Animal Rights Groups Seem Benevolent But Are In Fact Radical

[Geee]

Investors Business Daily:

Who hasn't seen and been moved by the TV ads from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals showing sad, abused puppies that need a home? Who could tell from these that the ASPCA is a radical, ideological, even tyrannical organization?

Some background: More than a decade ago, the ASPCA joined with other animal-rights groups to sue Ringling Bros. as part of a campaign to keep animals out of zoos and circuses.

As justification for this radical position, the lawsuit alleged that the circus was abusing elephants. But a judge tossed the claim after finding that the plaintiffs were in effect turning the courtroom into a three-ring circus.

It turned out the ASPCA's star witness and plaintiff, Tom Rider, a former Ringling Bros. employee, had a flagrant conflict of interest: He was on the payroll of a nonprofit involved in the litigation.

The judge wrote in a 2009 opinion that Rider was "not credible," and the jurist gave "no weight" to any of his testimony.