Home / Animal Rights / Headlines


November 1, 2006
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


Arizonans Get An Animal-Rights Reality Check

The people who brought you constitutional rights for pigs and the "Fish Empathy Project" have descended on the Copper State. And through a series of crafty campaigns of bait-and-switch, they're hoping to impose their destructive ideology on the good people of Arizona. But we're pushing back. With mobile billboards, full-page ads in major newspapers, and opinion pieces -- like the one in today's Arizona Daily Star -- we're telling Arizonans the truth about exactly who it is they're dealing with. As we wrote in the Star:
Animal "rights" sees the institution of pet ownership, including seeing-eye dogs and police K-9 units, as a form of slavery. Extending rights to rhinos would mean zoos simply couldn't keep them anymore. Likewise for circus elephants, marine-park dolphins and every living thing sold at pet stores.

Embracing the animal-rights philosophy requires shifting vegetarianism from a choice to an obligation. In the long term, words like beef, pork, veal, cheese, omelet and even "wishbone" would exist only in a Scrabble dictionary. Activists may start out agitating merely for larger cages, but their real goal is the end of all animal agriculture. Including those small "family" farms.

Animal-rights activists know that ordinary Americans would never stand for this. So they unleash their most outrageous spokegroups from time to time, hoping that their more moderate-looking counterparts won't get noticed as the fanatics that they are.

Average Arizonans are in favor of animal welfare but can't stomach "rights" for rats. So groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) provide something obnoxious to distract us. PETA's basic purpose these days is to make other animal-rights groups appear moderate by comparison.

This includes the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which erects calm roadblocks to medical research. And the Humane Society of the United States, which doesn't operate any pet shelters but has managed to pour $800,000 into an Arizona ballot campaign this year alone ...

All animal-rights groups, both the unbearable and the mild-mannered, want the same thing. More rights for animals. Fewer for you. They're counting on you to dislike PETA but feel morally obligated to agree with someone -- anyone -- in the animal-protection movement.

email us comments




printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Daily Headlines

  • Will PETA Protest Itself?
    Posted On: Friday 11/20/2009
  • Sucker, Can You Spare a Dime (for HSUS)?
    Posted On: Tuesday 11/17/2009
  • Exposing the Animal Rights Agenda
    Posted On: Friday 11/13/2009
  • The Bacon Beckoning
    Posted On: Thursday 11/12/2009
  • Vegetarian Book Makes Meatless Arguments
    Posted On: Thursday 11/5/2009
  • Marley and Meat
    Posted On: Tuesday 11/3/2009
  • Quote of the Week
    Posted On: Friday 10/30/2009
  • “Physicians Committee” Abuses the Law. Again.
    Posted On: Thursday 10/29/2009


  • Activist Cash

    Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
    Background | Quotes | Financials
    While PCRM presents itself as a doctor-supported, unbiased source of health guidance, the group’s own literature admits that 95 percent of its members have no medical degrees. read more here »

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
    Background | Quotes | Financials
    According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, human beings are just another animal species, no more special or important than a snail darter or dairy cow. read more here »

    OpEds

    Hard-boiled animal activists could threaten vaccine supply
    In the post-9/11 world, the phrase "national security" conjures up images of dirty bombs, jihadists, white powder and biohazard labels. It should also bring to mind another picture: an egg. read more here »

    Put Helmsley's billions to use in animal shelters
    PETA and HSUS have announced their intentions to claim big slices of the $8 billion bounty. But neither one has the track record to handle such a responsibility. read more here »


    Copyright © 1997-2009 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.