Author Archives: PETA Kills Animals Team

  1. PETA’s President Still Loathes Humans

    Leave a Comment

    In the subtitle of recent interview of Ingrid Newkirk, The New Statesman asks an important question: “Has [PETA’s] founder gone too far?”

    We certainly believe yes. Why else would we write hundreds of posts documenting the hypocrisies and atrocities PETA has committed in its nearly 40-year history?

    But helpfully, Newkirk makes our case for us in this interview.

    Even at 70, Newkirk continues to show complete disregard for the Holocaust and slavery and continues to compare these horrible events to zoos and farms. In the past PETA exhibits have even shown slaves next to animals and earned condemnation from groups like the NAACP.

    “To animals all humans are Nazis. I’m ashamed of many humans,” she says. But not, apparently, of her fellow travelers at PETA, who kill close to 2,000 cats and dogs every year.

    Newkirk reveals she sterilized herself at the age of 22 because she thought that humans were equivalent to Nazis. And after she dies, she plans on having her body mutilated to make a point.

    She also does not seem to have mellowed from her past defense of extremism. “I wouldn’t mind razing a building if it was used as a terrible place to torture living beings,” she admits. Keep in mind that her definition of animal torture apparently encompasses zoos, aquariums, farms, and the local fish market.

    Elsewhere, she says she doesn’t believe the blind should have guide dogs and that she’s against animal research on rats even if it led to a cure for AIDS. These positions—radical enough in  their own right—seem almost mellow compared to the other outlandish views she espouses.

    It’s clear Newkirk has some serious self-hatred based in her membership to the human race. Over the years Newkirk has built an organization that will stop at nothing to push the vegan agenda. The self-described “press-slut” holds a tenacious grip on the steering wheel of the clown car that is PETA. The real question is: Can PETA survive Ingrid Newkirk?

  2. Will the IRS Crack Down on Animal Activists?

    Leave a Comment

    It seems harassment from animal activists is on the rise. And it’s high time the IRS and FBI do something about it.

    Last week, we filed a complaint with the IRS and FBI regarding PETA and two California-based groups called Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) and Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation. These are radical groups lobbying to dictate lifestyle decisions on Californians–and we believe these organizations have abused the nonprofit tax code.

    Consider:

    • Direct Action Everywhere breaks into farms and terrorizes farmers. The group has also intimidated shoppers at Whole Foods, Chipotle, and other businesses. Its actions may well be in violation of the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The group’s activists are facing criminal charges in several states and may have violated the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. DxE is a network funded by a tax-exempt charity called Friends of DxE.
    • Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation has been accused of leaving dogs to die horribly in Asia instead of rescuing them—the group’s supposed charitable mission. Its executive director also served time in California prison for felony kidnapping.
    • PETA has given tax-exempt donations to fund the efforts of Direct Action Everywhere, according to its most recent tax return. PETA has also given money to the Earth Liberation Front (considered a domestic terrorist group by the FBI) and to defend an arsonist who burned down a university laboratory. PETA activists have also been arrested on numerous occasions.

    These groups have been involved in lobbying for fur bans in California, at the local or state level. But make no mistake. This radical lifestyle dictation from PETA and other extremists won’t end with fur. These activists don’t believe people should be able to buy leather, wool, and other clothing derived from animals. They don’t want people to be allowed to buy a hamburger. PETA is even against owning pets.

    While everyone has free speech rights, harassing people and getting arrested aren’t legitimate nonprofit activity. It’s time for the feds to end the charade and hold activists accountable.

  3. Will Animals Get “Right” to Sue in California?

    Leave a Comment

    Should animals be able to be plaintiffs in lawsuits? Crazy as it sounds, that’s one of the primary legal goals of animal rights extremists. You may recall the writings of Cass Sunstein, former regulatory czar during the Obama Administration, wrote that animals “should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives.” And that is exactly what a group called the Nonhuman Rights Project has been trying to do in courtrooms in New York and Connecticut in recent years.

    NhRP has been suing in an attempt to gain legal “personhood” for animals, which is a legal status that would allow them to be plaintiffs. If animals can sue, then it’s easy to see where this leads: Lawyers with PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, NhRP, and other groups can quickly bog down or bankrupt zoos, aquariums, farms, etc. with lawsuits on behalf of zoo animals, fish, and livestock.

    So far NhRP hasn’t had any luck in court getting a judge to overturn the legal system. But now the group has announced it will step up its agenda by adding a lobbying element. The organization has announced that it will target municipal governments in California in order to pass local legislation granting animal “personhood.” We’d guess Los Angeles or San Francisco are the likely targets.

     

    This serves as a departure for the organization’s model of bringing frivolous legal battles on “behalf” of animals. NhRP’s website lists its clients as the animals it has represented in five cases and has no recorded legal wins to date.

     

    NhRP also filed a brief in support of the 5 whales PETA claimed were “slaves” of SeaWorld. For those who do not remember, in 2011 PETA tried to sue Sea World claiming that the organization’s famed killer whales were being illegally enslaved under the 13th Amendment. PETA of course lost this lawsuit, as animals are not people. (And if they were they probably wouldn’t want PETA’s support, given the organization’s penchant for killing cats and dogs.)

    NhRP doesn’t say what would happen if animals were given full personhood. Could pet owners still keep their furry friends? Would eating a hamburger become a criminal offense? Where would the ridiculousness end? Hint: It wouldn’t.

  4. Former PETA Employee Speaks Out

    Leave a Comment

    There’s a limit to how brainwashing a person can take. Even for a PETA employee.

    Laura Lee Cascada, an ex-employee of PETA, took to Medium to air her grievances with the hypocritical, pet-killing organization. Given the article’s long length, we have decided to highlight the most important and damning details:

    1. PETA starts its cultish indoctrination process from the start.

    The article’s author goes into great detail to describe how “all employees are carefully groomed through issues training.” This training includes claims that euthanasia is what’s best for the animals and that PETA has a savior complex, believing that they are fixing the mess that humans created.

    1. If you go against them they will find you.

    On multiple levels PETA likes being in control of its employees. The author describes receiving long emails from a boss for helping an ailing aunt find a shelter for her pets. It also has a network of employees who will monitor your activity—even outside the workplace.

    1. PETA still likes to kill fast.

    A moment is described in which the author told her mom of a dog she recently rescued. When the mom quickly told her daughter she would be interested in adopting the animal—a pit bull—the author found it was too late. Only a few days had passed, but PETA had already killed the animal, which seemed to show no indicators of poor health.

    1. PETA doesn’t seem to care about what it does to its employees’ health.

    In an emotional few paragraphs, the author describes working 50-60 hour work weeks to prove her dedication to PETA.  She mention how working at PETA desensitized her and warped her view of animal death. When she aired her stress with her coworkers, they looked at her like she was crazy. The stress was so intense that she had a panic attack in HR and felt she had to leave.

    1. PETA likes killing animals.

    According to the author, an employee described to her that, “staff believes that their ability to euthanize animals makes them ‘badass’ — to not want an animal euthanized is considered ‘weak.’” When employees would ask about the conditions of animals given to PETA, they would be directed to ask the head of the department. This often didn’t happen because employees at PETA live in fear of their bosses.

    Although dismal and disheartening, this article reveals what many of us already know: PETA is not a good organization and is definitely isn’t ethical.

  5. PETA’s California Circus Bill is a Trojan Horse

    Leave a Comment

    PETA: Ethical? No. Deceptive? Yes.

    In what seems to be an episode in its misleading campaign to ban animals, PETA is pushing California lawmakers to ban any facility from traveling with wild or exotic animals.  The bill, so-called “Circus Cruelty Prevention Act,” isn’t meant to target circuses but rather small groups that exhibit animals for educational purposes.

    The bill, introduced by accused drunk driver State Sen. Bill Hueso, would seek to limit anyone who uses animals ranging from camels to kangaroos from being able to travel with their animals unless they’re accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. Noncompliance with the act would result in a $25,000 fine, a detrimental price to pay for a mom and pop business.

    What does that mean?

    Do you enjoy seeing a realistic Nativity scenes? Too bad.

    Think animal outreach groups who bring animals to schools to educate kids about the beauty of nature are great? Sorry.

    Those are just a few examples of what will happen should this bill pass.

    The bill is unnecessary because it completely sidesteps the fact that the nearly 300 exhibitors are licensed, accredited, and monitored by the US Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

    Forcing them to join one of two accreditation programs reeks of collusion. Regarding the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, AZA members are typically large zoos. Forcing smaller exhibitors to join doesn’t seem appropriate. But AZA is likely included in the bill because its CEO, Dan Ashe, is sympathetic to animal rights extremists. He is longtime friends with alleged serial sexual harasser Wayne Pacelle of HSUS and gave Pacelle a prime speaking slot in 2017. AZA also allowed PETA to exhibit at its conference last year. (Even though PETA openly wants to shut down every zoo and aquarium, including AZA members. It’s mind-bogglingly naïve—at best.)

    The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, meanwhile, is little more than a front group for anti-zoo activists. GFAS is not exactly some kind of gold standard. GFAS accredited Chimps, Inc., a sanctuary in Oregon that was cited for alleged safety violations, for instance.

    PETA doesn’t care though. PETA is ultimately against animal ownership—including pets—and it will do whatever it can to advance that agenda bit by bit.

  6. PETA Picks on Steve Irwin

    Leave a Comment

    PETA’s social media team seems to have a new favorite target: dead celebrities. Fortunately, Twitter wasn’t having it.

    Following Google’s touching tribute last week to Steve Irwin’s on what would have been his 57th birthday via a specialized doodle, PETA decided to tweet out:

    Irwin, who passed more than 12 years ago, is best remembered by the influence he had on encouraging millions to learn and explore nature and its wonderful creatures.  In his career he helped to catch and relocate endangered crocodiles in order to prevent their deaths in what later became the Australia Zoo.

    The irony of PETA, which killed over 70% of the cats and dogs it received at its “shelter,” attacking Steve Irwin, a true conservationist who dedicated most of his live to saving animals, cannot be missed. Here are some of the better responses we saw:

    PETA is and continues to be cruel, not just to animals but also to the people who love them.

  7. Lawsuit Reveals Backdoor Channel Between PETA and HSUS

    Leave a Comment

    Kitty Block and PETA are like a dog and its bone—inseparable.

    Recently, a company called Paws for Effect, which trains animals that are used in films, filed a defamation lawsuit against PETA. According to the suit, longtime PETA exec Lisa Lange defamed the company by reaching out to a Sony executive (and perhaps others in Hollywood) falsely claiming that Paws for Effect had violations under the Animal Welfare Act. It does not.

    You may remember Lange—she was the deer-in-the-headlights PETA rep who took the brunt of a Daily Show segment a few years ago after PETA sued to free Orcas from SeaWorld under the U.S. Constitution’s anti-slavery clause.

    Back to the lawsuit. One little tidbit was interesting: The complaint reveals Lange contacted HSUS CEO Kitty Block in January about Paws for Effect.

    Kitty Block—and HSUS as a whole—has tried very hard to maintain public separation from PETA. After all, unlike HSUS, PETA is very honest about its agenda to shut down zoos and aquariums and ban meat. HSUS can’t be associated with that radicalism publicly.

    But it certainly reads as if she may be a pen pal of PETA—which would make sense, since Block worked at PETA before joining HSUS. A number of HSUS staffers are ex-PETA employees (as well as smaller group that share PETA’s agenda). And as we reported last week, PETA gave $65,000 to an HSUS group in 2017, according to tax records.

    PETA’s accusations against Paws for Effect may be fiction, but undeniable links between the two organizations are fact.

  8. Animal Rights Charity Accused of Killing Dogs. Sound Familiar?

    Leave a Comment

    A top animal rights charity in South Korea is under fire after being accused of secretly killing hundreds of dogs in order to ensure a steady flow of donations.

    The group, Coexistence for Animal Rights on Earth (CARE), says its primary mission is to end the dog meat trade in South Korea. The charity claims to have a “no kill” policy for the dogs it rescues and in the past has claimed that even if the dogs are not adopted, the charity will not kill them. Yet CARE reportedly killed 230 dogs to make space—and then claimed the animals had been adopted out.

    Maybe the idea was to take a page out of PETA’s playbook? The killing of animals at PETA is infamous and well-documented—it’s no surprise that PETA looks kindly on this Korean group. PETA has, for years and years, described CARE as its “friends” in Korea.

    There are some key differences though.

    For one, it’s reported that CARE killed roughly 25 percent of the animals it takes in. PETA staff members might describe that as “amateurish.” In some years, PETA’s so-called shelter kills more than 90 percent of the animals it takes in. PETA has killed more than 40,000 animals, dwarfing CARE’s 230.

    Another key difference: the people who launched the accusations and original protests against CARE are CARE employees themselves. It’s within the realm of possibility that some of these employees got involved with the organization because they actually care about rescuing dogs. Meanwhile, PETA employees aren’t out protesting their organization’s mass slaughter. (And we haven’t seen Humane Society of the U.S. employees protesting their predator-defending board, either.)

    While this news should hopefully see some heads roll in South Korea, there’s a good bit of dirty laundry that needs to be cleaned with U.S. animal groups.

  9. PETA’s HQ Should Be On “PETA Kills Avenue”

    Leave a Comment

    PETA is getting a taste of its own medicine. We have proposed that Front Street in Norfolk, Virginia—where PETA’s headquarters is located—be renamed to “PETA Kills Avenue.” Other possibilities include “Butcher Street” and “Serial Killer Way.”

    Our proposal can be viewed here.

    This follows PETA’s press stunt demanding the English village of Wool change its name to “Vegan Wool.” A street in a French village, Rue de la Saucisse—or “sausage street”—was similarly targeted by PETA, with the organization demanding the street be renamed “Rue de la Soycisse,” referencing soy.

    Having the tables turned on PETA is satisfying—but there’s something bigger at play here. PETA’s cruelty and unethical treatment of animals is appalling. The organization runs a “shelter” in Norfolk where the staff kills just about every animal that comes through the doors, no matter how healthy or adoptable. Indeed, PETA has consistently opposed pet ownership, called for the killing of all stray cats, and the extermination of pit bulls.

    Renaming Front Street to PETA Kills Avenue would expose PETA’s horrid practices and help the residents of Norfolk be better informed as to the true nature of PETA.

    Watch an interview with us here and please spread the word on social media. And encourage the Norfolk Mayor and City Council to make this animal-friendly street name a reality:

    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

  10. Is This PETA’s Dumbest Antic?

    Leave a Comment

    PETA—self-described “press sluts”—has a cheap way to get the media cover its antics.

    It started last week when PETA demanded the small English village of Wool change its name to “Vegan Wool.”

    Yes, you read that right.

    Unsurprisingly, the residents of Wool were not happy about this request. One resident was quoted as saying, “We would be the laughingstock of Dorset if we agreed,” referring to the surrounding county. In fact, the village’s name “Wool” is an ancient word referring to water—it has nothing to do with sheep.

    This week, PETA doubled down on this bizarre strategy that does nothing for animals and demanded a French village change the name of “Rue de la Saucisse,” or “Sausage Street,” to “Rue de la Soycisse,” referencing soy.

    The mayor, with good reason, believed the whole thing was a ridiculous joke at first and has already refused PETA’s request. The sole resident of Sausage Street said the street’s name is not actually a reference to meat, but to a colloquial early 20th century French term for a female villager.

    It seems PETA is ignorant of etymology and lacks the willpower to look into the history of a place. Who’s surprised?

    Should Hamburg be renamed Blackbeanburg? Should the Swiss town of Gruyères change its name to Almond Cheese? And for Bologna, maybe the Italian city can be renamed Portobello? Sardinia can ditch that sardines legacy and change its name to Soydinia.

    Perhaps the most obvious move is for PETA to demand the country of Turkey change its name to Tofurkey. This would certainly generate press coverage. But since Turkey’s leader doesn’t take mockery very well, we wouldn’t recommend PETA’s “Lettuce Ladies” march through Istanbul.