about this:

"I'm thinking a bunch of us could stand outside PETA members' homes, and hand flyers to their children that say "Your Mommy Destroys Families." Or even "Your mommy thinks comic books are educational." Now that would be effective, eh?"

Seriously, I think that we should do it. PETA keeps a database of its membership somewhere. How hard could it be to find it, download it, and disseminate the information to anti-PETA activists all over the country?

Of course, you must remember that I don't condone illegal activity, but, if you were to e-mail me a copy of PETA's membership database, I would make sure that it was put to good use, and I wouldn't ask any questions as to where it came from...

Why Am I Doing This?

A friend of mine asked me why I am going after groups like PETA. She asked me if I thought I was going overboard. I told her that I didn't think so, because PETA, and groups like it, get away with just a little less than murder.

That is my main reason. Another one of my reasons is this: The animal rights movement is growing among teenagers. The last thing we need is a bunch of idealistic teenagers who will happily drink PETA's Kool-Aid. The last thing we need is for PETA to turn our young people into terrorists (the profile of an animal rights/environmental terrorist is a 17-25 year old Caucasian male or female). The last thing we need is medical research being outlawed or tightly restricted because the lunatic fringe has lied and deceived itself into the mainstream. That is why I do this. That is why I am willing to go after PETA, whatever the cost.

And Now, For Something Completely Different: The Humane Society of the United States

Today I am shifting gears and targeting another animal rights organization that needs to be eliminated: The Humane Society of the United States. "But I got my pet cat from a humane society. Why would you want to eliminate them?" you may ask. Well, the HSUS and your local humane society are two different organizations. When you give money to the HSUS, your local humane society may not receive any of that money. It all goes to fund "animal protection", which is HSUS newspeak for animal rights. Don't believe me? Here is a list of animal rights related donations as recorded on their IRS from 990 for FY 2002:

Farm Sanctuary -- $5000
Lega Anti Vivisezione -- $8432
Animal Rights 2002 -- $3000
Northwest Animal Rights Network -- $1000
Physicians for Responsible Medicine (AKA The Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine, or PCRM, a PETA puppet group) -- $100.00
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA, the granddaddy of all animal rights wacko groups) -- $100.00
Animal Voice -- $50.00
Ligue Francaise des Droits de l'Animal (The French League for Animal Rights) -- $2738

This may not seem like a lot, but remember: the people who donate to the HSUS believe that their money is going to fight for animal welfare. I highly doubt that sending $8400 to an Italian group that is against using animals in medical research would be in line with their ideals. I also doubt that sending money to a group that the American Medical Association (AMA) calls a "fringe organization that uses “unethical tactics” and is “interested in perverting medical science” would be something they would want to do, either. Did you know that the PCRM as been formally censured by the AMA, and that the censure still stands today? Do you know how often that happens? Almost never.

The HSUS is an organization with a noble heritage. However, that heritage has been left in the dust by the animal rights wackos that control it. Currently, the HSUS is living off of the perception that it is an umbrella organization for all the local humane societies in the country. But, they are using money that is donated to them to fund animal rights groups and to pursue an animal rights agenda. Did you know that the HSUS is against animal dissection for high school students? This should be something that isn't left open to debate. Dissection is a vital part of biology curriculum, so if a student takes a biology class, they should be required to do the dissections that are part of that curriculum, unless it goes against their religious beliefs.

Anyhow, that's my little rant about the HSUS...

The Story of Howard Baker, DVM

PETA has found its new Bobby Berosini. In June of 1997, PETA accused Dr. Baker of cruelty, using heavily edited tapes and a written statement from one of their own operatives as "evidence" to that fact. They now have a new false and deceptive "victory" to masturbate over while the victims of their deception are left to wonder what they are going to do now.

This operative, Michelle Rokke, was working in Baker's clinic while waiting to go undercover at a nearby medical research facility. Rokke claimed that she saw animals being abused on her second day of work, but continued to work there for 10 months without making a single complaint about the alleged mistreatment. You know what she was doing? She was using a camera hidden in her backpack to take over 200 hours of video footage from June 1996-April 1997. She then gave the tape to PETA, who managed to edit it down to three minutes, and the edited video managed to mail itself to several media outlets (PETA denies disseminating the video to the media). You know what happened next? The Bakers started receiving harassing phone calls. People threatened to kill them. They were confronted with public accusations of animal cruelty. Responding to pressure from activists, local law enforcement filed animal cruelty charges. Baker was convicted of animal cruelty in 1999, and lost his license to practice veterinary medicine, after 20 years without so much as a censure on his record.

Needless to say, Baker appealed the decision. He won on appeal, and his license was reinstated. The New Jersey Superior Court justice who overturned the conviction said that the operative who infiltrated Dr. Baker's practice was to closely affiliated with PETA, and that her testimony was not credible. Here is what the judge wrote:

"I cannot find that Michelle Rokae(sp) is a credible witness such as to be the reed on which the State has built this case. ... Her bias was amply set forth in the record. She candidly admitted that she saw animal abuse where others may not. She has made a career of her devotion not to animal welfare but to animal rights."

Following his victory, Dr. Baker filed suit against PETA and Rokke for malicious prosecution. Rokke put on an emotional display and cried as she swore that she felt that what she was witnessing was animal abuse. Despite witnesses that refuted her claims of cruelty, the jury bought every word of it. They failed to see how these accusations had destroyed Dr. Baker's life due to their maliciousness. The problem is that the law in this case is too subjective. New Jersey law does not see maliciousness if the accuser believes the accusations to be true. You know what that means? All you people in New Jersey can make all the false accusations you want, so long as you can convince a jury that you believe them to be true. Also, this means that an animal rights extremist can bring animal cruelty charges against veterinarians and entertainers simply because they don't agree with the practice.

PETA has a history of doing this (see "Berosini", below). They have a history of hiding behind the First Amendment by having operatives lie to gain employment at target institutions, sneak around with hidden cameras, and use the results of their amateur espionage, with the help of a PowerMac and Apple's Final Cut Pro, to condemn people and projects that they disagree with. Then they hide behind "freedom of expression" to avoid being held accountable for the damage they do.

Read more about this case here.

The Story of Bobby Berosini

If you are around PETA enough, you will eventually hear about Bobby Berosini. Here is PETA's version of what exactly happened, and the court battle that ensued:

"PETA distributed an undercover video showing Las Vegas entertainer Bobby Berosini beating orangutans with a metal rod. The U.S. Department of the Interior revoked Berosini's captive-bred wildlife permit, making it illegal for Berosini to buy or sell orangutans. "

Now, here is what actually happened, as recorded in this article written by Ward M. Clark:

Perhaps the most egregious incidents of an AR group's resorting to harassment, personal attack, and deceit, is found in the case of PeTA's attack on Las Vegas entertainer and orangutan trainer Bobby Berosini. Bobby Berosini is perhaps best known as the trainer of the orangutan Clyde, who starred alongside Clint Eastwood in the movie, Every Which Way But Loose. Before and after that film, Bobby and his performing orangutans have been a fixture in the Las Vegas entertainment scene.

The story of Berosini vs. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is indeed a story of abuse; abuse on the part of PeTA, abuse of the legal system, intimidation, deceit, and personal attack, all unwarranted, all unfounded, all based on nothing more than hatred.

The case began in July of 1989, when Bobby Berosini was performing at Las Vegas' Stardust Hotel. One Ottavio Gesmundo, a dancer at the Stardust, videotaped Bobby Berosini before the show; the tape purported to show abuse of the oranges on the part of Mr. Berosini. However, PeTA omits several crucial details. First, let's look at a timeline of relevant events:

1987: Representatives of PeTA and the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) met in Las Vegas to discuss the use of animals in entertainment. A local PeTA activist, Linda Levine, represented PETA. PAWS was represented by its president, Pat Derby. At this meeting, Levine and Derby allegedly solicited help from Dart Anthony, then the president of the Humane Society of Southern Nevada. After learning that PeTA and PAWS wished to "create problems for entertainers who used animals in shows on the Las Vegas Strip (Bobby Berosini was mentioned by name, as were Siegfried and Roy.) Anthony, to his credit, refused.

Spring 1989: PeTA staffers decide on a fund-raising campaign based on "animals in entertainment." Bobby Berosini was named as a possible target.

It was no coincidence that, about this time, Bobby Berosini began to have problems backstage at the Stardust. Dancers, including the aforementioned Gesmundo, began to harass the orangutans. Shouting, imitating animal noises, and even waving torches used in their act, all acts intended to stir up and intimidate the orangutans.

Orangutans, while normally gentle and retiring animals, are extremely powerful -- on the order of 3-5 times as powerful as an adult male human! Bobby Berosini, after the better part of a lifetime spent working with orangutans, knows the danger signs that indicate an animal is becoming agitated; to avoid what could have been an extremely dangerous situation, he was required to keep tight control of the apes. Gesmundo's plan? Videotape Bobby getting control of the agitated orangs; the tape was to be used in PeTA's attack/fund raising effort.

In June 1989, the Stardust declined to renew Gesmundo's contract. With limited time left to accomplish his mission, Gesmundo stepped up his pace, and meanwhile was secretly videotaping the pre-show events. By this time, Gesmundo had likewise stepped up his harassment of the orangs; unsubstantiated information later brought to light implicated repeated contacts between PeTA staffers and Gesmundo, as well as some of the other dancers. During this time, Gesmundo began his "undercover" videotaping.

Indeed, it becomes apparent that PeTA was involved during the whole fiasco. The timing of the backstage harassment of the apes, the meeting between PAWS and PeTA leaders in Las Vegas, the timing of the campaign -- it truly strains credulity to claim all were coincidental.

The incident came to a head on the night of July 17, 1989, after Gesmundo was fired from the Stardust. Witnesses overheard Gesmundo talking about the "tapes" and was also heard to admit he had edited the tapes, and added his own sounds.

PeTA received Gesmundo's "tapes" the next day, and the fund-raising efforts began immediately. Both organizations, PeTA and PAWS, set up "surveillance" -- read that harassment -- of the Berosini home. Meanwhile, PeTA, anticipating legal action, agreed to pay Gesmundo's legal fees, if necessary -- they later did precisely that.

Following the initial media blitz, Bobby Berosini announced that PeTA was welcome to inspect his orangutans and their housing -- two members of the Nevada SPCA did so, and informed PeTA that there were in fact "no signs of abuse," and requested that PeTA cease their attacks. PeTA not only ignored the testimony of the SPCA members, they also refused to visit the Berosini home for themselves. One wonders why? Perhaps their allegations of abuse would be refuted, were they to see the animals themselves?

As a result of PeTA's relentless attacks, Bobby Berosini filed a defamation suit against PeTA in August of 1989. The case went to trial in 1990. The verdict? In August 1990, after 29 days of hearing evidence, the jury unanimously found PETA guilty of Defamation and Misappropriation of Name, Likeness and Character. They awarded Berosini damages of $4.2 million.

PeTA appealed; in 1994 the decision was overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court. The statement of the Court claimed that PeTA "had the right to voice an opinion." PeTA was awarded costs and legal fees.

The appeal case, however, was fraught with irregularities. The decision cited statements from Mrs. Berosini that did not appear in court transcripts; the opinion cited witnesses who never testified during the trial. One of the Supreme Court judges was later found to be an active member of a local animal rights group; he was later removed from the case. However, in May of 1995 the court reaffirmed the decision, although later striking the attorney fees from the award.

Following a comprehensive inspection of the Berosini's facility and orangs, the USDA issued a report in August 1989 that there were no signs of any abuse. PeTA immediately went on the offensive, issuing a fund-raising letter with the headline, "BEROSINI BUSTED." PeTA continues to use this theme up to the time of this writing, in spite of the fact that Bobby Berosini has been cleared of all charges of abuse, and independent inspections revealed no signs of any abuse or neglect.

On June 13, 2000, I [Ward M. Clark, the author of this article] went to the PeTA World Wide Web site, and perused their published claims about the Berosini case. On that date, the PeTA Web site claimed the following:

"PETA distributed an undercover video showing Las Vegas entertainer Bobby Berosini beating orangutans with a metal rod. The U.S. Department of the Interior revoked Berosini's captive-bred wildlife permit, making it illegal for Berosini to buy or sell orangutans." [article here]

None of the above is true.

No metal rod was involved. USDA's temporary revocation of the Berosini's permit was due to a change in regulations, not due to any allegation of abuse; the permit was later renewed.

PeTA continues:

"There's a lesson here for any entertainers who still feel that beating up on animals is a way to make a living," said PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, "Berosini kept intelligent apes locked in solid steel boxes for four decades, he needs to go to jail, although even that won't begin to settle the score."

"The video shows a pattern of abusive treatment." [article here]

Bobby Berosini's apes do not, and never did, live in "solid steel boxes." That statement is a blatant falsehood.

The video was heavily edited; PeTA has a history of such "creative" effort.

In the interest of truth, I have done what PeTA refused to do. On April 22, 2000, I personally visited Bobby Berosini at his home in Las Vegas. Accompanying me was my wife, Dawn, who holds a degree in Animal Science from Virginia Tech. Dawn also worked for the Garden City, Kansas, municipal zoo as a keeper, with responsibility for primate care. In all modesty, between the two of us, we possess some small knowledge of animals and their behavior.

We spent roughly two and one half hours visiting with the Berosinis and their young female orangutan, Katie.

Bobby Berosini spoke passionately of his views of personal freedom, of his early escape from a Communist dictatorship, of his ideals of what America can represent as a free nation, composed of free people, of the individual rights that America stands for. How ironic that Bobby is now the victim of an organization that is an vehemently anti-freedom as any Stalinist, as fiercely repressive as any dictator could ever hope to be. What's worse, during the course of our visit, it swiftly became apparent how baseless the claims of the PeTA video were.

Far from the "solid steel boxes" that PeTA so arrogantly claims, the Berosini orangs in fact have their own large, comfortable enclosure behind the Berosini home, including a large open-air run. Katie is a gentle, charming young lady. The only behavioral cues she exhibited around Bobby Berosini were affection and a desire for attention. Katie is obviously happy, content, loved, and well cared for. PeTA could have seen this for themselves, but refused. Why?

To put it bluntly, no person with even an elementary knowledge of animals and animal behavior could make a serious claim of any sort of abuse after a visit to the Berosini home. But then& PeTA refused the offer of a tour. Why?

Bobby Berosini is a remarkable man -- an escapee from a Communist nation at an early age, the son of a multi-generation family of entertainers; his love for his animals is obvious and profound, the orangutans are, in Bobby's eyes, members of his family. PeTA couldn't be bothered to accept an invitation to the Berosini home to see this for themselves. Why?

PeTA later petitioned a court to "prove" their allegations of abuse. Their request was for a court order to have a veterinarian peel back the skin of the orangs, to reveal subcutaneous bruising. This would have very likely resulted in the deaths of the apes. Bobby Berosini was horrified; fortunately, so was the judge, stating that he was not about to "order abuse to prove abuse." The request was dismissed, "with prejudice." PeTA was oblivious. Why?

In another attempt in the courts, PeTA attempted to wrest custody of the apes from the Berosinis, and to thus remove them from the only home they've known, from their family who loves them. What would have become of the apes after that? Who knows? PeTA apparently had no plan. Just the removal of the orangs from their fabricated allegations of abuse" was enough justification for PeTA. The welfare of the orangs was of little concern. Why?

http://www.frombearcreek.com/Berosini.htm

Now, if that isn't hiding behind the First Amendment to get away with slander and libel, I don't know what is. And PETA has done it again, as I will talk about in my next article. I don't believe in coincidences, folks. Especially when it comes to groups that have a history of dishonesty and propaganda.

Mr. Clark, please don't sue me.

PETA and terrorists

Guess what, folks? PETA supports terrorism. Don't believe me? Check out their IRS Form 990 from FY 2000 (you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the file). They recorded a $1500 donation to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF, who, along with their sister group the Animal Liberation Front, or ALF, the FBI considers to be the most active domestic terrorist group in the country). The explanation on PETA's IRS Form 990 says "to support their program activities", which was what every single donation made in FY 2000 was for. I smell poor record keeping. Anyhow, what program activities could that money possibly support? Arson? The ELF is an illegal organization. All of their program activities are illegal. PETA should lose their 501(c)3 status for this, and the PETA leadership should be thrown in jail. But the FBI can't do anything because PETA hides behind the First Amendment. A while ago, in 2002, there was a debate about this donation, but, obviously, nothing came of it. PETA is still a 501(c)3 organization.

PETA hasn't only given money to terrorist organizations. They have also paid for the criminal defence of terrorists, sometimes illegally, and they have given money to terrorists for no apparent reason. They paid nearly $70,000 to ALF arsonist Rodney Coranado in 1998, for example. They later paid for his criminal defence after her was arrested for firebombing a Michigan State University research facility. When ALF operative Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted, PETA not only paid his legal fees, which amounted to $27,000, but also his fine, which was $34,900. Gary Thorud, a PETA whistleblower, testified under oath that PETA was "illegally funding this individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid [Newkirk] was using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000 on the case." (Berosini v. PETA)

Now, let's take a look at what PETA spokespeople have said when it comes to terrorism:

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animal cause." (Alex Pacheco, President of PETA at the time, and it's co-founder, 1989)

"We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front...They act courageously, risking their freedom and their careers to stop the terror inflicted every day on animals in the labs. [ALF's activities] comprise an important part of today's animal protection movement." (a 1991 PETA statement concerning ALF violence in the Pacific Northwest)

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win." (Dan Matthews, celebrity recruiter for PETA, 1991)

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down." (Ingrid Newkirk President and co-founder of PETA, 1997)

"When I hear of anyone walking into a lab and walking out with animals, my heart sings." (Ingrid Newkirk, 1992)

And this gem:
“

"If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." (Bruce Friedrich, PETA's Vegan Campaign Coordinator, 2001)

Now, I have talked to lawyers, and they have assured me that if I said things like what these people say, and someone attacked a PETA facility or started harassing their leadership after reading what I had said, I would be royally fucked, legally speaking. Yet these people are able to encourage and fund terrorism and then hide behind the First Amendment. Why is that?

So, what can you do? Lobby your Congressional representative and your Senators, and raise some hell with them. Letter writing is especially effective. File complaints with Homeland Security and the IRS about PETA's little "gift" to the ELF. Sending money to terrorists should be illegal. Help make it illegal.

LEGAL NOTICE

I don't condone illegal activity. If you decide to engage in illegal activity against PETA or similar organizations, you do so independent of me and at your own risk. Unlike PETA, I do not encourage terrorism and then try to hide behind the First Amendment. Despite anything I may say on this blog, and despite how much we all know PETA deserves it, vigilante justice is not justice at all. If you are really pissed off, contact your Senators or Congressional representative. DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. We are better than them, and we cannot stoop to their level. If you participate in any criminal activity against PETA, you deserve to go to prison, and you deserve the resulting human booster shot from a guy named "Molly".