In 2003, as the tiny, drought-stricken African nation of Swaziland struggled to cope with the financial demands of maintaining eleven extra elephants in its sanctuaries, King Mswati III agreed to allow two American zoos to take the elephants, as an alternative to shooting them. PETA and other animal rights groups threatened a travel boycott of the tiny, tourism-dependent country if it allowed the elephants to come to the United States, and then sued the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Fish & Wildlife Service, and the San Diego Zoo in order to block the Swazi animals’ importation.

In a U.S. District Court hearing on August 6, 2003, PETA’s attorney told a federal judge that her client thought seeing pachyderms “euthanized [killed] in Swaziland” would be “a better outcome than to have these elephants … live the rest of their lives in captivity” in the United States.

Today, David Martosko, Director of Research at the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom, said: “PETA apparently believes bringing joy to children is a fate worse than death for an elephant. And PETA itself has a record of killing over 12,400 defenseless pets, attesting to its ‘better dead than fed’ attitude toward animals. Chicagoans who are unfamiliar with PETA’s hypocrisy should visit rural North Carolina, where PETA employees are facing dozens of animal-cruelty felonies for killing and dumping adoptable dogs and cats. For years Americans have been offended by the thought that PETA likes animals more than people. But the truth is that they don’t care much for either.”

SOURCES: [1] Civil Action No. 03-1497 (U.S. District Court, Washington, DC). [2] “Animal Record” reports filed by PETA with the Virginia State Veterinarian (available at www.PetaKillsAnimals.com)

Boston, hotbed of Revolutionary activity, has become home to calorie killjoys. In 1773, Samuel Adams (namesake of the beer) led a small band of patriots who dumped British tea to protest an extra tax on the popular beverage. But now Boston is the home of Harvard’s anti-soda Redcoats and the Public Health Advocacy Institute, which has hosted conferences “designed to encourage and support litigation against the food industry.” Sooner or later we’re going to need another Boston Tea Party — but this time, we’ll dump the food cops into the harbor.

Food cops may no longer use muskets, but their aim is squarely on Three Musketeers bars. Texas Agriculture Commissioner and self-described “Food Czarina” Susan Combs struck a blow for tyranny everywhere last year when she told kids they could not share gummy bears at school and issued a fiat dictating school’s foodservice options. This year we told you how she threw her own version of a stamp tax on prohibited school foods — going so far as to levy burdensome fines against cash-strapped schools which dared serve fried potato products twice in a one-week period.

Of course, the government bureaucrats of the modern King George — Bush — have further oppressed our food choices, as his Centers for Disease Control and Prevention knowingly overstated obesity’s death-toll. That kind of claptrap has fueled attempts by greedy trial lawyers to cash in on obesity hype.

Other favorite food cop remedies include minimum purchase ages, limiting the number of restaurants in certain areas, and even putting candy behind store counters next to the cigarettes.

Of course, it wasn’t always this way. Stick these Founding factoids in your cap:

Thomas Jefferson served French fries at the White House and is credited with introducing vanilla ice cream to the United States.
It’s no accident that a brand of ice cream was named after James Madison’s wife Dolly, who was known for serving the treat to her guests.
People often ate more than 5,000 calories a day, washing their beef and pork-heavy diets down with plenty of wine, beer, and spirits.

In the world of food cops, the Founders would have been shackled in the stockade.
Meanwhile, groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest continue the long tradition of Prohibitionist attempts to control the consumption of adult beverages. But consider the responsible use of alcohol during the Revolutionary period:

During the Revolutionary War, George Washington made sure his troops received a quart of beer each day.
Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence while downing pints at the Indian Queen Tavern in Philadelphia.
New York’s first City Hall was located at a tavern.
Washington, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin all enjoyed brewing or distilling their own adult beverages.

So beware of dietary Puritans and their war on personal responsibility. Though they have yet to make it official, their independence from common sense was declared long ago. How can you help prevent food cops from putting you through a culinary crucible? Add your John Hancock to our Declaration of Food Independence now!

In March 2004, MADD expanded its attack on responsible adults by calling for a "mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving … with minor children in the vehicle." Violating this provision, it argues, should result in penalties including license suspension, jail, or even the "termination of parental rights."

MADD founder Candy Lightner broke ties with the group in the 1980s. In 2002, she told the Washington Times: "[MADD] has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

MADD regularly ignores its principles to keep its coffers full. In 2000, two California ballot initiatives (Propositions 30 and 31) sought to permit an automobile accident victim to sue the at-fault driver's insurance company if legitimate claims weren't paid promptly. Considering that victims of drunk drivers stood to gain an important legal tool, most Californians expected MADD to lead the charge in favor of these new measures. However, MADD aligned itself with a group of out-of-state insurance companies, which collectively ran a $1 million-per-week advertising campaign against the propositions … The organization's motive? Money, plain and simple. MADD's 1999-2000 annual report acknowledges Allstate Insurance Company donated an amount in the "$250,000 and above" category. Nationwide Mutual Insurance gave over $100,000 that year.

On this anniversary, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) warns that neo-prohibitionist organizations are targeting social drinking by responsible adults in an attempt to revive Prohibition.

“Prohibition drip by drip is the anti-alcohol movement’s agenda today,” said Rick Berman, Executive Director of CCF. “This modern prohibitionist movement is seeking increased alcohol taxes, mandatory roadblocks, restrictive zoning for family
restaurants—and these are merely the first items on its agenda as it takes aim at every American adult who drinks responsibly.”

Launching the campaign this week with a full-page advertisement of Prohibition icon Carrie Nation in USA Today and a new website, www.neoProhibition.com, CCF draws attention to those who advocate these neo-prohibitionist proposals—which add up to a multi-pronged assault on legal, social drinking and millions of consumers.

To view the ad, visit www.neoProhibition.com.

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

Such an immediate and high profile victory for CSPI testifies to its unnerving influence — especially considering that this is an obvious step toward CSPI’s goal of a comprehensive ban on TV advertising of adult beverages. Consider the audience that CSPI wants to prevent from seeing alcohol commercials. Nearly 90 percent of college football and basketball viewers are over 21, according to Nielsen Media Research. But that doesn’t seem to matter to CSPI, which touted its program as an “Alcohol-Free Sports TV” effort. So don’t think that the group will stop with college sports.

Similarly, CSPI’s previous efforts to prevent the marketing of adult beverages to minors have been rife with misstatements and faulty conclusions. Last year the Federal Trade Commission unequivocally rejected the activist group’s allegations that flavored malt beverages were being marketed to underage drinkers.

And when it comes to adult beverages, CSPI has gone out of its way to prevent the truth from getting out. For example, the group objects to informational labels about the well-documented health benefits of moderate wine consumption, arguing that consumers are just too stupid to understand them.

How little tolerance does CSPI have for adult beverages? The captain of the pleasure police, CSPI’s Michael Jacobson, even suggested supplanting taverns. According to Jacobson: “They really should develop an alternative for people to socialize — a real fun coffeehouse. Maybe a carrot-juice house.”

A MADD billboard compares beer to heroin by depicting a beer bottle as if it were a syringe.

Another MADD billboard shows the following words around empty glasses of alcohol: assault, drowning, burns, rape, suicides.

A MADD television ad argues that "if you think there's a difference" between heroin and alcohol, "you're dead wrong."

In May 2003, a MADD official told the Los Angeles Times that his group opposes a bus service that helps prevent drunk driving by taking people to bars: "The fact that it's taking them to Santa Barbara to drink in the first place is problematic," he said.

In Arlington, Texas, MADD opposed any beer drinking by golfers at a public course. "I've seen how alcohol can destroy lives," said a MADD spokeswoman. "Life is risky enough on its own."

MADD supports higher taxes on adult beverages to reduce everyone's drinking.

MADD has asked Congress to fund nationwide roadblocks to get people to "drink less."

According to a MADD spokesman, the "most effective way" to deal with people who drink anything prior to driving is to "arrest them."

Drunk driving is a genuine problem, but as former MADD president Katherine Prescott says, it has generally been reduced to "a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal." Unfortunately, MADD no longer focuses on those hard core alcoholics who drive drunk. If you want to do something about the real problem, involving yourself with MADD is not the way to do it.

If any more proof were needed that alcohol opponents are going on the offensive against responsible adult drinking, this is it. Page 101 of the NAS report suggests that:

…the most “cost-effective strategy to reduce underage drinking” includes policies that produce their main effects not on underage drinking, but rather on the overall level of drinking in the population.