A friend of mine in Fort Wayne Indiana used to have a Black Lab named Woofer. His kids used to climb all over her and ride her like a pony. And the dog loved it. A Lab's skeletal and muscular structure is more than capable of supporting the weight of a six year old, as an organization that purports to represent animals ought to know – and I strongly suspect does know.
So is this frenetic public rant genuine, or is this political posturing to try to embarrass a public figure who is seen by the left as a threat to their sophistries?
The truth is that liberals see Trig as the meting out of immutable cosmic justice on Sarah Palin for the sin of being a Conservative and for allowing religion to deter her from aborting Trig before he was born. And they feel it incumbent upon themselves to point out their preposterous delusion to the rest of the world, by whatever specious methods they can devise.
But, despite their biased viewpoint, does PETA have any moral ground from which to attack Sarah Palin for "cruelty to animals?"
If you should ever chance to run across a lost or strayed pet, you should be aware that calling PETA to rescue the animal is signing its death warrant. PETA vans are equipped with killing kits, and the standard procedure when "rescuing" a dog or a cat is to execute the defenseless animal even before the van returns to the "shelter," and to throw its lifeless body unceremoniously into a dumpster.
These are the same people who publicly harass women whose husbands are affluent enough to buy them fur coats, the same people who try to publicly embarrass normal people for the "crime" of eating meat.
Where was the outrage then?
It would seem that, in the eyes of the Pet Exterminators and Tarantulahuggers, Sarah Palin's only infraction is not being a Godless liberal lesbian.