If PETA Ran the World

337

Liberals and animal extremists got a bee in their collective bonnet this week when Sarah Palin posted a picture of her son standing on his service dog to reach the kitchen sink. The dog – a black Labrador that acts as a service animal for Trig, who is afflicted with Down Syndrome – was obviously unhurt, but that didn’t stop the screamers from screaming. Leading the fray was the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), labeling the conservative a “bizarrely callous woman.”

This, of course, is not the first time PETA has made themselves look ridiculous. In fact, the vast majority of Americans regard the organization as the joke that it is. They don’t limit their attacks to conservatives; many will remember the flack President Obama received in 2009 when he dared to swat a fly on national television. PETA sent him a device meant to catch flies “humanely,” so that they can be returned to the wild. Even the most ardent Obama haters rolled their eyes.

Danger Lurking Beneath the Idiocy

But PETA is more dangerous than you might think. They make their occasional foray into the mainstream when they see a story they can exploit, but they do their craziest work outside the spotlight. What many people don’t know about is their tireless commitment to killing the very animals they are ostensibly trying to save. While they raise the roof about one 6-year-old standing on a dog, they have killed more than 19,000 dogs and cats since 1998. According to most resources, PETA puts to death 90 percent of the animals they take in.

If PETA ran the world, of course, there would be no such thing as “pets.” Millions of dogs, cats, pigs, birds, and other commonly-owned household pets would be liberated under PETA’s rule, left to fend for themselves in the harsh wild. Several times, PETA’s spokespeople have argued in favor of “total animal liberation.” If they had their way, zoos would become a thing of the past, fur would be gone, leather would be obsolete, and there would be no more meat, cheese, eggs, milk, or honey. What a world!

The human race could survive without all of those things, even if it would make life a little worse. Where PETA is at its most dangerous, though, is also where its arguments are most effective. Even people who are normally sensible can be swayed by propaganda against medical research. But without animal research, medical progress against some of humanity’s most prescient health threats would come to an end. Without animal testing, we would live in a world without many of our best surgical procedures, without vaccines, and without the medications that have given us the extraordinary jump in life span we’ve experienced over the last hundred years.

When PETA raises a stink about something as stupid as Palin’s photo, people just shake their heads and laugh. But when you do, remember that PETA’s aims are destructive and dangerous to the human race. It’s laudable to care about the “ethical treatment of animals,” but we must never compromise the future of humanity for the sake of appeasing the lunatic left.