Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PETA's Dirty Secret - PETA KILLS ANIMALS BY THE THOUSANDS! - (shocking revelations)
PETA KILLS ANIMALS.COM ^ | MAY 12, 2005 | Staff

Posted on 05/13/2005 8:06:46 PM PDT by CHARLITE

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.

PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: animals; ethical; forthe; hypocrisy; killing; ofanimals; people; peryear; peta; pica; thousands; treatment
See graph of annual animal killing percentages on webpage.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

1 posted on 05/13/2005 8:06:47 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Shocking revelations? Who's shocked? Are you shocked? I'm not shocked. PETA cares nothing for animals; like all anarchists, they're interested merely in destruction and control.


2 posted on 05/13/2005 8:08:25 PM PDT by Capriole (I don't have any problems that couldn't be solved by more chocolate or more ammunition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Could we not have guessed this?
Raving liberals always accuse their opponents of EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO.
A rule cast in stone.


3 posted on 05/13/2005 8:09:02 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Perverts Euthanizing The Animals--now we know the rest of the story.


4 posted on 05/13/2005 8:12:28 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

PETA is a lobbying group. They hide behind fuzzy animals as the front agenda.


5 posted on 05/13/2005 8:13:44 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I'd like to know how many dinners they expensed at Morton's.


6 posted on 05/13/2005 8:14:56 PM PDT by Pan_Yan (All grey areas are fabrications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Perpetrators of the Euthanasic Termination of Animals


7 posted on 05/13/2005 8:16:19 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

“PETA Kills Animals” Hypocritical Animal Rights Organization Put 10,000 Animals To Death

May 9, 2005

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/105

New York City -- While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been hiding its own dirty little secret. PETA kills animals, and visitors to New York’s famed Times Square during the month of May will see a 60-by-60-foot billboard carrying that message, in a rare splashy advertisement that PETA won’t appreciate. Information obtained from the State of Virginia shows that PETA has a long-standing practice of killing thousands of dogs, cats, and other animals at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Along with the billboard, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom is unveiling a new website -- www.PetaKillsAnimals.com -- where PETA’s hypocritical death toll is on display.

Between 1998 and 2003, PETA put to death over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other creatures that the group publicly calls “companion animals.” Not counting those that PETA held only temporarily -- for spaying or neutering -- the group killed over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003.

“PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year,” said Center for Consumer Freedom research director David Martosko, “and much of it was from pet owners who thought their donations actually helped animals. Instead, PETA killed them -- while spending millions on programs equating meat eaters with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting kids into a radical animal-rights lifestyle, and even defending arsonists and other violent extremists.”

Other animal protection agencies near PETA's Virginia headquarters "put down" a much smaller percentage of the animals entrusted to them. In 2003 the Norfolk SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals. The Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66 percent. PETA could only manage 14 percent.

“We’re out to tell the truth about PETA,” added Martosko. “This group’s duplicity knows no bounds. PETA accepts animal-lovers’ donations with one hand while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens with the other. That’s not ‘ethical.’ It’s hypocritical.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

For media comment, contact our media department at 202-463-7112 ext. 133


8 posted on 05/13/2005 8:17:00 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Well, now I understand why PETA objected to the People Eating Tasty Animals web site. Obviously, that's their hidden name.


9 posted on 05/13/2005 8:17:10 PM PDT by Duke Nukum (King had to write, to sing the song of Gan. And I had to read. How else could Roland find the Tower?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

ping


10 posted on 05/13/2005 8:32:06 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969; Paridel; Sunsong

>>>Between 1998 and 2003, PETA put to death over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other creatures that the group publicly calls “companion animals.”

Oh. I see. 'Companion animals' are the animals PETA can kill.

I got the definition now Sunsong.


11 posted on 05/13/2005 8:34:49 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
It just isn't a PETA thread without my chicken.


12 posted on 05/13/2005 8:36:50 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Calpernia
Not only that, but the reason they cite? Cost. They have plenty of money. But apparently they'd rather not spend it saving the lives of animals in their charge.
14 posted on 05/13/2005 8:56:33 PM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

Plenty of money for political lobbying.


15 posted on 05/13/2005 9:39:02 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Exactly. Apparently there are more important things for them to do than to uphold their core principles.


16 posted on 05/13/2005 9:39:48 PM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
they're interested merely in destruction and control.

and........MONEY!!

17 posted on 05/14/2005 9:02:56 AM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck (The Flogging Will Continue Until Morale Improves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

List of Ping lists

18 posted on 05/14/2005 9:07:17 AM PDT by farmfriend (Send in the Posse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend


19 posted on 05/14/2005 9:30:17 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WWJB
What is it these activists do again that I need to spend time and attention on...? There's so many I mix them all up.

And unfortunately most are taxpayer funded and of non profit tax exempt status.

20 posted on 05/14/2005 9:40:26 AM PDT by tertiary01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE; Calpernia

I'm a little confused. So they operate this "shelter" (so to speak) which is actually a dog and cat killing field?

Do people bring them to this shelting thinking the animal will get adopted or does PETA go out and round up strays? Both?? Where do they get the dogs and cats?


21 posted on 05/14/2005 10:30:42 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (Hillary's Chappaquiddick. Check it out at: www.Hillcap.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

not shelting, shelter


22 posted on 05/14/2005 10:31:30 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (Hillary's Chappaquiddick. Check it out at: www.Hillcap.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Capriole

Your use of the term, anarchist, is both inaccurate and somewhat offensive. A true anarchist wants neither to be controlled (by government) nor CONTROL OTHERS. He or she merely wishes to be left alone and is willing to fight for that right. NO ONE who wants more/bigger/stronger government can ever properly be called an anarchist. Nor would a true anarchist be interested in the wanton or wilfull destruction of either people or private property. Please choose your terms more carefully.

WRT PETA, they are as socialist/marxist as any old line Stalinist, which is hardly a revelation. They represent the total antithesis of anarchy.


23 posted on 05/14/2005 10:32:10 AM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

Thanks for pointing out the article talking about the hypocrisy of PETA.


24 posted on 05/14/2005 10:55:06 AM PDT by youngtory (Liberals in Conservative clothing are bigger liars than the liberals themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: prairiebreeze

They spend very little time trying to find homes for animals brought to them. They DO leave the people with the DIRECT impression that they try to find homes for the animals. Many even bring animals to them with a donation.

Most of the animals spend about 3 days at the facility and are put to sleep.

PETA is about money, lobbying, trafficking. They do spend time stocking shelters underneath their affiliates with animals to justify them staying open for the grants, donations and adoption fees. But the fuzzy animals are more of a front.


26 posted on 05/14/2005 11:38:25 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Not only that, but the reason they cite? Cost. They have plenty of money. But apparently they'd rather not spend it saving the lives of animals in their charge.

It is so much more fun telling other people what to do than actually doing it yourself.

27 posted on 05/14/2005 11:40:45 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

I knew they lobbied, supported eco-terrorism, and were a front for leftist/socialist activism etc. But I'd never heard of the "shelters". Thanks.


28 posted on 05/14/2005 1:32:10 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (Hillary's Chappaquiddick. Check it out at: www.Hillcap.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Your use of the term, anarchist, is both inaccurate and somewhat offensive.

Well, goodness, the last thing any of us on FR want to do is to give offense to anyone! The very last!

May we assume from your careful definition and defense of the term "anarchist" that you are yourself an anarchist, by your definition of the term?

29 posted on 05/14/2005 2:02:43 PM PDT by Capriole (I don't have any problems that couldn't be solved by more chocolate or more ammunition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Capriole

Actually, no, though I am close. An anarchist believes in a complete absence of government, which undoubtedly is not as bad as some would have us believe by making the term anarchist a perjorative. However, I believe that we do need a referee to iron out disputes and an authority to house criminals and PROTECT OUR BORDERS. However, well over 90 percent of what FedGov AND the States do is utterly out of bounds to them, constitutionally speaking. I would ELIMINATE that 90 plus percent and then we can debate the rest of it. If we could shrink government to the size it was in 1775, I'd pretty well be happy.

Bear in mind that this country originated on the notion that each individual was his own sovereign and that government was granted VERY LIMITED authority to do certain specific things on our behalf and in our names. HOWEVER, there are two caveats to that: First, that the government, acting as our agent, can do NOTHING that is not spelled out in the founding documents (see Amendment 10); and, Second, that we cannot grant ANY power or authority to government which we ourselves do not possess. In other words, if I, as an individual, do not have the legitimate power to compel you to pay for some medical treatment or other for my mother, I cannot grant that authority to a third party (government) to do in my name. I cannot give what is NOT MINE TO GIVE.


30 posted on 05/14/2005 4:13:22 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Capriole

Actually, no, though I am close. An anarchist believes in a complete absence of government, which undoubtedly is not as bad as some would have us believe by making the term anarchist a perjorative. However, I believe that we do need a referee to iron out disputes and an authority to house criminals and PROTECT OUR BORDERS. However, well over 90 percent of what FedGov AND the States do is utterly out of bounds to them, constitutionally speaking. I would ELIMINATE that 90 plus percent and then we can debate the rest of it. If we could shrink government to the size it was in 1775, I'd pretty well be happy.

Bear in mind that this country originated on the notion that each individual was his own sovereign and that government was granted VERY LIMITED authority to do certain specific things on our behalf and in our names. HOWEVER, there are two caveats to that: First, that the government, acting as our agent, can do NOTHING that is not spelled out in the founding documents (see Amendment 10); and, Second, that we cannot grant ANY power or authority to government which we ourselves do not possess. In other words, if I, as an individual, do not have the legitimate power to compel you to pay for some medical treatment or other for my mother, I cannot grant that authority to a third party (government) to do in my name. I cannot give what is NOT MINE TO GIVE.


31 posted on 05/14/2005 4:13:56 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Would it not be more useful, then, to define yourself as a libertarian? You are certainly correct in saying that "anarchist" has such pejorative connotations, irresistably reminding the listener of anarchy.

I cannot disagree with much of what you say, particularly your feeling that you would be happy if modern government were to be shrunk to the size it was in the late eighteenth century. I only ask that government do for the citizens what they cannot do for themselves. We can build our own roads and even secure our borders, as has been demonstrated in the past few weeks, but building aircraft carriers may be a little beyond our reach.


32 posted on 05/14/2005 5:03:48 PM PDT by Capriole (I don't have any problems that couldn't be solved by more chocolate or more ammunition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Capriole

bttt


33 posted on 05/14/2005 5:06:33 PM PDT by tame (Are you willing to do for the truth what leftists are willing to do for a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Capriole

I am not a Libertarian because I disagree strongly with them on the open borders issue. I believe that there is a Constitutional mandate to protect our borders and many Libertarians believe that it's OK for foreigners to violate them with impunity. My feeling is that it matters not WHERE someone comes from (my wife's an immigrant); it only matters that they follow the rules set up for entry and do NOT try to sneak in, especially with the connivance of their own government, which is an act of war by any standard. I believe that illegal border violations will come to a halt and then become pointless when we STOP handing out goodies such as "citizenship" to anchor babies and welfare, drivers' licenses, favorable college tuition to border jumpers and their illegal offspring, etcetera. After we remove the incentives for the illegality, we can probably remove restrictions on entry, since the sick, lame and lazy won't bother to come here, as there won't be anymore freebies to be had. The ones who DO come here will be the ones who want to PRODUCE and make something of themselves, to build a new life here and ASSIMILATE into our country. The ones we do NOT need are the ones who merely want to send remittances home (milk our economy) and not become AMERICANS. The ones who want to escape the brutality and hardships of their original country, then try to turn OUR country into a duplicate of what they went to some effort to leave. My ancestors have been here since the Pilgrims landed. We became AMERICANS. Anyone else who wants to come here to live is welcome, AS LONG AS they come in the front door, like honest folks have done since doors were invented.


34 posted on 05/14/2005 9:48:53 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE; Eaker; habs4ever; Ditter; shaggy eel; dorben; Son of Rooster; Tennessee_Bob; Cyrano; ...

this isn't new... but always worth reminding people.


35 posted on 05/19/2005 7:15:00 AM PDT by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969; Calpernia
Apparently there are more important things for them to do than to uphold their core principles.

People always uphold their core principles. They just don't always say it in so many words.

36 posted on 05/19/2005 7:17:57 AM PDT by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal

Good point


37 posted on 05/19/2005 7:20:40 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Everytime I hear the word PETA I suddenly get the urge to throw on a fur coat, jump into a SUV and go out for a big dinner of VEAL...


38 posted on 05/19/2005 7:20:52 AM PDT by FeliciaCat (I like my money where I can see it...hanging in my closet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
A true anarchist wants neither to be controlled (by government) nor CONTROL OTHERS.

um... that seems be a contradiction. That definition is closer to libertarian.

39 posted on 05/19/2005 7:22:23 AM PDT by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
Well, goodness, the last thing any of us on FR want to do is to give offense to anyone! The very last!

Don't worry about it. Some people just have to pick nits off the elephant in the living room.

40 posted on 05/19/2005 7:23:08 AM PDT by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
Would it not be more useful, then, to define yourself as a libertarian

Imagine that... just what I said. I should read the whole thread first I suppose...

41 posted on 05/19/2005 7:24:14 AM PDT by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FeliciaCat
Everytime I hear the word PETA I suddenly get the urge to throw on a fur coat, jump into a SUV and go out for a big dinner of VEAL...

Fur is good. Meat is good. Otherwise why would animals eat it?


42 posted on 05/19/2005 7:27:05 AM PDT by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal
Terriergal

Tidbit, may be of interest:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1406044/posts?page=5#5

43 posted on 05/19/2005 7:40:51 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

yeah, I know.

I prefer the fuzzy faced terriers.

Too many people have ruined those bull-terrier and mastiff-like breeds. Except of course, the actual white and colored bull terriers are pretty friendly... or at least that is my impression.


44 posted on 05/19/2005 8:16:01 PM PDT by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson