Is Conservative Talk Show Host Laura Ingraham Friendly With Radical Group, PETA?

The popular conservative political radio and television talk show host, Laura Ingraham, has been a powerful force for the conservative movement in America. For the past two decades, Laura Ingraham has said on air what I've often been thinking from matters relating to the decline of our American culture to the election of President Trump.  

Imagine my disappointment last week when Laura Ingraham welcomed a representative of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) onto her television show to discuss their absurd rationale behind opposing a bill in the state of Ohio making the Labrador Retriever the official state dog of Ohio.  (View Clip) Currently, Ohio Representative,  Jeffrey Rezabek, who is the sponsor of the legislation, simply believes the popular breed would represent Ohio values well because it's a wonderful family dog and many are trained to be therapy, rescue, and police dogs. 

PETA objects to this legislation because let's face it, they never want to let a fundraising opportunity go to waste! They stated on the Ingraham Angle that if this legislation were to pass, there might be a huge influx in popularity of the Labrador retriever breed and promotion of the purebred breed, they claim, would create an influx in labrador retrievers being purchased "on a whim" from breeders and subsequently relinquished to shelters.

While I certainly support consumer choice whether Americans obtain their canine companion at the local shelter or from a breeder, Laura Ingraham, along with many Americans need to understand that PETA is promoting the lie that pet shelters across the U.S. are overflowing with owner relinquished purebred dogs. According to a 2015 study by National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), less than 5% of dogs in shelters are purebred dogs. This percentage includes pit bulls and chihuahuas, two breeds that make up most of the purebred breeds in shelters. So purebreds in shelters, such as Labradors and other breeds, would be closer to 2%-3%.

More importantly, I expect better from Laura Ingraham who should acknowledge that PETA is nothing more than a well funded radical animal rights organization that knows little, if anything, about the care of animals.  Laura opened her segment with PETA by saying, "We all know PETA, their very name is pro-animal, right?"  Wrong, Laura!! PETA kills 97% of the animals in its care including those it accepts from members of the public who expect the group to adopt out the animals. There is nothing ethical or humane about PETA. 

PETA's connection to domestic terrorism is very real with direct ties to underground groups like Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF). I can attest to PETA's threats first hand, as they have been terrorizing several of our Cavalry Group members relentlessly using bully tactics and intimidation against legal, law-abiding animal businesses with the hope that they will surrender to PETA's demands. 

Whether it's PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or the dozens of other animal rights organizations out there, they are all deceptively named because that is the only way they can raise money to achieve their true goal.  Animal rights extremism is a political agenda incrementally chipping away at our right to private property by altering Americans' views about animal ownership, animal use, and what is considered "humane" through media, through our schools, through legislation, and even litigation. Their goal is to END animal use in every possible capacity from food, biomedical research, entertainment, sport, rodeos, zoos, fairs, 4-H, fishing hunting, and even pets. 

Whether Laura Ingraham is uninformed or turning a blind eye to the domestic terrorism part of PETA's bio, any amount of support for a group like PETA is simply not in line with Laura Ingraham's dedication to the message of liberty.  Like all animal rights organizations, PETA has banked on the American public remaining unaware of what is truly behind their emotionally charged propaganda which is often nothing more than a fundraising tactic for their radical agenda to destroy legal animal-related businesses. 

Mindy Patterson is the President of The Cavalry Group, a member-based company protecting and defending the Constitutional and private property rights of law-abiding animal owners, animal-related business, hunters, and agriculture concerns nationwide. Follow Mindy Patterson and The Cavalry Group on Twitter: @cowgirlathart and @TheCavalryGroup

Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules for Ag Groups' EPA Data Breach Suit Regarding Disclosure of Personal Information

       On September 9, 2016, in the case of American Farm Bureau Federation et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., Case No. 13-cv-1751, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the federal appellate court revived a bid by two farm groups to stop the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from releasing addresses and other information about large-scale animal farms under the Freedom of Information Act, finding that exclusive of the mandates of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the provision of such data to environmental groups is actually a privacy violation.

       The American Farm Group Federation and the National Pork Producers Council sued the EPA in July 2013 after the agency released the names, addresses and GPS locations of farms that keep animals in close confinement in several states. Environmental groups, including Food & Water Watch, had requested the information, and the plaintiffs sought to prevent further disclosures.

       U.S. District Judge Ann D. Montgomery found that Clean Water Act regulations for pollution discharges require farmers to disclose their location to state agencies and that the information must be made public under federal regulations. The plaintiffs argued that the EPA's release information would be an invasion of their privacy and should have qualified for an FOIA exemption.  But the judge held they lacked standing because they failed to show an imminent injury. The information was already available on Minnesota and Iowa environmental agencies' websites and easily found by searching their databases, according to the lower court opinion.

       The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council asked the court to reverse a lower court's ruling that killed their challenge to the EPA's disclosure of their members' personal information as it related to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO's), saying the agency had misapplied an exemption under FOIA that's meant to protect personal privacy.  The farmers argued to the appeals panel that the Supreme Court has held that "the law recognizes a right not only to prevent the public disclosure of facts that remain wholly private, but also to control of 'the degree of dissemination' of facts that, although in the public record, nevertheless concern private matters."

       The court of appeals panel sided with the farmers, concluding "the undisputed evidence of nonconsensual disclosures or impending disclosures by the EPA suffice to establish an injury in fact that was caused by the agency and is redressable by the court," adding that "disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy ... and it was an abuse of discretion for the agency to conclude otherwise."  "The EPA's disclosure of spreadsheets containing personal information about owners of CAFO's would invade a substantial privacy interest of the owners while furthering little in the way of public interest that is cognizable under FOIA" the panel said.

       The 8th Circuit Court held that just because information about a particular farm owner can be obtained through publicly available sources does not mean privacy interests go out the window, highlighting an important distinction between merely accessing information and the likelihood of the public to actually focus on that information.

       "The agency's release of the complete set of data on a silver platter, so to speak, eliminates the need for requesters and others to scour different websites and to pursue public records requests to create a comprehensive database of their own," the court said. "If the information were so easily accessible, then it is passing strange that the parties would engage in protracted and expensive litigation to secure it through the Freedom of Information Act."

       This case provides The Cavalry Group, its members and other animal owners/enterprises with a solid argument to contest USDA's and other agencies' disclosure of private and personal information being solicited by animal rights and other activists/organizations.

Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq.
Partner, Goldberg Segalla
Legal Counsel for The Cavalry Group

Information for this article also came from Portfolio Media, Inc. and Law360

To view the case file, click here

New Book Reveals Dog Shows Promote Dogs

By Jay Kitchener

Book Review:  The Dog Merchants by Kim Kavin

It takes an activist with a degree in journalism to inform us that dog shows promote dogs, and when two dog shows appear on national television, it’s the cause of all substandard dog breeding.  If Kavin really holds a degree in journalism, she might want to ask for her money back.  It’s not journalism to plagiarize the propaganda of controversial animal rights groups.  The source pages in her book are thick with references from the shady Humane Society of the United States.

A self-described expert on the luxury lifestyle of yachts, Kavin misses the boat when it comes to getting this story right.  Somebody throw her a life preserver.  She’s drowning in propaganda.

When a book claims to “expose” the commercial dog breeding and rescue industries, it gets my attention.  I give this activist credit for visiting the Hunte Corporation’s commercial kennels.  Unable to say anything bad about the Hunte facility, Kavin throws responsible journalism overboard and jumps the shark to claim that televised dog shows cause substandard dog breeding. 

The day before the book’s release, Kavin crowed on the Facebook page for her book, “My op-ed in today's Albany Times-Union, urging New York State lawmakers to go beyond passing ‘pet store puppy mill’ bans and also outright evict the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show--the type of event that the American Kennel Club itself calls a huge marketing asset for the business model of commercial-scale puppy farms nationwide.”

Calling for the censorship of an annual American television tradition is not journalism, it’s activism.

In the book Kavin flops around like a fish out of water.  She can’t even get a reference to Prohibition right.  She points out the obvious that government prohibition of alcohol created a black market for alcohol.  However, she fails to make the obvious connection that the kind of government prohibition she’s advocating for would create a black market for dogs.

The Prohibition Movement began as a ban on the sale of alcohol on Sundays only.  It seemed reasonable and most folks supported it.  But over time the movement grew and the mission expanded to become a complete ban on the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol in public and in private.  This is exactly where we are heading with the kind of government prohibition Kim Kavin is proposing on dog breeding. 

It wasn’t illegal to drink during prohibition, and it won’t be illegal to own a dog in Kavin’s world.  It will just be illegal to breed a dog in Kavin’s world. 

American’s didn’t stop drinking during Prohibition, they just drank different alcohol—bootleg alcohol.

Americans won’t stop owning dogs in Kavin’s world, but they won’t own purebred dogs. 

Led by the controversial Humane Society of the United States, activists in more than 120 communities across the United States have forced their propaganda on local governments and bullied them to mandate that you many not buy a puppy from a professional breeder in a legitimate pet store, and that you may only buy a puppy in the store supplied by a shelter or rescue organization.  The problem is that these shelter and rescue organizations no longer sell animals in need of homes from the local community.  These organizations now primarily sell animals imported from unknown sources in far-away states and foreign countries with no regulation and no oversight.

The bans on the sale of animals in legitimate pet shops from professional breeders presumes that those breeders are unprofessional and sub-standard.  If that’s true, why would Kavin mandate that your next puppy must come from a mysterious place that might be even worse?

These bans mandate that the public may only purchase animals in a pet shop supplied by shelters and rescue organizations.  Animals sold by shelters and rescue organizations are exempt from consumer protection laws that cover animals sold by breeders.  Why would Kavin remove these protections for consumers and animals?

Government is working hard with activists like Kavin to make sure your next puppy comes from mysterious sources. 

What do you call a book based on propaganda?  More propaganda.  The Dog Merchants by Kim Kavin is one activists’ opinion trying to pass as balanced journalism. 

Written by Jay Kitchener who is a leading advocate in the purebred dog industry. Jay has been on the forefront in preserving the rights of dog breeders and animal owners, and recently helped in turning back an effort to ban retail pet sales in Maine. Jay is now serving as the New England Regional Director for The Cavalry Group.

Taking a Step Down the Path to Extinction

The California State Assembly's Arts, Entertainment, Sports & Tourism Committee is scheduled to potentially outlaw elephant conservation efforts on July 14, 2015.  The bill before them, Senate Bill 716, would outlaw the use of a tool called an elephant guide.  Elephant guides are no different than leashes for dogs or reins for horses.    You can't walk an elephant in public without one. Animal rights activists call this simple tool, cruel.   They claim that these tools cause injuries, puncture wounds, abscesses and other types of trauma to an elephant.

"They are weapons with only one purpose:  to cause pain, suffering and fear in elephants."
 activist Nicole Pagquette, HSUS.

Funny enough, these activists from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have no injured elephants to show the public to prove their statements.  If these simple training tools cause puncture wounds, where are they?   The Ringling Bros Circus, in particular, is one of the most inspected shows around.   In 2012, during "one 11-week stay in California last summer, a total of more than 18 state, local and federal government agencies sent 44 different inspectors to look at Ringling’s pachyderms.  The 82 visits spanned more than 221 hours, or more than 3 hours for every day the circus was in the Golden State.”  At no time during those 221 hours of inspection did any inspector find an injured or "traumatized" elephant. 

Nicole Paquette went on to say that Ringling was stopping their elephant acts because of "the public's overwhelming opposition to the mistreatment of elephants for entertainment."   Again she lies.    Last year, HSUS lost a RICO Act lawsuit and paid Ringling $15.75 million to settle claims that activists had lied about how Ringling treats their elephants. You would think that activists from the HSUS would give up after being outed in court but here they are again lying to legislators and the public.

Earlier this year Richmond, Virginia banned elephants and other cities across America have listened to the same animal rights puppet masters.  These efforts are all part of the activists determination to remove all animals from our lives, one specie at a time.   Today its elephants, tomorrow its carriage horses, such as the long running campaign by New York City Mayor DeBlasio to ban carriage horses from Central Park, and tomorrow it will be your dog.   Ringling made a business decision to remove their elephant act because they have spent millions defending their reputation, wining, and the activists just continue to lie. 

Activists scream that elephants belong in the wild but in the wild they are dying in large numbers.   The vast majority of elephants in America today are domestically born.   They were born in captivity.  they are not 'wild' animals.   Animal rights activities want to remove them from our lives.  Today it's the circus, tomorrow they will disappear from our zoos and sanctuaries.   Activists are already attacking zoos nationwide and forcing the closure of many elephant exhibits.    Just up the road from Richmond, the Virginia Zoo recently announced that they are closing their elephant exhibit and getting rid of two elderly elephants under pressure from the animal rights infiltrated Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA).    Just a few months ago, the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington got rid of their elephants under continuous pressure from activists.  Once elephants are no longer in the public eye, people will forget about them.   In today's electronic world, people have notoriously short attention spans.   Once out of sight, will anyone care that they are quickly becoming extinct in the wild?  A world without elephants, what a sad world that is. 

Katharine Dokken is a Public Affairs Specialist at The Cavalry Group and the  author of a new book, The Art of Terror:  Inside the Animal Rights Movement, available on Amazon. 

Follow Katharine and The Cavalry Group on Twitter:   @KatharineDokken  @TheCavalryGroup

Note to the Press: Do Your Due Diligence

Forgive me for being a stater-of-the-obvious, but shame on the animal-rights-coddling media.

This morning, I spent a considerable amount of time on the phone speaking with reporters from different regions of the U.S. to debunk the lies and propaganda that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has released (yet again)  about licensed dog breeders nationwide.

With each reporter interview, I found myself having to explain basic facts about HSUS' agenda and their assault on pet breeders, animal agriculture, and animal ownership across the nation.

One begins to wonder if these reporters are deliberately in step with the animal rightists' beliefs to the point that they are unwilling to acknowledge HSUS' insidious strategy to use lies and propaganda to pressure legitimate animal enterprise out of business.  I mean, you would have to be living under a rock to have never heard about any of the attacks that HSUS and other animal rights groups have made against the pet industry, horse industry, hunting, and animal agriculture, right?

In talking with one reporter from St. Louis, Missouri's KMOV Channel 4 this morning, I asked him how long he had been working as a reporter in Missouri.

He replied, "Several years."

I asked, "Were you working as a reporter in Missouri in 2010 during the campaign to defeat Proposition B -- also known as HSUS' Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act?"

The reporter replied, "Well... I was here working as a reporter in St. Louis, but I was covering things like drive by shootings, and fires."

One of the biggest election-year regulatory battles the state of Missouri has ever faced and this guy is telling me that he wasn't aware of it.  

Sorry, I don't buy it.

So, here was my response to Mr. KMOV Channel 4 reporter, and here is my rant to all the other reporters and journalists out there:

HSUS is not a credible source.  What they stated in their recent article about dog breeders is not factual and is not freedom of speech. This is slander. Repeating lies is the same as slander.  And by repeating the lies of HSUS, you are harming families and their businesses by not obtaining the facts.  

KMOV- St. Louis reporter then asked me for proof that HSUS is anti-animal agriculture and promotes veganism. 

In their own words, here are quotes from the leadership at HSUS which I shared with all reporters I spoke with today, courtesy of Humane Watch:

Fact: HSUS’s Food Policy Director Matt Prescott, a former PETA activist, created a national campaigncomparing farms to Nazi concentration camps. (See picture at right.) He has also written, “There’s never an excuse to kill and eat an animal.”

Fact: HSUS’s past farm-animal vice president Miyun Park told an animal rights conference, “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]….And so because of that, a number of organizations including the Humane Society of the United States, we work on promoting veganism.”

Fact: HSUS’s current farm-animal vice president Paul Shapiro has said, “Eating meat causes animal cruelty” and “The meat industry equals systematic murder.”

Fact: After Wayne Pacelle, a strict vegan, became president of HSUS, he declared a new food policy making all HSUS events vegan—no meat or dairy or eggs, no matter how they are produced.

Fact: Wayne Pacelle has written that eating meat is “speciesist”—meaning animals are discriminated against, similar to racism or sexism.

Fact: HSUS has been secretly investing money in start-ups such as “Beyond Meat” and “Beyond Eggs”—businesses that hope to replace meat and egg products entirely.

Fact: Wayne Pacelle has said that PETA has “visionary and professional leadership. There’s no doubt they’re creative and courageous.” He also said, “PETA has really done so much in a short time to…promote animal rights.”

Fact: John “J.P.” Goodwin, an HSUS director of animal cruelty, has said, “My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.” Goodwin is a former spokesperson for the terrorist Animal Liberation Front.

The bottom line: HSUS is run by strict vegans who are only using smaller, organic farmers as a prop. These vegans are smart enough to know that 99% of the public eats animal products. So they provide lip service to small farmers for political and public-relations reasons to cloak their agenda.

My final note to reporters and so-called journalists in America:  HSUS doesn't care about people. And their mission has nothing to do with improving animal welfare. Maybe you should spend your time and efforts following the HSUS money trail. 

HSUS and their cohorts are determined to perpetuate propaganda and lies to smear legitimate animal-related businesses with the intent to bring an end to animal breeding, animal enterprise and, ultimately, animal ownership. 

Unless you check your facts, YOU and your news organizations are willing accomplices to the agenda of HSUS and their intent to harm. 

Rant over. 

Mindy Patterson, president, The Cavalry Group