The notorious animal rights organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) launched a new video game. According to a press release form the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, PETA in a seasonal effort to push their radical anti human agenda unveiled the video game “Holiday Snowball” in December.
The objective of the game is to throw snowballs at different characters in the game. The characters are, how could it be otherwise, celebrities that are deemed by PETA as “notorious animal abusers”. The celebrities included are fashion designer Donna Karan, one of the few clothing designers that still uses fur despite home invasions by PETA gang members. Other human targets included in the video game are; Madonna (she wears fur) Kentucky Fried Chicken’s Colonel Sanders, Charlton Heston, the Olson Twins (they wear fur too) and Sarah Palin. Sarah is included because, unlike many other celebrities she does not bow down to political correctness, she has the guts to admit on national TV that she is a hunter and proud of it.
In short, the featured celebrities - the ones that are still alive - are people that haven't surrendered commonsense to the scare mongering tactics and attacvks of PETA, unlike the former Baywatch bimbo and frequently surgically enhanced Pamela Anderson, official spokesperson of PETA. Talking about her, I wonder how many animals had to die to enable her plastic surgeon with the skills needed to “beautify” that women.
The objective of the game is to throw snowballs at each of the characters. The first stage of the game has players throwing snowballs at Madonna, Karan and the Olson Twins in shopping mall.
Once the players accumulated enough points in a given timeframe in first stage of the game they are taken to the next level. The second level takes place in a graveyard where the object is to force the Colonel Sanders and Charlton Heston, both evil looking animated, back into the grave from which they escaped by hitting them over the head.
The third stage pits the user against the horse trainer Larry Jones, who last year was controversially involved in the death of a racehorse. The final stage of the game present a bikini and fur coat wearing Sarah Palin. Sarah attempts to shoot Rudolph the reindeer. The players objective to throw snowballs at Palin and when the that stage of the game is won, the last scene shows Rudolph the reindeer pounding its hoofs on Sarah’s head in a very shocking display of violence. This last sequence is so shocking that it prompted an email war between the Sahara Palin Director of communications and Ingrid Newkirk, infamous founder and president of PETA.
It is nothing new that PETA shows little or no regard for humans and human lives. One only needs to be reminded of their demeaning “Holocaust on your Plate” campaign, or the many court trials that implicate and link PETA to terrorist organizations such as ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and the equally criminal organization ALF, to understand what PETA’s real agenda is.
What I find very cynical of PETA is the fact that the characters in the video game are “accused” of “murdering animals”. I find it cynical because in that case PETA should have included Ingrid Newkirk in the game too. It is after all PETA that, by orders of their deranged gang leader, kills annually more animals then any other animal shelter in North America. Not only do PETA employees kill animals that have been surrendered to their shelters on the promise of finding them new homes, PETA employees will go as far as stealing your pet dog or cats out of your backyard or even out of your house and kill them. Of all the things PETA stands for “ETHICAL” is not one of them, in fact what ever it is PETA stands for and what they do is morally and ethically very wrong. The “Holiday Snowball” game is just further proof of that fact. Any organization that has set their aim to influence our children to rebel against common decency, respect and morals is guilty of promoting violence and anarchy.Othmar Vohringer Outdoors
Founding Member of Outdoor Bloggers Summit
13 comments:
Such a well thought out and informative post Othmar.
I can't stand PETA. Can you imagine what would happen if - Realtree, lets say - came out with a game that promoted the pelting of PETA loving celebrities with shot, and then ran around stomping on their heads afterward. PETA would go absolutely crazy if that ever happened, but it's fine if they do such things.
The thing most disturbing thing about this whole game - for me anyway - is the fact that they even go after people who are deceased.
I'm glad you called them out on this Othmar. It's refreshing.
Jeff I feel exactly as you do about this and other radical groups. What really pisses me off about these oafs are that they get away with all that stuff. Like you pointed out. If anyone of us would come up with that kind of inhumane and anti human shenanigans we would be sued out of existence and most likely would have a human rights violation case on our hands too.
I have made it part of my mission to expose these and other extremist organizations. The more we can inform people about these crooks the more chance we have that people will start to turn their backs on them.
-ov-
Othmar Vohringer Outdoors
Founding Member of Outdoor Bloggers Summit
I also can't stand PETA. Can you imagine what would happen if - Realtree, lets say - came out with a game that promoted the pelting of PETA loving celebrities with shot, and then ran around stomping on their heads afterward.
Nothing surprises me with peta. Lunatics is what they are!
I think PETA has nothing better to do than harass people and if I was one of those celebrities than I would be calling a lawyer right about now.
Simon the Cat – That must be the easiest written comment I have seen so far. Just copies a paragraph form the previous comment and then post it. (Lol)
Adam – I agree with you, nothing comes as a surprise. But they are not lunatics. Well they are in our view. But seriously, animal rights are very smart. They know how to use the media to their best advantage. It is that media savvy that gives them such as voice. Animal rights are a dwindling minority but their media savvy and constant barrage lets them appear to be a majority. If we hunters, with the numbers we have, would have half of the antis smarts and media savvy we could create such a media furor that the antis would disappear over night.
Rick – Celebrities shy back from suing because they will loose and PETA knows that. That misunderstood and heavily abused term “freedom of expression” gives them the right to lie, demean and slander at will. This is the price we pay in a so-called free nation, everybody can say about someone else what he or she wants without any fear of being held accountable. The Sarah Palin team consulted with lawyers and where told they can do nothing about it, because freedom of expression is regarded much higher then a person’s individual right to choose their way of life.
-ov-
Hello, Othmar. Thought-provoking post. I don't hunt but I also don't really care for PETA's tactics. I admit I care very much about the animals' welfare. But I think PETA's means can be alienating, as your post proves. At the same time, I see what I would call "radical" stances from representatives of hunting, too. It's not the exclusive province of animal rights groups to push people in this way.
I do get what you're saying in this piece, but I hesitate to embrace it fully -- mostly because I wonder who would speak up for the well-being of animals if it weren't for these organizations. I've heard hunters level severe criticism at HSUS as well. And they've done some amazing work for dogs and cats, for instance. You may know that the earliest animal humane groups were the first to care about child labor and human abuses. The turn-of-the-century humane societies were the only ones taking on child labor and abuses.
Are there animal welfare groups -- real animal welfare groups seeking protections and compassion for animals -- that you personally would support? I ask because I can't see a world without a group like HSUS, given some of the things humans are capable of doing to non-human animals -- and consistently do to other animals. And I wouldn't want a world where no one cared enough to intervene on behalf of those who can't speak for themselves, whether its abused dogs and cats, or humans in dire circumstances with no one except some compassionate advocate. Well, that's just me. Thanks for the interesting writings. Got me thinking . . .
p.s. I also grew up in Switzerland (Geneve) but as an expat American.
Hi Julius. The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) is the same as PETA, a radical animal rights organization. Despite the word “humane” in its name the HSUS does not run animal shelters, spay/neuter programs or care for stray, neglected or abuse animals. It’s strictly a political lobbing orgaization diverting much needed cash from the real animal Humane Agencies. HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare; yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.
You can read more about this and other fake animal humane organizations Read more information here.
-ov-
Hi, Othmar - I realize that the Humane Society engages in political endeavors. Traditionally (I admit) I have supported many of the things they've helped to do to address egregious, systematic abuse like dog fighting. Sorry, I know I'm at odds with you on this, but that's why I asked if there is a better, national organization that you personally would support -- that could accomplish some of the same, wide scale benefits for animals?
I'm also staunch supporter of wonderful, local rescue organizations such as the ones you describe (and volunteer as a dog walker at one). But I'm talking about animal organizations that are looking out for animals on a larger scale.
The small, local shelters who do amazing, hands on work -- like the ones I work with -- just don't have the resources to do that. They can barely make ends meet, let alone head to Washington to bring more attention to the plight of the animals who desperately need our help.
And unfortunately, in my experience, the horrible treatment of animals is so widespread, my personal belief is that someone needs to stand up for them. Again, that's my opinion and I have a sense you disagree. But I would be devastated if there were no such well-funded group standing up for the voiceless, as they say.
So, pragmatically speaking, are there any such groups that you do support --ones who have power to change things on a national or global scale but that abide by principles you agree with? Just asking. Perhaps I'll start such an organization when my windfall comes in.
I am active in many organizations reaching from wildlife conservation to our local animal shelter. However, I never would support, morally or financially, organizations such as PETA and the HSUS. Despite what people been falsely let to believe, neither of these two organization provides any ay monetary or physical contribution to humane animal treatment or any wildlife conservation program. In fact these two organizations will go out of their way to denounce real conservation organizations in an effort to get more donations. PETA’s and the HSUS sole agenda, is to stop ALL animal use and animal husbandry period. How can anybody in his or her right mind support such a preposterous agenda that would, if implemented, cause worldwide devastation? Like it or not, animals are needed to support our life be that as food, provider of clothing or to cure illness and disease, or simply to be our companions.
To answer your last question. There are many organizations on a local, state and even international level that, unlike PETA and the HSUS, put their money where their mouth is. You mention that local animal shelters are strapped for cash. In great part you can blame PETA and the HSUS for that cash shortage. With their false propaganda these two divert millions of dollars into their pockets that otherwise would flow into organizations, like local shelters, that really care about humane animal treatment and wildlife conservation.Since PETA and the HSUS are erroneously labeled “charitable Organizations” their financial records are public. One look at these records will show you that PETA and the HSUS spend less then 0.2% of their millions on animal welfare, the rest goes to the bank accounts of their cooperate managers or to support militant animal rights terrorists and million dollar fees they pay to Hollywood celebrities to jump on their bandwagon. Often these celebrities have no clue what the agenda is about, they simple parrot the rhetoric script they have been handed out by the PETA and HSUS.
As a hunter I contribute more money, personal time and effort to humane animal treatment and wildlife conservation then PETA and the HSUS combined. In my article The Economics of Hunting you can read what the hunting and fishing community contributes to wildlife conservation. It is suffice to say that without hunters the rich abundance and variety of wildlife and habitat we all enjoy would not be possible.
-ov-
>>>As a hunter I contribute more money, personal time and effort to humane animal treatment and wildlife conservation then PETA and the HSUS combined.
OK, I LOL'ed at that one. Humane animal treatment? By shooting/eating them? Thank goodness you aren't spending more money, personal time, and effort on the humane treatment of women and children.
Anonymous – Well you can LOL all you want. Do a little unbiased research and you soon will realize that hunters, a small minority, contributes over 90% of the money needed for wildlife and habitat conservation. You also will learn that hunters are very active in various organizations such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, National Turkey Federation, plus a long list of other fine organizations dedicated to preserving wildlife and habitat.
Surveys continually show that hunters are actively engaged in other charitable organizations such as local animal shelters and for the less fortunate in our society. You see, unlike city dwellers and animal rights, hunters have not lost touch with nature and community. Despite what animal rights will have you believe, hunters respect animals and life. The only difference is that we realize that humans have to take lives to survive. Even vegetarians have to kill and destroy wildlife habitat to eat. The difference is that vegetarians do not admit to it.
While you do this research check also out unbiased information about PETA and the HSUS and you will realize that other then an absurd agenda, that if implemented would cause the total destruction of humankind and wildlife conservation, these two organizations support nothing that remotely could be considered humane on humans and animals alike. These two notorious organizations rake in millions each year and so far have failed to contribute any amount of money to wildlife conservation or into humane animal treatment. In other words they are all mouth but no action. Keep on with the LOL. It’s what animal rights to best.
-ov-
Hi, Othmar - It took a while for me to come back. I investigated some of the things you suggested. The link you provided about HSUS financing, unfortunately, is the website of a known advocacy group for such organizations as poultry producers, with obvious anti-animal-welfare agendas. So, I think the validity of that perspective is as biased as something you'd find on a pro-animal site. I'll have to look into this on my own with more neutral sources.
In the meantime, I did pay some visits to various groups I have supported over time, such as HSUS. And although you may very well have a valid argument on one level, I still have to go back to the idea of "who will do this if they don't?" There was a story at the top of the HSUS blog about a wretched dog rescue and cockfighting rescue operation. And I really don't see how organizations lacking the financing and power of groups like the HSUS, could accomplish these good deeds on behalf of animals on such a large scale, including legislation passed to protect animals.
I won't pursue this any further, because I realize we have different perspectives on this. But I guess you could say that in the end, I'm not convinced 100 percent that eliminating groups like HSUS is a solution when there's a void of other groups advocating on this large a scale. As I said earlier, I work in and believe in working on a local level. But there's a place, too, for organizations that devote resources to large-scale changes in society such as legislation against animal abuse. My local shelter can't advocate in Washington, so I'm not sure who else would. But again, that seems to be a difference in perspective here.
Best to you, and signing off.
Post a Comment