Category Archive: Radical Activism

  1. PETA’s Animal Cracker Shenanigans

    Comments Off on PETA’s Animal Cracker Shenanigans

    Unsurprisingly, PETA’s most recent “victory” didn’t help a single real animal.

    The vegan loonies are currently celebrating Nabisco changing its animal crackers box design this week. While the box art has—for 116 years—featured the animals in enclosures, the new design features the animals outside cages. Nabisco made the change after getting an unsolicited letter from PETA.

    Animal crackers mascots are not real animals. They are illustrations on a box. An artistic design.

    Since PETA has now anointed itself as art censor, what other works can it go after?

    The Lion Tamer by Max Beckmann is a 1910 work of art featuring a lion and his trainer in a circus. Obviously, PETA is opposed to the use of animals in entertainment—even depictions, as recent news proves. PETA would likely prefer this art out of the public eye, or even out of existence.

    (PETA’s not the only one. This painting was recovered from a hidden stash of “degenerate art” which the Nazis seized in Germany.)

    And what about Isaac van Amburgh and his Animals painted by Sir Edwin Henry Landseer in 1839? The painting was commissioned by Queen Victoria and depicts the moment one of the most famous animal trainers shared a cage with his animals.

    Will PETA petition the Royal Collection to liberate the animals from Landseer’s painting? Surely times have changed and it’s no longer acceptable to have such depictions. PETA probably doesn’t mind the man in there though—in fact, PETA members have a history of being behind bars.

    PETA may also turn its sights on Georges Seuret’s incredibly famous A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. After all, the painting depicts dogs (and a monkey) as pets, and PETA has a vocal history of opposing pet ownership—even to the point of killing pets. Surely, PETA knows better than Georges Seuret how his painting should look.

    Now that PETA is attacking artistic depictions of animals, it shows just how rabid the group has become over the years, unable to separate reality from fantasy. The Ringling Brothers Circus may have closed up last year, but PETA’s recent feats have proven to be a circus of their own.

  2. PETA Tries to Make Nice with Congress

    Comments Off on PETA Tries to Make Nice with Congress

    Sad_dogWe received notice today that PETA will be handing out awards on Thursday night in advance of the Presidential Inauguration. Awardees include Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.).

    We’re wondering: How much does the party cost—it’s at the ritzy Willard hotel in D.C.—and how many animals could that money have saved from death at PETA’s own hands? Since 1998 PETA has killed 35,000 animals at its headquarters, while wasting money on countless press stunts.

    The event is being hosted by longtime PETA spokes-bimbo Pamela Anderson and political strategist Mary Matalin. Curiously, Matalin is married to political consultant James Carville—reportedly a big fan of The Palm, a high-end steakhouse. In fact, Carville said last year that he and his wife re-opened the Caribbean Room at the Pontchartrain Hotel in New Orleans. The menu there includes animal products in every dish—including foie gras, a big PETA no-no.

    Do you want Members of Congress taking legislative tips from PETA—a group so crazy that its president calls pet ownership an “abysmal situation”? Do these legislators endorse PETA’s vision of killing healthy, adoptable animals and banning everything from bacon cheeseburgers to zoos and aquariums?

    Write them on their Facebook walls and ask:

    And, please do spread the word on Facebook and Twitter. If there’s one thing most Americans on both sides of the aisle can agree on, it’s that if PETA makes policy, the country is truly going to the dogs.

  3. PETA Hit With Two Lawsuits in One Week

    Comments Off on PETA Hit With Two Lawsuits in One Week

    PKA-syringe-picPETA, say hello to 2017. Last Thursday, the animal rights group was slapped with a defamation lawsuit filed by a primate facility in Missouri. That follows a belated Christmas present PETA received the previous week: A second defamation lawsuit, this one filed by a zoo in Michigan.

    Both lawsuits claim to be responding to PETA harassment, and it’s certainly great to see people sticking up for themselves against animal-rights bullies. Both facilities claim that PETA has been threatening to sue them under the Endangered Species Act to try to take away their animals. The frivolous theory goes roughly like this: The ESA prohibits “taking” endangered species, meaning to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” It seems clear this is meant to apply to creatures in the wild, but PETA believes that zoos are a form of slavery and imprisonment, and so it’s hoping to use the courts to do what it would never get through elected representatives.

    Sound familiar? This was the same legal theory floated by the Humane Society of the United States in a lawsuit one of its entities pursued against the Ringling Bros. circus. That lawsuit fell apart spectacularly when the court found that HSUS and other groups had secretly paid their key witness almost $200,000 (see here for one check from HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle) and that this witness has lied under oath. Ringling Bros.’ owner countersued HSUS and others and got $25 million in settlement.

    We can only hope similar fortunes await for the facilities suing PETA.

    Meanwhile, PETA is off wasting about $22,000 running a guilt-trip campaign at a metro station in London attempting to guilt-trip people into going vegan. As we told the Southwest Londoner, “If PETA truly cared about individual animals, then what of the 35,000 animals it has killed at its US headquarters?”

    Perhaps PETA should save the money for its defense counsel.

  4. PETA Blames the Victim

    Comments Off on PETA Blames the Victim

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sure has a weird way of showing what it’s all about. In a recent lawsuit against the organization, PETA is accused of stealing and murdering a Hispanic family’s beloved dog named Maya in southeastern Virginia.

    PETA’s response has hit a new low in hypocrisy and stupidity. It has filed several motions to dismiss the case on the grounds that the dog was legally worthless and that what they did was not “outrageous” conduct. This from the group that tried to make the case that killer whales housed at SeaWorld should legally be considered slaves and released because of the 13th amendment.

    PETA has even stooped as low as blaming the family for the death of their murdered dog. PETA has suggested that the family was “negligent” because “they did not keep the subject dog restrained and did not keep proper identification or marking of ownership which resulted in the dog being removed at the time.” (The dog was sitting on the owner’s front porch when it was stolen by PETA.)

    That’s like saying the burglary victim asked for it by leaving his back door unlocked. And the gross euphemism of “removed” highlights the contempt with which PETA has for people’s pets like the deceased Maya.

    Surveillance video of the theft shows that it was quite obvious that Maya was obviously not a stray dog. The footage shows a dog sitting on her porch, timid of the intruders, and only willing to leave the porch briefly because of the coaxing of the two defendants in this case throwing a biscuit to her. But like most dogs belonging to a family, Maya returned – to dismay of the defendants – to the safety of her porch.

    Unfortunately for Maya this did not stop the defendants from trespassing illegally onto the property and ripping her from her home.

    Maya was killed that very same day.

    Don’t mistake this tragedy as an isolated incident, PETA routinely engages in the activity of killing domesticated animals like Maya every year. PETA’s body count exceeds 30,000 animals and its sympathy seems nonexistent.

    Justice may be served in the end for the family of young Maya, but that will do little to rid them of the grief of a family and their young child losing their loyal furry companion.