Category Archive: The Green Fringe

  1. PETA Exploits the Pope to Peddle a Vegan Diet

    Leave a Comment

    Holy CowsYears ago, we published a report, Holy Cows, on the willingness of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to manipulate religious teachings to peddle its radical animal liberation agenda. Nothing has changed. Just this week, Sarah Withrow King—the director of PETA’s self-serving religious affiliate, Jesus People for Animals—penned an opinion piece that managed to somehow find a way to use the Pope as a vegan archetype.

    The article, entitled “Go on vegan diet for Pope Francis,” claims that Pope Francis’ recent emphasis on environmental stewardship amounts to a papal endorsement of veganism. According to PETA, we should “honor Pope Francis’ dedication to the environment by choosing a healthy and humane vegan diet.”

    But sources suggest that the real way to the Pontiff’s heart is meat—and lots of it. A review of the Vatican cookbook, a collection of Pope Francis’ favorite recipes published last year, summarizes his appetites: “Pope Francis eats like a fairly typical Argentinian: He loves a good steak, empanadas and dulce de leche.” (Argentines eat more beef per person than any other nation, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.)

    In other words, dieting like the Pope means dairy and meat—not bovine liberation and lima beans.

    This isn’t the first time PETA has distorted, and then exploited, the words of Pope Francis. Less than a month ago, PETA and its animal liberationist comrades jumped all over media reports of Pope Francis hinting that animals might go to heaven.

    Animal lovers were delighted by the news, which validated hopes that their furry family members would join them in the afterlife.

    But vegan radicals like PETA and HSUS were thrilled for a different reason. Both groups seized the news stories—which, incidentally, proved completely false—as opportunities to insert animal rights ideology into theology.

    PETA’s eagerness to capitalize on the cultural reverence invoked by the Pope is despicable, and just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, PETA seems to only worship at the altars of hypocrisy and greed.

  2. PETA-like Protestors Go Cuckoo over Chicken “Murder”

    Leave a Comment

    130415_CCF_ChickenWings_picA group of vegan extremists is serving up lots of guilt—with a side of hysteria, over easy—to some very unlucky restaurant patrons. These so-called animal “liberation” activists recently staged a bizarre demonstration in an effort to guilt unwitting diners over breakfast. Kicking off the stunt, a hysterical young women storms into a restaurant and begins fervently describing the “abuse” of a “little girl” named “Snow.” Spoiler alert: Snow is a chicken.

    The speaker goes on to tell the story of the chicken she took from a farm. The woman claims the chicken was habitually “crying” and “scared every single moment” until the animal was almost “murdered”—a near-death experience that evidently lends the chicken a “determined look in her eyes wherever she goes.” (Umm…right.)

    Annoyed to realize her narrative is soliciting giggles instead of guilt, the speaker wails: “Someone was going to murder her [the chicken]. And I can see you smiling. And I can see you laughing. But to her [the chicken], this is not funny.”

    But the punchline of the protest isn’t the bird-brained message of the campaign: It’s the affiliation of the chicken-hugging messengers—or more accurately, their non-affiliation.

    Normally, it’s pretty safe to assume that bizarre disruptions in the name of animal “liberation” are the handiwork of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). But even though PETA isn’t at the helm of this particular restaurant rampage, its fingerprints are all over it: radicalisma disregard for the lawintrusive and personally invasive tacticshyperbolic emotional manipulation — all the pillars of a PETA “press-slut” campaign are accounted for. The restaurant protestors might as well have thrown some red paint—or at least squirted some ketchup—on the breakfasting “murderers” on their way out.

    Ironically, PETA’s version of animal liberation holds that animals are better off dead—that’s how PETA justifies its killing of the cats and dogs in its care or its advocacy that feral cats be systematically killed. If killing animals is morally justifiable, then what’s wrong with humanely raising chickens on a farm and using them for food? Nothing, unless you have a profoundly blame-humans-for-everything view of the world. For people who complain about “speciesism,” that’s a rather bizarre mentality.

  3. Joseph Mercola Joins Three-Ring Animal-Rights Circus

    Leave a Comment

    CCF_FacepalmLongtime junk scientist and “snake oil salesman” Joseph Mercola has moved from spewing nutritional nonsense to providing animal-rights nonsense, too. His site recently featured an article celebrating a newly enacted ban on animal performances in Mexico City circuses. Thepet-killing hypocrites at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) surely were pleased that another radical has joined their cause. Never mind that animal-rights activists dragged one circus through the courts for a decade on claims of animal abuse, only to see their case thrown out in stunning fashion and see themselves sued for racketeering in return, ultimately paying $25 million to the circus. Why worry about inconvenient facts when Mercola’s website can host another ill-informed rant?

    In a way, it’s fitting that Mercola has joined this ill-informed crusade. The osteopath Mercola, who does not hold an M.D., is part of a growing quacktivist cohort—including the likes of the pop nutritionist “Food Babe”—that use internet platforms to posture as health and science experts. Like his cockamamie companions, Mercola’s cyber crusades take on a host of perfectly safe, scientifically sound products and processes.

    Consider, for example, Mercola’s assault on vaccinations back in 2009. Credible scientific estimates anticipated that the swine flu outbreak would kill roughly 36,000 victims that year. But Mercola cautioned his online followers to avoid vaccinating their children, insisting: “The swine flu is simply another flu. It’s not unusually deadly.” Equally dangerous, Mercola advises against fluoride in drinking water and mammograms for women.

    Mercola has also warns against the so-called grave dangers of things like cell phones, microwaves, electric razors, and electric clocks. And now, it looks like the not-so-good doctor has parlayed his (completely unwarranted) internet following into another activist field:Animal rights. Given that animal liberationists like PETA deny the realities of animal welfare science in favor of an ideology, the new role fits.

  4. Put Down PETA

    Leave a Comment

    PKA syringe picAfter years of reporting on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), you’d think the organization might show some true remorse about the thousands of cats and dogs it kills at its headquarters and try to make some changes. Instead, it’s doubling down. The animal “liberation” group kills up to 97 percent of dogs and cats in its so-called animal shelter in any given year, and PETA is now calling on local governments—most recently in Arizona—to adopt its philosophy of “better dead than fed” by systematically killing feral cats.

    Feral cats, formerly domestic cats that set up colonies in communities, tend to breed like rabbits, causing crowding or a strain on resources at animal shelters. Many communities use a program to trap, neuter, and return—also known as TNR—feral cats as a means of population control without killing. A county in Arizona recently implemented such a plan.

    You’d think that a group that thinks chicken farms are Auschwitzes (literally) would be on board with this, but no. In fact, PETA favors whacking each and every feral cat in Pima County and across the United States. Apparently a series of mass kitty executions is the “ethical” solution to population problems. But then again, PETA has killed more than 33,000 animals since 1998. But this is certainly escalation: There are an estimated 50 million feral cats in the U.S.

    Perhaps PETA should be “put down” instead. Sign our petition to take away PETA’s tax-exempt status and show the group that it should be held accountable for its actions.


  5. A Fiery Passion for Animals

    Leave a Comment

    130402_CCF_HeadlineImage_JudgeGavelFrom a Molotov cocktail attack on a police cruiser to vandalism at a gourmet taco restaurant, animal liberation terrorists are still active across North America. It’s in the shadow of these and other recent illegal acts that the American Bar Association will vote on a misguided and reckless push to roll back anti-animal terrorism laws.

    The New York City Bar Association has submitted a referendum to the ABA’s House of Delegates asking the ABA to push for repeal of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) and calling on the Justice Department to cease enforcing the law. The law, passed in 1992 and upgraded in 2006 following the arrests of several SHAC activists—who were found guilty of animal enterprise terrorism—is an important law in fighting radical vigilantes.

    The AETA makes it a crime to damage or interfere with an “animal enterprise”—zoo, pet store, research lab, farm, etc.—by causing property loss or by putting someone in fear of death or serious bodily injury through using threats, intimidation, trespass, or vandalism. It’s an entirely reasonable law to push back against a terrorist movement whose tactics have involved not only targeting businesses, but associates of businesses and their employees and family members with actions including from bombings, death threats, office invasions, and computer attacks.

    Yet the NYC Bar, along with groups like the so-called Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), has claimed that the law creates a chilling effect on free speech. It’s a bizarre claim both on its face and in practice.

    The law explicitly contains provisions exempting protected activities, such as picketing or demonstrations. And the AETA in practice certainly isn’t stopping the likes of HSUS and PETA from attacking brands (or people, for that matter). PETA’s recent street theater opposing the circus and HSUS’s increasingly desperate kitchen-sink campaigns against livestock farmers demonstrate that the AETA is not having a silencing effect on free speech. In fact, in March a federal judge threw out a lawsuit brought by animal liberation activists against the AETA, finding that they couldn’t reasonably showing that the law chilled free speech.

    Let’s hope the ABA sees through this transparent attempt that serves only the animal-liberation fringe. There are still terrorists out there, but ski-mask-wearing radicals brazenly handing out “Wanted for Murder” sheets in neighborhoods seems to have become a thing of the past. Rolling back 20 years of legal protections for legitimate businesses only serves vegan vigilantes, not the meat-eating, leather-wearing public at large.

  6. If You Give Money to PETA, You Contribute to Pet Killing

    Leave a Comment

    PKA syringe picPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an animal liberation group made notorious by its providing financial support to arsonists; giving money to the Earth Liberation Front, a group then-Deputy Assistant Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Carson Carroll testified was one of “the most active extremists movements in the United States” in 2005; and killing roughly 2,000 pets per year at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters has launched another attention-grabbing advertising campaign. USA Today reports:

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is about to shed the sexy models for an in-your-face campaign aimed at eliciting shock — and guilt.

    Striking photos of animals being skinned have been doctored to show well-to-do consumers on-the-scene at the skinning — even as they wear or tote products made from the skinned animal.

    The ads are supposed to shock consumers into trading in real products for vegan fakes, but it’s not clear whether anybody actually will. And two can play PETA’s “When you buy it, you become part of it” game.

    Following PETA’s logic, when you donate to PETA, you become part of killing homeless pets. That PETA kills the overwhelming majority of the pets in its care is undeniable: The state of Virginia says so; the New York Times says so; shoot, even PETA boss Ingrid Newkirk says so.

    By PETA’s logic, then, every person who contributed to the group’s $30 million budget “became part of” sticking a lethal needle in dozens of unfortunate dogs and cats. If that’s what PETA’s donors want, they can keep funding PETA’s pet slaughterhouse.


    Check out our new site that calls out PETA for killing so many pets even as it campaigns to ban all uses of animals by people. Even caring for pets is against PETA’s principles: PETA President Ingrid Newkirk has said, “It would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”

    Warning screenshot

    We will continue to expose PETA for its hypocrisy and extremism. Head over to to see the full, graphic truth—if you can stomach it.

  7. PETA: Putting Drones Before Homeless Pets

    Leave a Comment

    PKA syringe picA heartwarming story from Portsmouth, Virginia is crossing the wires: A dog found near death by animal control and sent to the Portsmouth Humane Society has been adopted and is doing well in the care of her new owner, a veterinary technician. The dog — named “Hope” by Portsmouth Humane staff — was lucky to survive, as news reports indicated that she was so emaciated and swarmed by flies that animal control officers thought she was dead when they found her.

    The dog was lucky for another reason, too. Portsmouth sits across the Elizabeth River from Norfolk, home of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ shelter of horrors, where last year the group killed nearly 90 percent of the pets in the group’s care. If circumstances were different, Hope might have needed to abandon all hope.

    PETA defends this wanton slaughter of pets by protesting that they are compassionate. Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s president, argues thusly:

    We run a shelter but in the most merciful way. We help–because no one else will–the animals who are society’s rejects in the area near our Virginia headquarters. These animals are aggressive, feral, on death’s door (often with large tumors hanging from their bodies), or otherwise unadoptable.

    While there is plenty of evidence that disputes the “death’s door” claim by Newkirk, it stands to reason that Hope, having been found so emaciated that trained dog wardens thought her dead, would not have any hope in PETA’s shelter. Perhaps they should call the recovering dog “Lucky,” since she not only survived a delinquent former owner but avoided being the recently killed subject of a PETA self-defending “but we only kill desperate animals” blog post.

    As for “aggressive” dogs, what about the animals seized as part of the Michael Vick dogfighting case in Surry — again, not far from PETA’s HQ? Many of the animals were rehabilitated through hard work and have new homes. They may well have been put down if they had been given to PETA.

    So if PETA isn’t saving these pets with its $30 million annual budget, what is the animal liberation group that hasn’t seen a press event it didn’t like up to? Buying drones. No, seriously: U.S. News reports that PETA will “‘soon have some impressive new weapons at its disposal […]’ and that it is ‘shopping for one or more drone aircraft.’” The drones would be used by PETA to “stalk” hunters. Even though the group denies that it wants to arm its new, expensive spy toys, given PETA’s history of supporting violent extremists the rhetoric about “weapons” is chilling. But this all may be pointless, because if armed hunters don’t like drones

    So, donors have a choice: Rehabilitate sick dogs by donating to their local shelters, or help a multimillion dollar national group buy drones, while it kills pets in the name of mercy. Sounds like an easy choice to us.

  8. A Vegan Manifesto Wearing a Weight-Loss Halo

    Leave a Comment

    Neal Barnard, president of the deceptively named “Physicians Committee” for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), is hitting the road this month on a book tour to promote his 21-Day Weight Loss Kickstart program. The casual observer might think this is yet another hardcover to fill up the self-help section. But if you know a thing or two about PCRM (or weight loss, for that matter), you’ll quickly realize that – much like Barnard’s group – this book is not what it seems.

    To begin by judging the book by its orange cover, the program purports to “boost metabolism, lower cholesterol, and dramatically improve your health.” It does not mention that to achieve such lofty health goals, Barnard’s program mandates giving up milk, eggs, salmon, shrimp, chicken breast, pork, and dozens of other low-calorie lean protein sources that are part of the typical weight-loss canon. There’s also no credible evidence that a diet that contains meat and dairy poses any undue health risk, though it could lead to serious vitamin deficiencies.

    Sound like strange advice from a weight-loss doctor? That might be because he is not a registered nutritionist or bariatric surgeon but a psychiatrist by training.

    So why doesn’t Barnard come out and admit on the cover that this book is just another vegan manifesto wearing a veneer of health? It’s the same reason PCRM doesn’t openly advertise its past links to PETA and to FBI-designated domestic animal-rights terrorist groups: because that would expose the group’s true animal-rights agenda. (Barnard himself has been PETA’s medical advisor and president of the PETA Foundation. We bet that didn’t make it onto the book jacket, either.)

    And finally, we believe the majority of people picking up this book as a quick fix will be sorely disappointed in the results. Long-term weight management requires a total lifestyle approach – not a scientifically flimsy diet you only have to stick to for 21 days. And that is ultimately what makes this just another weight-loss gimmick that will line the bargain bin in a few months.