PETA's Hypocrisy

Matt C. Abbott
The American Thinker
February 27, 2012
Link to Original Article

Liberals being hypocritical - imagine that.  The latest example: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

From a Feb. 24 story at The Daily Caller:

Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011.

The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers....

'PETA hasn't slowed down its slaughterhouse operation,' said Rick Berman, CCF's executive director.  'It appears PETA is more concerned with funding its media and advertising antics than finding suitable homes for these dogs and cats.'  In a statement, Berman added that PETA has a $37 million dollar annual budget.

I like pets.  In fact, for what it's worth, I have a cat.  But the antics and ad campaigns of a radical leftist group like PETA are ridiculous.

As for animal-rights activists in general, they are, at best, terribly misguided.

As author and bioethicist Wesley J. Smith pointed out:

...Although animal rights groups do sometimes engage in animal welfare-type activism, the term 'animal rights' actually denotes a belief system, an ideology, even a quasi religion, which both implicitly and explicitly seeks to create a moral equivalence between the value of human lives and those of animals. This belief was succinctly expressed in 1986 when Ingrid Newkirk, the head of the animal rights absolutist organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), told the Washingtonian magazine, 'A rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy. They are all mammals.'

Animal rights ideologues embrace their beliefs with a fervency that is remarkably intense and sustained, to the point that some dedicate their entire lives to 'speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves.' Some believe their cause to be so righteous that they are entitled to cross the line from legitimate advocacy to terroristic attempts at coercion. Indeed, what other than intense 'true belief' can possibly explain the vicious campaign - of harassment and vandalism, criminal attacks, bombings, and even threats of murder - that has been launched in recent years against medical researchers, the fur and food industries, and others accused of 'animal abuse'?