PETA Hunts Schools For Young Converts

PETA (aka. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) found a new way to promote their message. Calling the program TeachKind, the organization now indoctrinates children as young as kindergartners. Apparently, they think it takes a barnyard to raise a child. It’s another liberal organization telling parents showing parents how to raise their children. Wait a minute. That’s not quite right either. PETA circumvents the parents completely through the conduit of teachers. Yes, the Dems/Libs know better than Mom and Dad how these future citizens should be raised — by a village, by a barnyard . . . by them.

I am known by those close to me as an animal lover. If the truth be told, I lean more towards PETA than this blog would sanction. You may have noticed Big Dog call me a tree hugger at times. “Mixed” or “necessary evil” would describe my feelings towards animal testing for medical purposes. I find it unacceptable to subject animals to testing for cosmetic purposes. So, it may surprise some that I oppose this organization and their new indoctrination technique.

The insidious nature of their methods raises red flags. The organization offers free courses of study to beleaguered and overworked teachers from K-12. Essentially, they give teachers a break on their work load under the guise of animal-friendly education. If it was just animal-friendly education, this post would not exist. Such is not the case.

Hidden within these courses are age-appropriate introductions to PETA’s agenda. It’s a “get them while they’re young and impressionable” philosophy. One lesson plan even discourages children from drinking milk. To reinforce this message, FNC reports they offer trading cards called “Don’t Be a Milk Sucker.” Parents, if little Suzie comes home from school one day and refuses to drink the milk which helps grow strong bones and says she learned that at school, blame PETA. If the organization has its way, mothers may be breastfeeding their young until they graduate high school. Maybe PETA thinks that’s more humane.

Many of the lesson plans center around becoming a vegetarian or, ideally, a vegan. For those unfamiliar with the difference, a vegan eats only plant products — no milk, cheese, eggs or butter. In fact, PETA’s Web site for children also offer T-shirts with the slogan “Fish are Our Friends, Not Food.” Parents, you can forget about those fish stick and the healthy Omega 3 oils. So what if Omega 3 has proven to be good for the heart, the brain, fight depression and help calm hyperactive children? We must respect a fish’s unalienable right to live a full and healthy life!

Some of the lesson plans have good, sound messages for children. Being kind to animals is a good thing. Learning the importance of spaying or neutering a pet can only help improve the abandoned and homeless pet situation. Every child should learn to be a responsible pet owner (or companion, in PETA’s terms). The organization also accurately points out that many violent offenders begin by abusing animals and claims their curriculum may help to reduce the number headed down this violent path. Of course, no studies support this contention — which is an assumption based on the fact that PETA offers no such data.

(By the way, has anyone actually ever met a vegetarian that looks healthy? I’m not even talking vegan here. In my circles, I have met a few vegetarians. Some are way too thin; some are considerably overweight; and, all have a strange pallor about them. )

If an adult decides on a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle for his/her family, that’s certain his or her prerogative. But to have a child wake from a nightmare where the lambs are screaming or reject a fish stick for fear Nemo was sacrificed, that’s just plain wrong! Woe to the unsuspecting parent dealing with this crisis.

The PETA methodology reflects a dangerous trend. Many liberals think they know how best to raise “our” children. To these socialist hiding behind liberal masks, parent have become, at best, superfluous and, at worst, an impediment to the child’s successful future. They want to determine our children’s intellectual education, sexual education, religious (or lack there of) education, right to abort . . . and, now, what they eat and drink. Yes, it’s becoming a brave new world out there.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

19 Responses to “PETA Hunts Schools For Young Converts”

  1. Adam says:

    I worked with a vegan on the Arkansas for Kucinich campaign last year. He’s been vegan for 15 years. He’s got a beer gut from drinking those “plant products”, but otherwise he’s in great shape.

  2. Surfside says:

    I will take your word for it, Adam. Just because I haven’t met any healthy-looking vegans certainly doesn’t mean they don’t exist. However, I seriously question if one can raise a healthy vegan child.

  3. Adam says:

    You can raise a healthy vegan child. Vegan mothers can breastfeed. That is a big deal to start. Breastmilk of vegan mothers lacks the harsh chemicals and steroids meat and dairly mothers have, such as DDT.

    Then once they are off breastmilk, there are many options. Most babies only eat mashed vegies and fruits for a while, don’t they? I’ve never been a father, so I can’t say for sure, but I’ve seen some babies raised. They can eat whole grains and things too.

    It’s really a low blow to vegans to say they can’t raise a healthy vegan child. My friend is not married and doesn’t have kids yet, but it will be interesting to see. He actually hosts a vegan cooking show, as funny as that is.

  4. Surfside says:

    There are many healthy nutrients that growing children need that are found in milk products, fish and eggs. Are there vegan substitutes? Not for Omega 3, that much I can say for certain. There are now alternatives to meat products with antibiotics and steroids. I know because I often purchase them myself. And, if you think fruits and vegetables don’t carry harsh chemicals, think again. Some of the worse culprits are apples and grapes.

    But, you’re missing my point. This decision should not be made by children whom have been brainwashed by some PETA program. It’s a decison that should be made by parents. At least a true vegan will know how to feed his child for optimum nutrition. He will know if supplementation is needed (hopefully), such as calcium.

  5. Adam says:

    I’m not missing your point, just responding to the side question you asked. I don’t realy know what to say about PETA. I’m a bit of a flip-flopper on PETA right now.

    Your statement is true about the toxins, but it is easier to get naturally grown fruits and vegitables than naturally grown beef, chicken, or pork.

    As for Omega-3, it doesn’t just come from animals. There is a plant source as well. A single teaspoon a day of flaxseed oil would provide a vegan with enough. Green vegitables have this plant version of Omega-3 as well. There are tons of things to worry about, no doubt, but people have lived long lives as vegans. They know what they are doing.

  6. Surfside says:

    Actually, it’s not difficult to get natural meats, eggs and cheese — pasture raised without hormones and antibiotics. I live literally in the sticks and our local grocery store carries these products.

    You get a child to take a teaspoon of flaxseed oil. LOL! You’re right about the flaxseed oil. But a parent is lucky if he/she can get their children to eat their brocoli, peas or carrots. Somehow, I think flaxseed oil would be a real struggle compared to fish sticks. Don’t you think there’s something unnatural and wrong with a diet that requires so much additional supplementation?

  7. Adam says:

    I sometimes live in the city, sometimes in the sticks. It is not easy for me in either place, but not impossible in the sticks. Even here the grains we buy for animals have additives in them. My father hunts deer and turkey, and that is about as good of meat as we can get. You are lucky that it’s easy, and it is easy because you live in the sticks. What about the rest of America?

    Don’t you think there is something unnatural and wrong about with a diet that causes heart disease, obesity, diabetes, among other things? Most people don’t get the amount of things they need, meat eating or not. Any time a diet gets you thinking about what you eat, and what you need to survive, how is that a bad thing?

  8. Adam says:

    Furthermore, vegans don’t do it because it’s easy. They do it because they believe it’s the right thing to do. Right and easy are rarely the same thing, as we all find out in the worst ways.

  9. Surfside says:

    I could really get into this one with you, Adam, but I won’t. I was raised by a mother who embraced the natural & organic foods of the 60s. I was eating organically raised meats before most people knew they existed. My mother would have preferred a vegetarian lifestyle, but felt it wasn’t healthy enough for her children. (Vegan came a bit later, and I’m not well versed.) So, I’m very familiar with the arguments on boths sides. Trust me, growing up on bonemeal and bananas with vitamin pill chasers is no cup of tea. Having neighborhood parents forbidden to feed you any form of sweets or sodas tends to make one stand out in a crowd. I know what is and is not easy.

    Virtually any diet can be unhealthy if taken to extremes. If you’re familiar with the Atkins and Zone diets, you know they target sugar as the instigator of the heart and obesity problems, not meats and fats.

    Until God descends from the heavens and tells me which diet is better, I’m going with the one he ate as Jesus — which included meat, fish and milk products. If it’s good enough for Him, it’s good enough for me. (BTW, sugar was only found in fruits and honey at that time. Some food for thought.)

  10. Adam says:

    Your mother was mistaken about it not being healthy, or the way she was doing it was wrong. It’s also wrong to compare the diet of Jesus’ time to the diet of today. I’m pretty sure he never said anything about cheeseburgers and fries (my personal vice).

  11. Surfside says:

    Them’s fightin’ words, Adam. Don’t ever call someone’s mother wrong. You may disagree with her premise. That’s certainly your prerogative. But, red meat is the best source of iron, milk is the best source of calcium and fish is the best source of Omega 3 oils. Sure, you can find substitutes — if you try hard enough.

    Trust me when I tell you my mother read and researched more than the family thought sane. As it is, I turned out pretty darn healthy. I’ve never had a hospital stay except from a car accident. Never been very sick. And, all my blood work is great. I think that spells success.

    BTW, Jesus couldn’t eat a cheeseburger anyway. It’s not Kosher.

  12. Surfside says:

    My father (secret purveyor of milkshakes,cheeseburgers and fries) would have gladly burned my mother’s library card if it wasn’t a divorceable offense. LOL!

    Call us old-fashioned, but mothers tend to be sacrosanct in the conservative community (unless she’s an Andrea Yates type). Must be all that Bible mumbo jumbo to which we ascribe.

  13. Adam says:

    Jumping back to something closer to the topic, what is wrong with Hillary’s idea about it taking a village? Why do you make fun of that idea?

  14. Surfside says:

    Because it hawks a socialist/communistic agenda behind the guise of a “new vison of the world.” Guess what? It’s not new. Stalin wanted to the village to raise the children and so did Hitler.

    It takes a family (ideally a two-parent family) to raise a child. Does it always work as it should? No. Are there unsavory parents out there? Yes. But, that doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most children are raised correctly and with love. A village cannot give a child love — not the “I would give my life for you” love that most parents have for their children.

    A “village” can never give the nuturing that a parent can give. And, no one has the child’s best interest at heart more than the parent. There will never be a social or political agenda when parents raise their own children. We’ve seen how dismally social services manage to protect the children “in the system.” Why would anyone think they could manage all the children? In order to even attempt this concept, huge taxes would be imposed and tons of govenment empoyees would be hired.

    Yes, this book actually reveals Hillary’s true agenda more than anything else she said or did while her husband was in office. We got to see the woman behind the curtain.

  15. Adam says:

    I was afraid you’d say such things. I never took Hillary to mean replace the parents with the village. You’re taking her out of context. She means a group effort with everyone involved, from parents to teachers.

    Explain to me further, what is Hillary’s true agenda?

  16. Surfside says:

    The “village” is obviously a metaphor. I would be happy to go through my theory with you if you would actually consider what I have to say with an open mind. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time. As Barbara Olson said, “Hillary’s writings reveal a leftist idealogue, dedicated to centrally directed social engineering, dismissive of the traditional role of the family, and interested in children primarily as levers with which to extract political power.” Can you understand, now, why she’s interested in lowering the voting age?

  17. Surfside says:

    Sometimes, connecting the dots is the only way one can see the full picture. Stop trying to be Hillary’s knight in shinning armor and defending her honor. At least see her clearly for what she is. If you still want to back her, that’s certainly your prerogative.

  18. Adam says:

    Open mind? You’re the one telling me I don’t understand Hillary just because I disagree with your opinion of her. I just said you took her out of context. I think we’re even.

    If I don’t agree then obviously I don’t have the whole story of her. Naturally. Give me a break… Let’s go argue about Kent State.

  19. Surfside says:

    What I’m saying, Adam, is that I probably know Hillary better than you. Yet, you are the one supporting her. In her college days, she huddled with far-left, socialistic people and groups. One of her favorite professors was affectionately labeled “Tommy the Commie.” Her inner circle included self-avowed Communist Robert Treuhaft, Jessica Mitford, Charles Garry and her mentor Saul Alinsky — each of which was Marxist or socialist. This was the basis for her higher education and political beliefs.

    Her socialist tendencies slipped through when she tried to formulate a the new health reform plan — her personal baby. A big reason why her effort fell through the cracks is that it was even too socialistic for most Dems.

    So, It Takes A Village is Hillary’s “gentle” way of breaking another socialist idea to the US. In case you weren’t aware, she was heavily involved in the Children’s Defense Fund — which began with admirable goals. Somehow, it transmuted into an organization designed to reduce parental rights.

    And, while co-governor in Arkansas, she maneuvered to grab control of the education system by putting it under the auspices of the Governor.

    In 1978, Hillary wrote in a book review for Public Welfare:

    “Collective action is needed on the community, state and federal level to wrest from machines and those who profit from their use the extraordinary power they hold over us all, but particularly over children.”

    “. . . . Apparently we share so much apprehension about potential harm to cherished, albeit fantasized, family values, that programs for children must demonstrate immediate success or risk extinction.”

    Now the above is interesting on two fronts. First, she believes family values are “fantasized.” She obviously has no respect for the parent, their relationship with their child or their role in the child’s development. Second, she believes children’s programs are not given a fair chance if they lack immediate result. Funny, concerning the current take on “No Child Left Behind.” Ultimately, it all sounds very socialistic to me. And, really puts the “It takes a village” theory into a whole, new light.