PETA's Peculiar 'Partners'

Will PETA be the next ACORN?  Conservative blogs and websites have been working to uncover a scandal at PETA which has the potential to destroy the credibility of the radical animal-rights organization. 

For example,
at BigGovernment.com, Mary Grabar has written an expose on the organization.  As she notes,

(PETA's) strategies come "straight out of Saul Alinksky's Rules for Radicals."  Alinsky's strategies, adopted by various "social justice" groups, (most notoriously ACORN) include public ridicule, loud and shocking protests, the undermining of reform efforts already underway, and "behind-the-scenes" pressures.  Consecutively, PETA employs more subtle methods by providing consumers alternatives on its web page and through its online mall, which offers the predictable array of merchants of vegan dog treats, holistic healing services, a dating service for Democrats, and a magazine for homosexuals.  As an alternative to the glue traps sold at Lowe's (which supporters are encouraged to boycott altogether), consumers can find many mouse-friendly traps.  While PETA encourages supporters to boycott Iams pet food, PETA's website offers vegan dog food and treats for sale through "Business Friends" companies.  Companies that give a cut to PETA include Pet Guard, Pet Food Direct, Entirely Pets, Only Natural Pet Store, Evolution Diet, Karmavore Vegan Shop, V-Dogfood, and Wow-Bow Distributors.

But PETA is not only engaged in legal pay-to-play, their relationships are highly suspicious.  They are allies with groups which one would assume are hostile to their goals, and enemies with other companies one would assume should be allies.  The question, of course, is ... "why?"  As a recent Human Events article  noted an interesting fact; PETA's "partner" VISA maintains prominent partnerships with Omaha Steaks and the Kentucky Derby.  For obvious reasons, these partnerships seem to contradict PETA's radical goals.

As Human Events noted, "VISA's partnership with Omaha Steaks is such that when a person uses the card to buy a mail-order sampler box, Omaha Steaks receives a whopping 68 percent discount."  That's a deal I could get interested in, but then again, I'm not a PETA member.

Here's the rub.  According to PETA's worldview, VISA is not only funding a major distributor of animal products -- they are actually an accomplice to the promotion of eating a "slaughtered"animals.

Moreover, PETA recently put out a press release which makes the hypocrisy of these partnerships blatantly obvious:

"At a forum at the University of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich will describe the horrifying abuse that animals face when they're raised and killed for food. Friedrich will also discuss the massive environmental devastation caused by meat production as he makes the case for a vegan diet."

If one subscribes to PETA's world view, they must logically also conclude that VISA is a partner, and therefore funder to companies and events that support and profit from some of the most egregious violations to animal rights.

But the PETA/VISA connection is not the only questionable "partnership" uncovered.  Human Events also pointed out a similar contradiction in PETA's actions concerning its campaign against the Canadian Olympics.  It notes, "Currently, PETA is running a campaign to pressure the Canadian government to end an annual seal hunt during which the animals are bludgeoned to death. This sport has been targeted by PETA, and a statement released to urge the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee ‘to use its clout to help stop the Canadian seal slaughter.'"

Similarly, it was interesting to find that VISA maintains a partnership with the Kentucky Derby, the most popular horse race in the world.  PETA has made direct assertions to the public to avoid support of this "exploitative 'sport,'" yet does not directly confront one of its funders

So why would PETA partner with VISA?

Clearly, PETA is willing to overlook a few minor flaws when partnerships have the potential to impact their bottom line.  That would be fine if they had not attacked MasterCard for employing the same type of strategic partnerships.  For example, MasterCard is a partner of Ringling Brothers Circus.  In response, PETA attacked MasterCard renaming it, "NastyCard." 

At the end of the day, PETA is another example of a liberal interest group which wears their ideals on their shoulder -- until you show them the money.
Will PETA be the next ACORN?  Conservative blogs and websites have been working to uncover a scandal at PETA which has the potential to destroy the credibility of the radical animal-rights organization. 

For example,
at BigGovernment.com, Mary Grabar has written an expose on the organization.  As she notes,

(PETA's) strategies come "straight out of Saul Alinksky's Rules for Radicals."  Alinsky's strategies, adopted by various "social justice" groups, (most notoriously ACORN) include public ridicule, loud and shocking protests, the undermining of reform efforts already underway, and "behind-the-scenes" pressures.  Consecutively, PETA employs more subtle methods by providing consumers alternatives on its web page and through its online mall, which offers the predictable array of merchants of vegan dog treats, holistic healing services, a dating service for Democrats, and a magazine for homosexuals.  As an alternative to the glue traps sold at Lowe's (which supporters are encouraged to boycott altogether), consumers can find many mouse-friendly traps.  While PETA encourages supporters to boycott Iams pet food, PETA's website offers vegan dog food and treats for sale through "Business Friends" companies.  Companies that give a cut to PETA include Pet Guard, Pet Food Direct, Entirely Pets, Only Natural Pet Store, Evolution Diet, Karmavore Vegan Shop, V-Dogfood, and Wow-Bow Distributors.

But PETA is not only engaged in legal pay-to-play, their relationships are highly suspicious.  They are allies with groups which one would assume are hostile to their goals, and enemies with other companies one would assume should be allies.  The question, of course, is ... "why?"  As a recent Human Events article  noted an interesting fact; PETA's "partner" VISA maintains prominent partnerships with Omaha Steaks and the Kentucky Derby.  For obvious reasons, these partnerships seem to contradict PETA's radical goals.

As Human Events noted, "VISA's partnership with Omaha Steaks is such that when a person uses the card to buy a mail-order sampler box, Omaha Steaks receives a whopping 68 percent discount."  That's a deal I could get interested in, but then again, I'm not a PETA member.

Here's the rub.  According to PETA's worldview, VISA is not only funding a major distributor of animal products -- they are actually an accomplice to the promotion of eating a "slaughtered"animals.

Moreover, PETA recently put out a press release which makes the hypocrisy of these partnerships blatantly obvious:

"At a forum at the University of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich will describe the horrifying abuse that animals face when they're raised and killed for food. Friedrich will also discuss the massive environmental devastation caused by meat production as he makes the case for a vegan diet."

If one subscribes to PETA's world view, they must logically also conclude that VISA is a partner, and therefore funder to companies and events that support and profit from some of the most egregious violations to animal rights.

But the PETA/VISA connection is not the only questionable "partnership" uncovered.  Human Events also pointed out a similar contradiction in PETA's actions concerning its campaign against the Canadian Olympics.  It notes, "Currently, PETA is running a campaign to pressure the Canadian government to end an annual seal hunt during which the animals are bludgeoned to death. This sport has been targeted by PETA, and a statement released to urge the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee ‘to use its clout to help stop the Canadian seal slaughter.'"

Similarly, it was interesting to find that VISA maintains a partnership with the Kentucky Derby, the most popular horse race in the world.  PETA has made direct assertions to the public to avoid support of this "exploitative 'sport,'" yet does not directly confront one of its funders

So why would PETA partner with VISA?

Clearly, PETA is willing to overlook a few minor flaws when partnerships have the potential to impact their bottom line.  That would be fine if they had not attacked MasterCard for employing the same type of strategic partnerships.  For example, MasterCard is a partner of Ringling Brothers Circus.  In response, PETA attacked MasterCard renaming it, "NastyCard." 

At the end of the day, PETA is another example of a liberal interest group which wears their ideals on their shoulder -- until you show them the money.