Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Corruption in Good Ol North Carolina?

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Corruption in “Good Ol” North Carolina?

 

 

 

PETA has been involved with trying to improve animal welfare conditions

in parts of North Carolina for some time. A few years ago PETA launched

a campaign against Yadkin County officials who continuously ignored “the

dire living—and dying—conditions for the unwanted animals whose care and

custody they are charged with”. PETA went public with their concerns

causing Yadkin officials to receive numerous letters of concern. This

angered Yadkin officials and they refused PETA’s help to build a

shelter. Instead they took $15,000 for a shelter from a sleazy lobbyist

and front group for the tobacco, restaurant, alcohol and meat industries

called The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). CCF has been attacking

PETA for years calling the organization “terrorists”. CCF is also the

outfit behind the “petakills” website. It is very confusing why Yadkin

County, NC refused PETA’s money for animal welfare improvement but took

The Center for Consumer Freedom’s (which hates PETA) money. Since when

does a lobbyist who represents industries such as tobacco, meat, alcohol

and restaurants care about animal welfare? Has there been an accurate

accounting of how Yadkin county officials used all the donations they

received to build the shelter? What is even stranger is the behavior of

the media not only in the USA and Canada but abroad. They are

interviewing CCF for articles regarding animal welfare. Makes you

wonder, is there some collaboration and corruption going on between the

“good ol’ boys”; CCF and some North Carolina officials?

 

For PETA’s work regarding Yadkin County, North Carolina, please read

below

<http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin> http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin

Despite the efforts of the local humane society and animal advocates

throughout the U.S., Yadkin County officials continue to ignore the dire

living—and dying—conditions for the unwanted animals whose care and

custody they are charged with. Commissioners don’t seem to consider

their county’s unwanted animals as worthy of anything more than the

county landfill adjacent to the animal shelter.

Many of you remember lending your voices to the lost, stray, and

abandoned animals of Yadkin County, North Carolina. Complaints about the

county “shelter”—a dilapidated collection of cramped wire-and-wood cages

with metal roofs offering little to no protection from the elements—have

been flooding PETA’s headquarters for years. These animals still need

your help.

 

<http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/page/ys20-hi.jpg> PETA and many

concerned citizens have attempted—in vain—to help Yadkin County improve

the deplorable conditions at its shelter. In 1996, county officials

rejected an offer to pay the difference in cost between intravenous

injections (the most humane method of euthanasia) and the gas chamber.

In May 2002, after receiving increased pressure from PETA and local

residents, Yadkin County commissioners finally voted to put $75,000

toward the construction of a new shelter if the community could raise an

additional $75,000. PETA offered to donate $15,000 toward the

construction of the shelter if the county would ensure that certain

humane standards were met. The commissioners never bothered to respond

directly to PETA (but Commissioner Thomas Wooten had the audacity to

tell the media that the offer was “not as much as [he] would have liked”

and that each of PETA’s 750,000 members should be willing to donate $1!

And in January 2003, commissioners turned down an offer by the Humane

Society of the United States (HSUS) to visit the shelter and make

suggestions for improvements for free. Why? County Manager Cecil Wood

told the local paper, the Elkin Tribune, “We’re already aware of the

problems we have over there. We’re focusing on a new shelter.”

 

<http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/page/ys21-hi.jpg> It is now nearly a

year later, and nothing has changed for the needy animals in Yadkin

County. Not only has a new shelter not been built, little if any effort

is being made to find land to build it on, either! And the animals are

paying the price, often with their lives.

 

Animals at the shelter are killed in a crude, windowless metal box

pumped full of carbon monoxide. Even adequate carbon monoxide equipment

can fail, subjecting fully conscious animals to the horror of watching

and hearing others struggle and suffer as they succumb to the fumes. But

makeshift chambers, like the one used by Yadkin County, are virtually

guaranteed to subject animals to suffering and to a prolonged, agonizing

death. PETA is told—and

<http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=yadkin_county> video

footage confirms—that animals are crammed into the box one on top of

another and that live animals are thrown in, layer after layer, on top

of dead and dying ones. A shelter employee allegedly once bragged about

being able to stuff more than 80 animals into the tiny “kill box” at

once.

 

<http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/pdf/Yadkin%20County%20stats.pdf>

Yadkin County’s Annual Animal Control Report for January 1, 2003,

through October 11, 2003, shows that out of 1,933 animals killed, only

four puppies and four kittens were euthanized by a veterinarian. This

means that the rest of the animals—including the old, young, and sick

ones, who are particularly susceptible to gas-related trauma because

they breathe and circulate oxygen and other gases differently than

healthy adult animals—were crammed into and died inside the chamber that

has been used to kill animals at the shelter for years. (News reports

indicate that Yadkin County commissioners have spent nearly $7,000 on a

new gas chamber, which they refuse to hook up until a new shelter is

built. So the new chamber sits unused.)

 

<http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/page/ys28-hi.jpg> Yadkin County budget

reports for 2001 through 2003 show that not one cent was slated to be

spent on training for the animal control staff or on veterinary fees.

One complainant wrote to PETA to say that on one occasion, an adult dog

had " a large flap of skin and muscle [lying] down over his left hip,

exposing bone. He lay from Wednesday until Friday on kill day. He had

numerous other wounds, and the hip injury was teeming with maggots. "

PETA's file on Yadkin County is full of similar heartbreaking accounts.

 

The General Statutes of North Carolina, specifically § 130A-192, state

that impounded animals who are not reclaimed can only be destroyed by “a

procedure approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the

Humane Society of the United States [HSUS], or … the American Humane

Association [AHA].”

 

The AVMA panel states that “inhalant agents [should] not be used alone

in animals less than 16 weeks old except to induce loss of

consciousness, followed by the use of some other method to kill the

animal.”

 

The HSUS states, “It is unacceptable to use [carbon monoxide] for the

euthanasia of dogs and cats who are … [o]ld …; nder the age of four

months; ick or injured; or ([o]bviously) pregnant.”

The AHA considers euthanasia by injection of sodium pentobarbital to be

“the only acceptable method for euthanasia of dogs and cats in animal

shelters” and states, “American Humane considers the use of any other

lethal method for dogs and cats in animal shelters unacceptable,

including use of carbon monoxide ...”

The AVMA also specifies in its panel that when carbon monoxide is used,

the “chamber must be of the highest quality construction and should

allow for separation of individual animals … [and] the chamber must be

well lit and have view ports that allow personnel direct observation of

animals …,” neither of which is followed by Yadkin County.

Moreover, Yadkin County has a mandatory kill policy, prohibiting

adoptions, supposedly because of a fear of rabies. However, the county

dedicates no resources to enforcing North Carolina law requiring that

animals be vaccinated against rabies. The excuse? Money, which, of

course, would be collected if violators of the state rabies law were

fined as warranted!

Conditions for animals before they are destroyed are equally cruel. The

rundown structure that animals are housed in offers little to no

protection from harsh wind, freezing or scorching temperatures, rain,

and snow and more often than not is covered in urine and feces. Small,

weak animals are housed in cages with aggressive large animals, who

bully the smaller animals and prevent them from eating or drinking. Food

bowls are not used at the facility, so food is simply thrown on the

ground, contaminated by feces, urine, dirt, and water, creating a

disgusting health hazard for the animals. The water buckets provided for

the animals appear to be too tall for small dogs to reach, and the water

is often foul and black with

<http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/page/ys32-hi.jpg> mold and filth. Cats

are forced to sit on <http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/page/ys20-hi.jpg>

wire in small cages.

On November 4, 2003, Yadkin County Humane Society President Alice Singh

spoke to the House Interim Committee on the Prevention and Disposition

of Unwanted and Abandoned Companion Animals in Raleigh—formed last

August by the Honorable Speakers of the North Carolina House of

Representatives to address the overpopulation crisis and related issues

in the state—about dire conditions at the Yadkin County shelter. Singh

shared with committee members heart-wrenching photos of the facility,

and graphic video footage of

<http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_

BasicArticle & c=MGArticle & cid=1031771937087 & rendermode=preview & path=!loca

lnews!stategov & s=1037645509153> gas killings shot in 1997 (the same gas

box is still in use) by a North Carolina School of the Arts student. The

following day, County Manager Cecil Wood advised humane society members

that they were no longer welcome to use the county planning building for

their

<http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common/MGArticle/P

rintVersion & c=MGArticle & cid=1031771963516 & oasDN=journalnow.com & oasPN=!lo

calnews & image=wsj80x60.gif> monthly meetings as they had been doing for

nine months. The humane society is the only hope that these animals

have.

Please help. Commissioners must get their heads out of the sand and

immediately improve the deplorable conditions that the animals have and

continue to be subjected to right now. Construction of a shelter hasn’t

even begun and won’t be completed overnight once it does. There’s a long

list of <http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/change.html> simple things

that the county can and must do to make the shelter comply with minimum

national standards.

Please contact Yadkin County commissioners and urge them to stop

shirking their legal, moral, and financial responsibilities to their

county’s lost, abandoned, and unwanted animals. Ask that they provide

these animals with the least they deserve: a painless, peaceful death

administered by a licensed veterinarian at least until caring

individuals can be trained. Please push for immediate improvements to be

made at the current facility. Animals shouldn’t have to wait for

fundraising and construction efforts before having their basic needs

met.

Yadkin County Commissioners

Cecil Wood, County Manager

Yadkin County Commission

P.O. Box 146

Yadkinville, NC 27055

336-679-4200

336-679-6005 (fax)

<cwood cwood

Roger Evans, Commissioner

6052 Aquilla Creek Rd.

East Bend, NC 27018

336-699-3261

Kim Clark Phillips, Commissioner

1139 Knoll Dr.

Yadkinville, NC 27055

336-463-4590

Allen Sneed, Commissioner

2511 Rockford Rd.

Yadkinville, NC 27055

336-961-2600

D.C. Swaim, Commissioner

2553 Swan Creek Rd.

Jonesville, NC 28642

336-835-5736

Brady Wooten, Commissioner

3540 Arnold Rd.

Hamptonville, NC 27020

336-468-8626

James Graham, County Attorney

P.O. Box 625

Yadkinville, NC 27055

336-679-8082

Please keep all correspondence and calls polite. Thank you.

For information about The Center for Consumer Freedom, please read

below.

<http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/ddam.html>

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/ddam.html

ConsumerFreedom.org: Tobacco Money Takes on Activist Cash

by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

Full page advertisements in Newsweek magazine are expensive, so who

footed the bill for an attack ad aimed at Greenpeace that ran in the

January 28 issue? The Center for Consumer Freedom, which produced the

ad, isn't saying.

At first glance, with its photo of a diving whale in the ocean, the ad

looked like it might have been placed by Greenpeace itself--until, that

is, you read the nasty quote from Patrick Moore, identified as a

" Greenpeace Co-Founder, " calling his former colleagues " a band of

scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics. "

The advertisement featured a web address,

<http://www.ConsumerFreedom.com> www.ConsumerFreedom.com, which belongs

to the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). Like the advertisement itself,

the name is misleading. CCF doesn't represent consumers. It's just the

new name for lobbyist Rick Berman's latest front group.

Until January, the CCF called itself the " Guest Choice Network. " Its

name change coincided with the launch of a second website, called

<http://www.activistcash.com> ActivistCash.com, which purports to reveal

a vast, left-wing financial conspiracy among major foundations and

nonprofit public interest organizations.

Berman's specialty as a lobbyist is what he calls " shooting the

messenger " : attacking activists who criticize his clients. PR Watch

first exposed Berman & Co. in our First Quarter 2001 issue, detailing

his work for the restaurant, tavern and alcoholic beverage industries.

Since then, we have uncovered new information documenting his ties to

Philip Morris.

Although ConsumerFreedom.org isn't saying who funded its attack

advertisement against Greenpeace, Philip Morris is a distinct

possibility. The tobacco giant is also now the largest food company in

the United States. Greenpeace is one of the international leaders in the

fight for safety and environmental testing of genetically engineered

foods, and recently Greenpeace targeted Philip Morris Kraft for its

sales of such products.

Ploys 'r' Us

ActivistCash.com and ConsumerFreedom.org are merely the latest in a

string of organizations that Berman has created to advance his clients'

interests. Another Berman front group, the Employment

<http://www.epionline.org/> Policies Institute (EPI), calls itself a

" non-profit research organization dedicated to studying public policy

issues surrounding employment growth. " In reality, EPI's mission is to

oppose increases in the minimum wage so restaurants can continue to pay

their workers as little as possible. EPI also owns the domain names to

MinimumWage.com <http://www.minimumwage.com> and LivingWage.com

<http://www.livingwage.com> , a website that attempts to portray the

idea of a living wage for workers as some kind of insidious conspiracy.

" Living wage activists want nothing less than a national living wage, "

it warns (as though there is something wrong with paying employees

enough that they can afford to eat and pay rent).

Some of Berman & Co.'s most visible lobbying has been waged against

efforts to lower the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers. It runs the

<http://www.abionline.org/> American Beverage Institute, which was

organized in 1991 with the stated mission of promoting " responsible

alcohol consumption, " but actually represents restaurants and retailers

that sell alcohol. The ABI's arch-enemy is Mothers Against Drunk Driving

(MADD).

Following the Money

ActivistCash.com claims to expose the funding behind groups like MADD,

Action on Smoking and Health, and the Center for Science in the Public

Interest. In reality, none of the information that it " exposes " has ever

been hidden. It is available in public foundation reports and IRS tax

statements that non-profit organizations provide to anyone who asks.

Most of the information in the ActivistCash database can already be

found in public libraries or the Internet. Non-profit organizations are

not obligated to disclose the names of specific individual or

institutional donors, but most of the groups attacked by ActivistCash

have gone beyond the requirements of the law in providing the

information that ActivistCash is now using to attack them.

It is hypocritical in the extreme, of course, for ActivistCash.com to

" expose " the funding of others, while keeping the details of its own

finances hidden to conceal the fact that its funding comes from the very

industries that share a vested interest in attacking activists.

Fortunately, some information about the funding of Berman's operations

can be found as a result of lawsuits against the tobacco industry, which

have forced the disclosure of internal industry documents.

Correspondence between Berman and Philip Morris reveals that the Center

for Consumer Freedom (then called the Guest Choice Network) was founded

in 1995, with initial funding coming entirely from the tobacco industry.

" I'd like to propose to Philip Morris the establishment of the Guest

Choice Network, " Berman stated in a

<http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/berman600k.gif> December 11,

1995 letter to Barbara Trach, PM's senior program manager for public

affairs. " The concept is to unite the restaurant and hospitality

industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing

programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat,

etc. activists. . . . I would like to solicit Philip Morris for an

initial contribution of $600,000. "

The purpose of the Guest Choice Network, as Berman explained in a

<http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/gcplan1.gif> separate planning

document, was to enlist operators of " restaurants, hotels, casinos,

bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators "

to " support mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility

to protect 'guest choice.' "

According to a <http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/budget.gif>

yearend 1995 budget, Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during

its first 13 months of operation, including $390,000 for " membership

marketing/materials development, " $430,000 to establish a communication

center and newsletter (which Berman promised would have a "

<http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/gcplan2.gif> 60% to 70% smoking

focus " ), $110,000 to create a " multi-industry advisory council, " and

$345,000 for " grassroots network development/ operation. "

The tobacco company

<http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/pm600k.gif> complied with

Berman's initial funding request for $600,000 and pitched in another

$300,000 early the following year. " As of this writing, PM USA is still

the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day

now, " wrote Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington in an

<http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/pm300k.gif> internal company

memorandum dated March 28, 1996. No further information is publicly

available about Guest Choice's finances or activities until its public

launch two years later, in April 1998, sporting an advisory board

comprised mostly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and

alcoholic beverage industries.

In 1999, Berman continued to combine tobacco flackery with his role as a

restaurant lobbyist, as his American Beverage Institute published a

study titled " Effects of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns

and Night Clubs. " The study surveyed bar owners and managers, asking

whether business increased or decreased after January 1, 1998, the date

the California bar ban went into effect. It claimed to find that

business declined an average of 26.2%, but no hard numbers were used to

arrive at this percentage. Rather than look at actual sales receipts,

the ABI survey merely surveyed the opinions of bar owners. Numerous

other studies have examined the effect of smoking bans on the

hospitality industry, and studies that actually look at taxable sales

receipts show no significant impact.

As a private company, Berman & Co. is not required to disclose its

finances. However, two of its front groups--the Guest Choice Network and

the Employment Policies Institute Foundation--are registered as

tax-exempt non-profit organizations, and they are required to disclose

some financial information to the Internal Revenue Service which is

publicly available by inspecting their IRS Form 990s.

The <http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/epi990.gif> IRS Form 990

for the Employment Policies Institute Foundation shows that it received

revenues of $1,237,566 during the 1999 calendar year. Of that amount,

$508,173 went to Berman & Co. for " consulting services. " Another

$163,026 in salary and benefits went directly to Rick Berman as EPIF's

executive director, a job on which he reportedly spent 28 hours per

week. EPIF secretary Thomas Dilworth (sometimes described in news

stories as the organization's " research director " ) worked an average of

8.5 hours per week and received $32,863 in salary and benefits for the

year.

The Guest Choice Network claims to represent " more than 30,000 U.S.

restaurants and tavern operators. " However, the

<http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/gc990.gif> IRS Form 990 which

it filed for the the six-month period from July to December 1999 (prior

to changing its name to the Center for Consumer Freedom) shows that

almost all of its financial support came from a handful of anonymous

sources. Its total income for that period was $111,642, of which

$105,000 came from six unnamed donors. It received no income from

membership dues. Some of its funding apparently comes from one of

Berman's other organizations, the American Beverage Institute, which

" contributes monthly amounts to the Guest Choice Network to assist with

media expenses. " The Guest Choice Network did not report paying salaries

to any of its employees, who were presumably paid by other sources.

For The Center for Consumer Freedom suspicious contribution please read

below.

<http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressrelease_detail.cfm?release=6>

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressrelease_detail.cfm?release=6

Center for Consumer Freedom Trumps PETA on Animal Shelter Contribution

PETA's Links To Domestic Terrorism Sink Their Standing In Yadkin County,

North Carolina

Washington, DC - The Center for Consumer Freedom is contributing $15,000

toward construction of a new animal shelter in Yadkin County, North

Carolina, after commissioners rejected a similar offer from People for

Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) at a county commission meeting last

month. The $15,000 offer from PETA was rebuffed by County Commissioner

Brent Hunter, who led dissenters in rejecting the offer, in light of

recent revelations that PETA has links to active domestic terror groups.

" While construction of the county animal shelter is a priority, I

cannot, in good faith, accept an offer from a group like PETA when they

support and finance groups that engage in arson, harassment and

vandalism in the name of their political agenda, " Hunter said. " The

Center for Consumer Freedom's offer is very generous and timely in

meeting the needs of our county while sticking to our principles. "

PETA has a long history of financially and philosophically supporting

the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF),

organizations that the FBI has labeled " the largest and most active

U.S.-based terror group. " Since 1996, ELF and ALF have caused more than

$43 million in property damage resulting from over 600 attacks including

arson, assault and massive vandalism.

The Center for Consumer Freedom's research into PETA's 1995-2000 IRS tax

filings found:

* In April 2001, PETA gave a direct contribution of $1500 to the North

American Earth Liberation Front (ELF) to " support their program

activities. " Among its long list of crimes, ELF claimed credit for the

1998 firebombing of a Vail ski resort, resulting in $12 million in

damages.

* In January 1995, PETA gave a $45,200 contribution to the " support

committee " of Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist who firebombed a

research facility at Michigan State University. PETA also gave an

unreturned $25,000 " loan " to Rodney Coronado's father in 1994.

* In January 2001, PETA gave $5000 to the " Josh Harper Support

Committee. " Josh Harper is an ALF-affiliated criminal arrested numerous

times and convicted for assaulting a police officer. In 1998, Harper

told an Oregon newspaper " we're going to continue to be confrontational,

we're going to continue to be militant. If people see that as extreme,

then so be it. "

* In August 1999, PETA gave $2,000 to David Wilson, a Utah-based

animal-rights extremist who was then a national " spokesperson " for ALF.

Wilson has bragged, " We started with animal rights, but we've expanded

to wildlife actions like the [1998 arson] in Vail. " PETA's financial

contributions to these criminals are matched by their extreme rhetoric.

At the Animal Rights 2001 Conference, PETA spokesperson Bruce Friedrich

delivered the following chilling message to his captive audience: " It

would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, these

slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them

exploded tomorrow. "

Richard Berman, Executive Director for Center for Consumer Freedom, said

that his organization's donation to Yadkin County is a symbol of its

efforts to bring information about the backgrounds and motivations of

many activist groups (like PETA) to their unsuspecting supporters.

" PETA collects millions of dollars in contributions every year from

people who intend to support the humane treatment of animals, " Berman

said. " However, many of these well-intentioned individuals are likely

unaware that since 1988 PETA has spent four times as much money

defending criminals and domestic terror groups as it has in support of

animal shelters. We will continue to educate and urge those who support

just causes to ensure that they know whether their money is going to the

right place -- a dollar given for animals should be spent on animals,

not on terrorism. "

Some Interesting SitesssssssssMEATXPO.org is the only virtual convention

and exposition focused specifically on the meat industry.

The Center for Consumer Freedom’s affiliation with the meat industry

http://www.meatxpo.org/html/center_for_consumer_freedom.html

More on Yadkin County

http://www.greenconsciousness.org/log/archives/00000133.html

http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20031229/01460

7.html

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1516

http://www.yadkinhumane.org/id16.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...