To our surprise, we learned yesterday that the misnamed People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) would be holding an event today at the National Mall in Washington, DC, not far from our office. PETA announced it would be revealing an exhibit near the National Art Gallery featuring statues of animals, with recordings that talk about “speciesism.” “Speciesism” is a kooky concept touted by PETA that compares eating a cheeseburger to racism and sexism.
We took the opportunity to show up with “PETA Kills Pets” signs and make sure that any attendees and passersby know the hypocritical truth about PETA. PETA has killed nearly 50,000 pets over the last 25 years, including healthy, adoptable animals.
To say PETA wasn’t pleased would be an understatement. A PETA employee threatened to have our team arrested–despite us being on public property. Ever heard of the First Amendment? We weren’t deterred. We even wound up on Getty Images.
It goes to show how thin-skinned groups like PETA are. PETA definitely does not want you to tell more people about PETAKillsAnimals.com, that’s for sure.
Social media exploded this morning with a new beef: Pete vs. PETA.
PETA, the obnoxious animal liberation group that opposes pet ownership, had publicly criticized celebrity comedian Pete Davidson for buying a dog from a pet store. Davidson called PETA and told them to buzz off (in less polite terms).
We couldn’t help but weigh in. Who is PETA—which has killed nearly 50,000 animals at its headquarters—to dog-shame anyone?
That’s why we are running a new billboard in Times Square telling everyone that PETA simply can’t handle Pete’s “BDE” – meaning his “buy dog energy.”
There’s nothing wrong with buying a dog—just as there’s nothing wrong with adopting a dog from a shelter or rescue. All dogs deserve good homes. And as Davidson revealed, he was buying the dog for his mother, whose previous pup recently passed away, and the breed he purchased, a Cavapoo, is hypoallergenic (Davidson is allergic to dogs). Shelters don’t necessarily have the breeds that are the best fit for a specific family.
PETA, in comparison, is anything but a dog’s best friend. Last year, PETA killed 718 dogs (and 1,374 cats) at its headquarters for a kill rate of 74%. PETA only adopted out 58 animals. Since 1998, PETA has killed nearly 50,000 animals. Simply put, PETA believes many dogs are better off dead than fed.
We’re on #TeamPete here—and if you like dogs living in a good home instead of being sent to an early grave, you should be, too.
There’s a conspiracy theory that PETA is secretly funded by the meat industry to make animal liberation activists look bad. The truth is much simpler: PETA is just run by people with no filter. And that is quite helpful for giving the average person an honest look at what the animal liberation movement really wants.
The latest example of PETA idiocy comes out of Australia. Australia is currently experiencing a plague of mice. A drought created conditions in which mice had ready access to grain and, with a huge supply of food, the mice have bred like rabbits.
The only practical thing is to kill the pests. Along with the damage to crops, mice can carry diseases that kill humans. But PETA is opposed to culling the rodents, calling it “human supremacy” to kill them, instead saying farmers should trap the mice and release them elsewhere–a completely impractical approach.
Australia’s deputy prime minister responded, “The real rats in this whole plague are the people who come out with bloody stupid ideas like this.” And Australia’s agriculture secretary called PETA “brainless.” (An understatement, but we get the sentiment.) But more importantly, he challenged PETA to catch the mice and feed the rodents themselves.
The best way to respond to activists is to tell them to put up or shut up.
And ironically, based on how PETA treats the cats and dogs in its control, most of the mice would likely end up dead in such a scenario.
In a “that’s so Australia” moment, the mice plague has been followed up by a spider apocalypse. And PETA is against killing spiders, cockroaches, and other creepy-crawlers, too. Hey PETA, if you care about bugs so much, why don’t you adopt them all?
The best way to deal with trolls is often to ignore them. PETA’s been pushing veganism for 40 years, and yet only around 1% of the public identifies as vegan. But the other–and more entertaining–solution to trolls is to outwit them. And that’s just what Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt did to PETA.
PETA took out a billboard in Oklahoma City featuring a cow calling Stitt a “meathead.”
How did Stitt respond? He set up a barbeque right under the billboard. Taking a cue from the long-running joke about PETA standing for “People Eating Tasty Animals,” he served juicy burgers, steaks, and hot dogs to hungry attendees.
We fondly recall the time a few years ago when then-Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt put out a public alert about the Humane Society of the United States. When it comes to dealing with animal activists, The Sooner State is taking the bull by the horns.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has a problem when it comes to the ethical treatment of humans. PETA has fat-shamed women and used scantily-clad women, to the objection of feminists. PETA has compared eating meat to killing Jews in the Holocaust.
In PETA’s warped worldview, African-Americans and Jews are comparable to chickens and cows.
So we were struck by the fact that PETA posted a blog following recent protests over the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota. PETA argues that the fight against racism has parallels to its own campaigns.
“As an organization dedicated to overturning supremacy, PETA is heartbroken and infuriated to see racism and discrimination continue to kill. PETA stands in solidarity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement,” PETA wrote on Twitter.
PETA unabashedly compares civil rights movements to its campaign to end “speciesism.”
“Speciesism—like sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination—is an oppressive belief system,” argues PETA. In PETA’s view, eating a hamburger or enjoying a chicken sandwich is as morally wrong as enslaving people or racial discrimination. PETA is also against eating honey (because it “exploits” bees) and killing cockroaches. Presumably, PETA believes insect control is as immoral as slavery, too.
All people are created equal. And PETA is wrong to compare the awful human suffering of slavery and eating a burger.
Is PETA too woke, or just intellectually and morally broke? You decide.
Turns out PETA can’t make everyone bend to its will. The animal rights organization tried to pressure professional soccer team Austin Bold FC into canceling its “Farmer in the Del Valle Night” promotion, which offered free admission to fans who brought their goats, cows, pigs, turkeys, sheep, horses, llamas or donkeys.
PETA—apparently without doing research—sent out a message on Twitter stating:
@ChrisBils We are urging @AustinBoldFC to cancel this! It is reckless & dangerous to bring live animals to a sporting event. It’s an extremely stressful environment for animals who will be frightened by the crowds, sounds, & chaos. Animals don’t belong in a sports stadium!
Had PETA not jumped to conclusions they would’ve learned that there were never any plans to have cows in the stands, instead the animals were housed in pens a quarter mile away in a grassy area, where noise from the stadium would be no louder than a tractor.
The event, which was held to raise money for the local 4-H club takes place in the Del Valle area of Texas, an area with historical relevance for its multiethnic farming community. In having its event Austin Bold raises awareness of the history of the area.
Given PETA’s history of disliking 4-H clubs and the education of young farmers, it’s no surprise that the organization that wants to see the demise of the agriculture industry would be against the event. But it is a welcome surprise to see a company stand up to the organization that bullies everyone from medical researchers to clothing companies.
On Tuesday the Los Angeles City Council voted to advance a proposal to ban the sale and manufacture of fur garments in the city. The legislation follows a decades-long campaign from animal rights extremists such as PETA and the Humane Society of the United States to ban fur around the country. This move sets a terrible precedent for Americans, and we’ve placed a full-page ad making our opposition known.
Anti-fur activists are free to try to persuade others to be like them. But this bill is essentially legislating morality. And the religious zealotry of the animal rights movement does not stop at fur.
PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, and other animal rights groups are also against leather, wool, cashmere, silk, and any other clothing product that comes from an animal. They also want to stop Americans from enjoying meat, dairy, and eggs. They want to shut down zoos and aquariums. And they’re even against pet ownership, with PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk once calling it “an abysmal situation.”
Quite simply, these groups demand strict adherence to their vegan lifestyles. Anyone who doesn’t is a “sinner.” And to no surprise, they haven’t found many people willing to join their theocracy: Only around 1 percent of the country identifies as vegan, while the vast majority of Americans enjoy eating hamburgers and owning pets.
Animal rights activists argue that “no one has the right to abuse an animal.” And we’d agree in theory. Except that to animal rights extremists, any “use” of an animal is “abuse.”
We (and most Americans) believe that animal welfare must be protected. Animals used for food, clothing, etc. should be treated humanely. But animal products shouldn’t be banned because a tiny and noisy sliver of society doesn’t like it. You can’t have a free society if small groups can force others to their whim.
It’s ridiculous to see activists who got their start throwing red paint on people wearing fur coats now getting the time of day (and much more) in a legislative body. Any parent knows the power of “no” and the importance of not giving a tantrum-throwing brat what he wants. Hopefully the LA City Council decides to be grown-ups and let adults make their own choices.
PETA keeps sinking to new lows in its crusade against pets and pet owners.
Last month, PetSmart filed suit against undercover PETA operative Jenna Jordan, who worked at multiple PetSmart locations, alleging a years-long unlawful effort to undermine PetSmart’s operations of caring for animals and providing services to pet owners. The allegations against Jordan include animal neglect, fraud, and making false reports to law enforcement personnel.
The suit claims Jordan knowingly neglected to provide veterinary care to animals entrusted to her care. To create PETA propaganda, she allegedly filmed the animals in need of medical attention and allowed a bird to die so she could falsely accuse PetSmart of neglect.
If the allegations are true, this PETA plant is off her leash and facing some serious legal trouble.
It wouldn’t be the first time an animal rights organization was summoned before a judge. Last year PETA paid almost $50,000 to settle a lawsuit after its employees stole a chihuahua off a family’s front porch and killed it. Elsewhere, the Humane Society of the United States and ASPCA (and a handful of smaller groups) paid $25 million to settle a racketeering lawsuit alleging they secretly paid a witness who lied in court to support animal-rights litigation.
PETA has made a business out of picking on small groups in court over the past couple of years who don’t have the resources to defend themselves. Now a big dog is taking PETA’s scheming to task. We look forward to what comes to light.
If you thought PETA had moderated itself since PETA provided money to an Animal Liberation Front member who burned down a university lab—think again. PETA seems to be heading into a full-fledged romance with Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), a zealous group of young activists with the urge to yell and scream at people enjoying meat in restaurants.
DxE, with the goal of “total animal liberation,” was founded by Wayne Hsiung, who is now facing felony charges after allegedly trespassing on a farm and stealing a baby goat. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk swiftly jumped to Hsiung’s defense saying he shouldn’t have to go to jail and saying that actions like his are “necessary” for a successful movement.
And that’s not the only time PETA has defended members of DxE. In May, six DxE operatives (including Hsiung) were charged with felonies for burglary and theft after reportedly breaking into a farm in Utah. Following this incident, the official PETA Twitter account posted a message saying the activists “shouldn’t be punished.”
PETA’s connections to DxE don’t end there. Last October, Newkirk spoke at a DxE event where Hsiung also spoke, showing that PETA is willing to share the stage with someone willing to break the law. And in San Francisco, DxE hosted a rally with city supervisor Katy Tang, who later received an award from PETA.
We’ve known that PETA is a radical organization for some time, and its links to DxE only offer additional proof, especially when considering that other animal rights activists have taken steps to distance themselves from DxE.
Consider noted feminist and animal rights advocate Carol J. Adams, who has called DxE a “counterproductive organization” and a “cult.” Adams writes that DxE’s practices have “led to secret keeping, sexual abuse, and enable[d] an undemocratic decision making process.”
Sensible people wouldn’t touch DxE with a ten-foot pole, so why does PETA cozy up to these extremists? It might be because sensible people don’t kidnap and kill pets like PETA does. PETA’s support of and association with DxE shows what PETA really is—a radical organization willing to support criminals and dangerous groups.
The perpetrator of yesterday’s shooting at YouTube’s office in San Bruno, California has been revealed to be Nasim Aghdam, a 37-year-old PETA activist and outspoken vegan with an apparent grudge against the social-media company. Reportedly, she was very active on social media promoting animal rights and was upset at a new YouTube policy that de-monetized her channel and others.
So far, we haven’t seen anything from PETA condemning Aghdam’s actions. PETA is quick to jump on any opportunity to promote veganism; in one instance, PETA used a serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, in a campaign to promote veganism. What’s so hard about condemning something like this, even if it doesn’t fit PETA’s narrative?
This isn’t an attempt to score political points. There’s a serious question about whether PETA’s heated rhetoric goes too far. Does it encourage hateful attitudes—and perhaps even violence?
There’s evidence that it does. For example, PETA has launched a campaign singling out a Yale postdoc researcher who uses birds in studies, accusing her of “tormenting” animals and “kill[ing] sparrows in cruel tests.” The woman subsequently received threats and has been living in terror.
PETA might say that it can’t be held responsible for what its followers do. And generally, we might agree. But PETA’s rhetoric of calling people animal abusers who are not, in fact, animal abusers—such as researchers whose proposed work has gone through an animal care and ethics committee—creates a perilous situation.
After all, if you care about animals, and PETA tells you that so-and-so is a horrible animal abuser, it’s not a stretch to think some activists will do whatever it takes to stop the “abuse,” including violence. That was the thinking of the Animal Liberation Front, which committed felonies to liberate animals and earning the label of a domestic terrorist group from the FBI. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, however, said: “I will be the last person to condemn the ALF.“ PETA also gave a grant to the Earth Liberation Front, a sister group to the ALF. And more broadly, if one adopts the PETA mindset that 99% of the public is animal abusers—because they aren’t vegan—then it’s easy to see how someone might lash out against society and become increasing spiteful.
PETA’s rhetoric may help them get in the news or raise funds, but it goes too far. If PETA really is about the ethical treatment of animals—including people—then it needs to condemn its supporters’ bad actions, even when it isn’t convenient. Otherwise, it’d be fair for people to say PETA is, at minimum, a hate group.
