Sunday, 20 March 2011

Protect Animal Rights, Kill A Dog Or Two Thousand

"Go veggie and save the animals, like we, err, don't", say PETA.

According to its 2010 “Animal Record,” filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 94 percent of the cats and dogs in its shelter last year. PETA rationalizes that “open-admission shelters” like the one it operates provided these 2,200 animals with “a painless release from a world that does not want them.”

These new statistics bump PETA’s body-count up to 25,840 since 1998. Conversely, the Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care (85% adoption rate in 2009).
The above would be marginally less jaw-dropping if this was merely pet fodder we are talking here (PETA regularly cite their dislike of 'animal slavery', you see), but even of the 154 animals classed as 'wildlife', they were uncommonly far more eager to kill rather than release back into the wild. Only 19 managed to escape their euthanasia factory.

How these people can argue that their sleb-chasing, sick opportunism, and childish campaigns should be taken seriously is anyone's guess considering their longstanding track record of negligent treatment for the animals which end up burdening PETA's bottom line.

Some definitely do, though.

Despite criticism, we at Peta believe compromises and funny antics are necessary to the real work of animal protection
Like much of the bleeding heart left, it's always others who should be putting themselves out to ensure the outcome desired.

PETA urge everyone to shun meat; insist on the cessation of pleasurable pastimes like angling and hunting; and badger food producers to invest in ethical practices, yet they are seemingly incapable of investing so much as a red cent towards treating animals in their own care more favourably.

If they are woefully unable to lead by example, why on earth should anyone else give a toss about their message?

Shallow self-regarding celebrities excepted, of course.


Anonymous said...

It's because PETA like most left-wing fake-charities, false-do-gooders and hate-groups, ASH among them, are full of selfish and narrow-minded bigots, but wealthy bigots who have huge budgets donated by corporations and taxpayer monies stolen through illegitimate traitorous ruling classes and willing accomplices who co-opted the worldwide media. In the long run, aren't they all really just about death and killing animals, pets, people and anyone who isn't just like this small minority who have taken control of the world.

Snowolf said...


That is all.

What more CAN I say about them?


PT Barnum said...

Amen, Snowolf.

Takes a seriously nasty group to make the RSPCA look good...

nisakiman said...

I'm with you all the way on this one DP. What a shower of rentamob twats. When I read about their puerile antics it makes me want to go out and buy a mink coat (except I can't afford one and I think they only make them for women anyway :¬)). They aren't animal lovers, they're people haters.

Anonymous said...

Stories like this are the reason why I never, ever give money to any of the large charities any more. Whatever their - often very laudable - aims were when they started, as sure as eggs are eggs, the moment a charity becomes well-known (and thus well funded) the money and the influence becomes more important than the original aim.

There's a rule of thumb that I apply - if most people can tell you what a charity's initials stand for, they've got too big, have lost touch with their "roots," and it's very unlikely that any money you donate to them will be spent on what you think it will. Doesn't work 100% of the time (e.g. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam), but it's a good general guideline.

Angry Exile said...

That's a thought. Are PETA a fake charity? Pricks, yes, but are they getting forced taxpayer support? I may look when I have time but I have a nasty feeling they might actually get by honestly.

James Higham said...

Only 19 managed to escape their euthanasia factory.

Quick little substitution of people for animals and there we have it.

Anonymous said...

First they came for the puppies and I did not care for I was not a puppy.

Then they came for the kitties but I didn't care for I was not a kitty.

Then they came for me, but there was nobody to save my arse because everyone already donated money and vocally approved the mass killing of the puppies and kitties, heartless brainwashed idiots this world has become.

BTW, PETA CEO is on public record saying that the Holocaust of WWII was literally nothing to be concerned about, not when you consider the huge number of chickens that are slaughtered and then eaten which far outnumber those killed in the Holocaust. The CEO of PETA literally compared stewing chickens to human beings, saying the human being murders were less offensive than the killing of chickens raised for food.

Google it, it most certainly was said by PETA's CEO and is on the public record.

And would you donate to an outfit like that? I wouldn't, yet many do, because they do "good" you see, they use "kind words".

Good intentions, the pathway to hell. It's an old saying.

Bill Sticker said...

PETA stands for:

People for the
Elimination and
Termination of

Their Virginia 'Shelter' is notorious.

Anonymous said...

That's a thought. Are PETA a fake charity? Pricks, yes, but are they getting forced taxpayer support?
Taxpayer support or not, which they probably do and from corporate sponsors too, either way - doling out death as their main line of business is not doing good and thus not charitable, unless charity = killing things. They are fake dogooders, they do bad but call it good.

mherzog said...

Here is a video on animal rights:

Angry Exile said...

Bill, how about forming

People for the
Eating of

Anon - Taxpayer support or not, which they probably do and from corporate sponsors too, either way...

Big difference. Corporate sponsorship etc. is voluntary on the part of companies that do it. For the rest of us supporting companies by buying shares or doing business with them is also voluntary. Taxation is under threat of force, so charities that receive tax money are fake because that part of their income was not given freely but taken forcefully - ultimately at gunpoint.

Angry Exile said...

Sorry, meant to add that fake dogooders is a term I certainly agree with.

Anonymous said...

Corporate sponsorship, in the way Johnson and Johnson financially supports the good works of Robert Johnson Wood Foundation who in turn supports the good works of ASH by donation - that kind of legitimate charity?

Or Robert Johnson Wood Foundation who receives funds from George Soros' billion dollars of funds to do research in how best to bring euthanasia to the forefront of necessary solutions to world overpopulation and normalize it, that kind of legitimate charity?

Corporate sponsorthip doesn't make it any less a fake-charity than does it purely comeing from taxpayer sources, or a combination of the two - was my point.

Angry Exile said...

Anon, you clearly have a far broader definition of fake charity than me. ASH are a fake charity because of their DoH funding, not because they're also a corporate shill. J&J and George Soros may do what they like with their money, including giving it to directly or indirectly to ASH. This is voluntary on their part and doesn't affect the rest of us since we are able to our withhold money if we disagree - just don't buy their products or shares. A charity that gets 100% of its funding that way might well be little more than a mouthpiece (though not necessarily) but I wouldn't call it fake as long as it's all voluntary. As I recall the RSPB went all pro-wind power despite the bird mincing drawback of turbines around the same time they got a donation from the industry. I'd say it made them rather hypocritical and certainly created a conflict of interests, but I wouldn't say they suddenly became a fake charity by accepting money from industry ('fake' might be more appropriate for the industry, but that's a whole other topic).

On the other hand ASH and many of the other finger wagging nanny groups are fake charities precisely because of their reliance on income which was not voluntarily donated by anyone but was instead taken forcefully by the government with the ever present threat of violence. PETA never had a penny from me as far as I can tell, so while I disagree with them and have little but contempt for the lot of them from Ingrid Bloody Newkirk on down I'll credit them with at least relying on money given voluntarily. If I'd attempted to avoid giving any money to ASH or Alcohol Concern or Save the Children I'd be in prison for non payment of taxes, and I feel that's where the defining line is.

Anonymous said...

If not a fake charity then, relying on corporate or vast single source funding from billionaires, special interest groups or industry sources, still makes them less a charity, inclined to do good, as in for all, and more of a industry advocacy or political lobbyist group, which isn't the same as an honest charity with socially non-harmful goals in mind. Tax money granted directly to fake charites (your definition) is just the most reprehensible and undemocratic taking, but them masquerading as nonprofits receiving mainly industry single-interest funding and up to no good, being non-taxable entities, given that tax status, means they are not representing the interests of all the people, but by not paying taxes, being nonprofit, they are essentially depriving government of tax money that others must make up for. So in a way, simply the designation of nonprofit is giving them advantage at the disadvantage to other taxpayers, regardless of funding source - and if the funding source is corporate and serves a single narrow-minded interest of a corporate nature, then it is tax benefit, though not a direct grant being given. So to me, fake charity encompasses more than just them getting government grant monies, the most onerous of fake charities, but also includes why should they even be registered as a nontaxable nonprofit in the first place, when they're working only for the good of a special interest not in the public interest and because of their nontaxable status not paying their fair share of tax on what is essentially revenue for services they are providing their corporate sponsors, a tax loss that other taxpayers must make up for, a sort of indirect granting of taxpayer money.

Angry Exile said...

If not a fake charity [it] still makes them less a charity, inclined to do good, as in for all, and more of a industry advocacy or political lobbyist group, which isn't the same as an honest charity with socially non-harmful goals in mind.

Not necessarily, and that's why I'm uncomfortable with painting charities with the 'fake' tag with such a broad brush. Consider a helicopter rescue service, possibly covering the area of a few counties. Sure, they'll rock up with the aircraft at shows etc to rattle tins at people, and no doubt they'll have a website where anyone can make donations, but barring the kindness of a wealthy philanthropist and/or the avgas fairy that sort of activity will probably fall woefully short of what's needed to run a helicopter or two - I think a couple of thousand an hour per aircraft when they're in the air. So they offer companies the chance to look good by chipping in with the running costs. Maybe they even go as far as offering branding rights and put the name on the aircraft and in the URL. Does this mean they will be less inclined to fly around doing aerial rescue work? Will they instead change to being advocates for their sponsors (beyond the obvious 'We would like to thank the following corporate partners whose donations have blahblahblah' kind of thing). Will their goals move away from being, in your words, socially non-harmful?

Of course not. In fact doing that would probably end them. The companies are contributing partly because it makes their boards, bosses and shareholders feel good but also because it makes the company look good to be associated with a good cause. If that good cause starts getting tarnished - say refusing to rescue certain people who wouldn't be liked by their main sponsor or spending less time flying and more time telling people not to go into the places from which they end up having to be rescued - then it will be less attractive for the companies on which it depends to carry on giving it money.

Angry Exile said...

So to me, fake charity ... also includes why should they even be registered as a nontaxable nonprofit in the first place, when they're working only for the good of a special interest...

People who go into or live in remote areas and may need a chopper rescue one day are certainly a special interest group. Does that make a mainly or wholly corporate funded helicopter rescue charity 'fake'? I doubt many would think so, yet by your broader definition they would be just as fake as any bunch of moralising busybodies with their teeth firmly fastened on the taxpayer's jugular.

Look, one man's meat and all that. If you want to use a definition that encompasses charities that take the corporate shilling because the nature of their work means high overheads and tin rattling just won't do it then that's up to you. But in addition to being unfair on those charities that take corporate money but do not become their shills you have a couple of other problems. First it necessarily includes groups that are certainly are advocates but for things we might agree with - for me that would be libertarian advocacy non-profits. Secondly it risks over using the 'fake' tag and numbing people to the idea so that when you tell them that ASH is a fake charity they yawn and reply that these days you can find somebody to say that about every charity. The narrower definition - charities whose opponents are forced under threat of violence to contribute via taxation - avoids all of that.

Anonymous said...

Definitions aside, one thing I am thinking, about the direct granting of taxes being involved or not - if a corporate reduces taxes by deducting donation to charity that might other wise have been nondeductible as a political contribution expense, then they have avoided taxes and put themselves in a lower marginal tax bracket, also less taxes.

And if the nonprofit receiving those funds use those funds to provide public relations, advertising and political consulting services, they will be performing the same services as taxable businesses who do the same, but they will not be paying taxes on their revenue, since they are nonprofit.

And if the corporation pays less in tax and the nonprofit pays no tax for doing what a taxable business would have to pay tax on - then there is less tax revenue to the government.

And less tax revenue to the government from the corporations using the nonprofits, both of whom are avoiding tax by this arrangement - means that government must make up for the tax shortfall by taxing someone else.

So they would theoretically raise taxes in other areas, including on business and individuals not involved in laundering (maybe a harsh term but possibly applicable) operations - and so essentially, you would pay more in taxes for the shortfall and the shortfall will have been money directly transferred from the corporation to the nonprofit, as opposed from the corporation and other taxpayers through the government to the nonprofit.

It is still the same flow of money. It is just more transparent when it's not an actual government budget line item.

Because of that, that is why I am suggesting that not being an actual government budget line item does not necessarily mean that in a more circuitous route, it's still the same or similar effect as if it had been a direct government budget line item - and so it is essentially still the taxpayer's money being used in that manner against his/her will.

That would mean that the purpose of some of these nonprofits and to whose interests they serve, by being set up as purely corporate or single individual millionaire benefactor, still does not result in more taxes to others and that their being "fake" cannot be exclusively and only determined, by if they are a government direct budget line item.

There is this other effect to consider also.

Angry Exile said...

Anon - and in the absence of a name I'm only assuming I've been talking to the same Anon all the time - this is getting a bit long for an off topic on someone else's blog. I'll may blog an in depth reply when I have time but I've got more than one of those stuck in the pipeline already, and they're not being done because I'm just too damn busy with a work project in meatspace. All I'll say now is that on such broad terms any charity could be called 'fake' by someone who basically disagrees with their aim, and that this includes corporate funded rescue helicopters, the RNLI, and even the repair fund for some village's hall. Even private donations and bequests have tax implications so the whole thing of what's fake and what's not becomes subjective. As I said before the danger there is that the term becomes so overused as to become meaningless, but it also occurs to me that it might instead hand a powerful weapon to the statists/leftists. They'd be able to claim that at least on those terms The Ayn Rand Foundation and Advocates For Self Government, or The Libertarian Research and Education Trust in the UK, are all fake charities. And the thing is that there are a lot more of them than there are of us. If the price of labelling PETA and other prodnoses 'fake charities' is that millions and millions of insufferable pricks get to say that our charities are also fake even though they never take a penny/cent from anyone who didn't give it voluntarily then it's not a price worth paying. Far better to concede that PETA and others who stick to private funding, whether corporate or not, are real charities even though they might not be ones we would donate to.

Sal said...

my brother was a PETA member..Before he knew how delicious meat is