RSS
Home
Murderous hypocrisy of PETA revealed
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Khloe Kardashian. Roselyn Sanchez. Pamela Anderson. Eva Mendez. Holly Madison. What do they all have in common?
Which is the animal here again?
If you answered, outta this world hotness, you’d be right. But since I am not compiling a Scoville scale on the female half of Hollywood and outlying regions (though, hmm, this isn’t a bad idea), it’d only be a part of the answer.
But if you said, they sizzled in PETA’s adventurous, “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign, Bing-B0ng-Bang, got it in one. They did, and it is, and whether it works for its publicly stated purpose, it does wonders for the ladies’ careers — and the libidos of men taking advantage of the photographers’ skills and the generosity of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Win-win.
Or it would be, had PETA, described as “by far the most successful radical organization in America”, proved as considerate to its 4-legged, winged, and otherwise non-human friends — and hadn’t slaughtered 95% of adoptable pets in their care in 2008. Notwithstanding years of public outrage, PETA euthanized 2,124 pets in its Norfolk, VA headquarters — and adopted out…wait for it…7. Not thousands, not hundreds — just 7. Throughout the year.
Per the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom’s (CCF) press release based on PETA’s own disclosures to the VA Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, since 1998, the group’s dog and cat death toll reached 21,339, not counting 2009’s. Another thing to become public at this time is that despite a $32 million annual budget, PETA has made no plans to start operating as an adoption shelter or had its workers make even a nominal effort to find homes for their “charges”. Not surprising then, considering its stand, that last year, CCF petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.
Said CCF Research Director David Martosko: “PETA hasn’t slowed down its hypocritical killing machine one bit, but it keeps browbeating the rest of society with a phony ‘animal rights’ message. What about the rights of the thousands of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens that die in PETA’s headquarters building?”
Adds Martosko: “Since killing pets is A-OK with PETA, why should anyone listen to their demands about eating meat, using lab rats for medical research, or taking children to the circus?”
This isn’t just bitterness talking. Self-described “complete press sluts” [according to its president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk], PETA seeks “total animal liberation” — meaning no meat or dairy; no aquariums; no circuses; no hunting or fishing; no fur or leather; and no medical research using animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs.
Commendable purity of thought — for an organization that is nonetheless perfectly all right with distributing $70K in grants to Rodney Coronado, a convicted animal-rights arsonist, or making cash donations to the terrorist Earth Liberation Front (ELF), responsible along with Animal Liberation Front (ALF), for more than 600 crimes since 1996, causing (by a very conservative FBI estimate) more than $43 million in damages. ALF’s “press office” brags that in 2002, the two groups, sometimes referred to as “black eyes”, committed “100 illegal direct actions” — like blowing up SUVs, destroying the brakes on seafood delivery trucks, and planting firebombs in restaurants.
The FBI calls ALF and ELF the nation’s “most serious domestic terrorism threat.” Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s “vegan campaign director” and third-in-command, didn’t seem to care when addressing the 1,000-strong crowd of Animal Rights activists at 2001 convention in Virginia, he said, “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”
“It would be great,” he added, “if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow.”
Since then, some of them did. Nicely enough, during promotional interviews, the gorgeous girls serving as the public faces of the campaign steered very much clear of these issues.
And, perhaps, so they should have. It is said beauty will save the world. If it serves to save, at least, one cat or a dog — or a laboratory employee, as far as I am concerned, it will have served its purpose.
Related Articles:
Comments
