To be (exempt from the Laws of the Land) or Not to be
That question needs to be addressed

When does the freedom of individuals and organized groups to voice their opinions and preferences, impinge upon the freedom of others to lead secure lives in an environment of law and order? That question has been asked of those who support clandestine, illegal behavior in the name of animal rights, environmentalism, and hatred of humanity. Their response seems to be that as long as they are not physically impeded from carrying out their actions, they shall do whatever they wish in order to carry out their antisocial ideals, and the freedom of others be damned.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has both openly and clandestinely supported those who have carried out acts of arson, destruction of animal research facilities, destruction of domestic animal enclosures and slaughter houses, slashed tires of vehicles used in the animal industry, smeared "warnings" on the homes and cars of those whose businesses or professions use animals, and in general, made dangerous nuisances of themselves. PETA officers have even stated that they wish animal facilities would explode.

The PETA tactic has thus been to (at the least) verbally support acts of domestic terror carried out by the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and by the ALF (Animal Liberation Front), whose members may or may not be the same perverted criminals. Farmers, hunters, trappers, furriers, medical researchers, pharmaceutical firms, food processors, vehicle dealerships, loggers, - all kinds of people and their interests have been attacked and further threatened by this network of terror mongers. It is even possible that some of the arsonists responsible for the recent fatal fires in southern California, were ELF members. No suspects have been apprehended to date, but two young men in a van were seen to be hurling incendiary materials into roadside vegetation that subsequently started one of the major fires near San Diego. Rod Coronado, a "darling" of PETA, claimed that he supported the principle of arson fires in southern California, although he himself, of course, was not in any way involved. ELF members allegedly believe that the environment there should not be used by vast numbers of humans. Violence is their answer to perceived overpopulation of the desert southwest.

More recently, it has come to our attention that Greenpeace has been indicted because some members illegally boarded a ship bound for Miami, that allegedly carried a cargo of big leaf mahogany timber. Greenpeace objects to the harvest of tropical timber from the Amazon rainforest, and its activists boarded the ship hoping to unfurl a banner damning President Bush for allowing the import of those products. The indictment was under an 1870s law that forbids the illegal boarding of ships "bound for port" by those who wished to persuade sailors to frequent their brothels. Although green activists dispute the relevance of the ancient law to the present situation, the implications of the indictment and a possible conviction could be a serious review of the eligibility of the organization to keep its tax exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service.

And that is the crux of this entire matter. Many citizens believe that neither PETA nor Greenpeace should be allowed to break the laws of the land, or encourage others to do so, without penalty. Some 5,000 people have now signed an Internet petition calling for the IRS to revoke PETA's charitable, tax exempt status. Revocation could even happen to Greenpeace, should the organization itself be convicted of planning and directing a felony act.

IWMC and our many supporters feel it is appropriate that irresponsible and criminal acts against society be punished, regardless of the preferences of the "politically correct". If charitable organizations are found to be guilty of felonies, then their tax-exempt status should be revoked immediately. End of story.