One of the dominant characteristics of "leftist" movements and policies is that the general effect is usually the exact opposite of the stated concern.

I have a friend with a huge heart for animals. As such, she gave quite a bit to Greenpeace International and PETA. I did a bit of research for her, pointing out that Greenpeace International, for all it's PR, actually did very little to save the endangered whales they claimed to care so much about.

I referred her instead to the similarly-named but obscure Greenpeace Foundation (the original group) which actually did work with both fishermen and scientists to help conserve whale populations and minimize driftnet fishing -- for which Greenpeace International claimed credit and soliticed funds.

Instead, most of Greenpeace's money went to political lobbying (supporting left-leaning causes, often with questionable environmental linkage) and back into marketing. In effect, this redirected funds people hoped would help whales into, for example, opposing genetically-modified crops for the hungry, or opposing DDT spraying which would have saved lives in Africa.

PETA is similar. As a conservative, I have no issue at all with wanting to minimize cruelty to animals, and think animal shelters are wonderful. Of course, I also understand some unwanted animals have to be killed (let's admit it, and do it legally) -- and also consider human beings more important than dogs, cats, or mice.

Ironically, PETA, which equates human and animal deaths, has emerged as a vigorous killer of pets -- increasingly so each year. Whereas the Humane Society admits a 64% kill rate when the last stats were available (1997), by 2005, PETA's kill rate was over 90%!

And PETA carried out this work illegally, dishonestly, and unethically -- implying it would attempt to find homes for unwanted animals, yet apparently quickly killing the pets and disposing of them illegally in supermarket dumpsters. (It's easier and cheaper if you don't have to maintain adoption shelters, I suppose. All that space, cost, and effort.)

And here's the real irony: PETA drew attention and cash away from effective, non-radical groups which actually were helping to get unwanted animals adopted.

For example, here's some comments from Ann, an animal lover who helped set up a shelter called PAWS ("Protecting Animals Worth Saving") in Hertford County, North Carolina -- where PETA was caught:

We asked Ann about PETA's reputation in this part of North Carolina before Hinkle and Cook were arrested. "I had always heard 'PETA is coming down to help, PETA is taking animals to be adopted,'" she says. "This was the general knowledge around here, that they were taking animals back to Virginia where there is more of a chance to find them homes. Because at the time, we had no good adoption program of our own here."

Today, thanks to Ann and her friends, PAWS of Hertford County is a successful animal-adoption agency that finds homes for pets in the county shelter. It's a new all-volunteer nonprofit group, and they're doing great work.

Between August and December of 2006, PAWS of Hertford County found local adoptive homes for 182 animals. That's more than PETA adopted out nationwide in 2005 (the most recent year for which numbers are available).

And here's the kicker: PETA had a $29 million budget to work with. PAWS of Hertford County expects to operate with around $5,000 this year.

In contrast, "PETA spends less than one percent" of that money actually helping save animals' lives. [source]

So where does PETA spend the money? Some funds are channeled to radical groups like Earth Liberation Front (eco-terrorists), support for Animal Liberation Front (a group of animal-rights terrorists).

Other funds went to campaigns to get into schools, convince children that drinking milk is immoral, that their mommies are deranged animal slaughterers (see image at bottom), and that their daddies who fish would probably also kill your doggy or kitty just for fun: "Keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals that they could be next!'' (more here). The usual approach: undermine family trust in order to claim the soul of the children.

So the main thrust of PETA's work is essentially in the arena of political influence: to change minds and support laws which enforce their radical ideology. An ideology which is, in the long run, despite the intentions of its supporters, more anti-human than pro-animal.

(And which is quite anti-animal in the short run, too -- ironically.)