Hillary Will Continue the Brutal War on Animals for the Cattle Ranchers

bisonAfter Hundreds Killed in Boundary Hunt, Park Service Captures 150 Wild Bison for Slaughter


The Democratic Obama administration and the Republicans in Montana, continue their brutal war on animals, in service to the cattle industry lobbyists who own their souls.

Hillary Clinton has promised to continue the policies of Barack Obama.

Among the abhorrent policies Barack Obama pursues are the murders of wild Yellowstone bison, the inhumane roundups of wild horses from their homes on federal lands, and the systematic extermination of any and all wildlife complained of by the cattle industry.

It is difficult to imagine a less animal-friendly administration than the Obama administration has been. The animals have nothing to gain from a Hillary Clinton presidency,

Animal activists must act in unison to deny her the Democratic nomination.

And if she is nominated, animal activists must do all in our power to deny her the presidency.

Our task is to pursue a strategy which will reduce animal suffering and deaths. As the candidates presently stand, only Bernie Sanders has a pro animal voting record and opposes Big Agriculture.

Should Sanders not win the Democratic nomination, the likely general election matchup will be Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump.

Clinton has vowed to continue the policies of the Obama administration. Obama has been no friend to animals. Obama has continued the Bush program of rounding up wild horses to remove them from lands used for cattle grazing. The Department of Agriculture runs an agency called Wildlife Services, whose entire mission is to kill any and all wild animals that cattle ranchers deem to be inconvenient. The Obama administration also permits the Navy to kill and maim whales and dolphins. The National Institutes of Health murders millions of laboratory animals each year. The Environmental Protection Agency has delisted wolves and supported hunting on federal lands.

Animal activists should stand as one in voting for Donald Trump.

The animals have nothing to lose with a Trump presidency. And unless Hillary changes Obama’s policies, the animals will continue to suffer under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Unless we work to impact the presidential elections, the animals will have been betrayed by our inaction.

For those of us for whom animal issues are of paramount importance, we must wield our votes as weapons on behalf of the animals.



The following article, Yellowstone Begins Bison Capture, appeared in Native News and was written by their Staff

Published March 4, 2016

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK — Park rangers have begun capturing wild bison in the Stephens Creek trap within Yellowstone National Park. Since February 20, approximately 150 of America’s last wild buffalo have been trapped. According to park officials, all are destined for slaughter.

“Yellowstone’s slaughter of wild bison is as lacking in scientific reason as it is in public support,” said Buffalo Field Campaign’s Stephany Seay.

The Park Service claims that they are reducing the wild bison population due to the threat of brucellosis, a livestock disease originally brought to North America by Eurasian cattle. There has never been a documented case of wild bison transmitting brucellosis to livestock. Elk, who also carry brucellosis and have transmitted the disease to livestock numerous times in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, are free to migrate from Yellowstone and are managed by hunting based on sustainable populations in available habitat in Montana.

BFC habitat coordinator Darrell Geist says the state of Montana and Yellowstone National Park refuse to manage wild buffalo like wild elk, an alternative that would put the government out of the buffalo capture for slaughter business.

“Montana is blessed with an abundance of public lands but cursed by a statute that stands in the way of managing migratory buffalo as a wildlife species,” said Geist. “Few people know that MCA 81-2-120 is almost entirely funded by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture to back Department of Livestock management of wild buffalo. Without American taxpayer funding, Montana and Yellowstone National Park would have to changes their ways.”

Yellowstone and the other Interagency Bison Management Plan partners have stated that they want up to 900 wild bison killed this year. Over four-hundred have already been killed by hunters. The agencies aim to kill hundreds of wild bison every year until they drive the population — now estimated at 4,400 — down to just 3,000 animals. This population target is a result of livestock industry pressure to address unfounded brucellosis fears, and Yellowstone’s false premise that there are “surplus” wild bison.

BFC executive director Dan Brister questions the faulty science that Yellowstone and IBMP partners are operating under.

“There is no such thing as ‘surplus’ wild bison,” said BFC executive director Dan Brister, “Yellowstone’s target population cap of 3,000 animals is nothing more than a politically derived number that has nothing to do with carrying capacity.”

Yellowstone’s capture for slaughter operations adversely impact the wild population’s natural immunity to introduced diseases, including brucellosis, and increases the risk of more virulent and persistent strains arising in the wild population. Cumulative impacts of management actions pose a significant threat to the viability of wild buffalo remaining in Yellowstone.

Under the voluntarily agreed to Interagency Bison Management Plan, Yellowstone National Park and the other IBMP agencies continue to operate under faulty assumptions and outdated information, in contravention of the agency’s mandate to use the best available science to inform decision makers and the public.



Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty.

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow is to advertise!



53 thoughts on “Hillary Will Continue the Brutal War on Animals for the Cattle Ranchers

  1. Pingback: Hillary Is Running a Scam on Animal Activists | Armory of the Revolution

  2. Please correct if I am wrong, and I am pleased that Trump might end the trade agreements with foreign countries , but did Trump not say that he would “improve” the trade agreements? If so, that would be a waste of a vote. I hope that I am wrong as I would like to see trade agreements abolished period, if they generate animal abuse and torture. Also, there were some very unflattering posts regarding Jill Stein, that she is connected with huge investments with corporations that are not environment friendly and that she is not a vegan, I know, none of the other candidates are not vegans, including Sanders.


    • Trump’s objections to trade agreements are twofold. Firstly, they do not prohibit currency manipulation, which has beleaguered our trade with China. Secondly, they force US labor to compete with Third World labor.
      As animal corpses are cheaper under our trade agreements because of Third World labor, any renegotiation of our trade deals to comport with Trump’s positions would necessarily benefit animals, even if unintentionally.


    • I support Jill Stein, agree with her on most things, and will be voting for her. However, she hasn’t a prayer of winning a single electoral vote, never mind the 270 necessary to keep the election out of the House, where it would be won by Trump. Each state’s congressional delegations casts one vote for president. As Republicans control a majority of state delegations in the House, they would prevail.
      As I live in California, I can aord to vote my conscience, as my vote will have nothing to do with choosing the next president. If I lived in a swing state I would vote or Trump. I urge all progressives in swing states to vote for Trump. Those elsewhere to vote for Jill.


    • Political posturing and public relations stunts. Twenty five elephants a day are being murdered and Hillary “calls on world leaders to stop it?” That should work! She was Secretary of State of the United States of America! The second most powerful person in the world. How many elephants has she saved? How many wild horses did she stop from going to slaughter? How many are on the range because she stopped the roundups?
      Hillary works for the oligarchs. She is owned by Goldman Sachs and Monsanto, and Big Pharma. She posts meaningless blather about animal welfare on her website for the consumption of gullible animal people and delivers on her promises to her owners by supporting trade agreements that kill hundreds of millions of animals every year.


      • There is no quick fix to the plight of elephants being poached. Especially since the African govts are corrupt. She has a high rating with humane society legislative fund and sierra club endorses her. Whats trup got besides 2 trophy hunting sons who vow to continue to slay trophy animals and obliterate wolves? Get real. What do you actually see in trump? You trust him with nuclear codes? all the bad ones endorse him, Chris Christie who condones the slaughter of black bears, does’nt believe in space for pigs and blocked the trophy hunting law prohibiting imports in NJ and gove rick Scott who condones the bear hunt in FL, the killing of panthers for developers & doesn’t believe in climate change. yeah great choice over Hillary. NOT At least she tries. Under republicans there will never be any real victories for animals. Look who else backs Trump. Ted Nugent and kid rock both animal murderers. Sarah Palin and the NRA. seriously do the math! What does trump have that you’re willing to sacrfice the animals? You didnt hear that trumps advisors are a few from walsterrt and goldman sachs? Hillary has nothing to do with Monsanto! That’s a myth. Shes not for big pharma shes for afforddable medicines. get off the GOP kool aid please and do some real research!


      • Lol! “All the bad ones endorse him?” Are you out of your mind? Hillary has Kissinger, the Koch brothers, Big Ag, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, etc in her corner! The very oligarchs that have a stranglehold on our government and policies. Her foreign policy is indistinguishable from that of Dick Cheney. Her trade policies are the same as George W Bush’s.

        Hillary’s animal positions were mere puffery and bullshit. After leaving the Senate, she became the second most powerful person on the planet. What did she do for animals with all that power and influence? Absolutely nothing. Did she use her influence to change the Obama administration’s horrid record on animals? No!
        Did she seek to end wild horse roundups or ban live horse export for slaughter.
        Did she use her wight to stop Japanese whaling, Canada sealing, the dolphin murders in Japan or the whale killers in the Faroes? No!
        Did she set up interdiction of wildlife trafficking or poaching? Propose sanctions on countries which import ivory and Rhino horn? No!
        Now she supports our trade agreements which cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of animal each year.
        And we are supposed to be impressed because she got some meaningless score while pandering for animal people’s votes?
        Hillary is one of the animals’ biggest enemies.


      • The animal movement has never had the possibility of accomplishing so much as it has with prospect of a Trump presidency.

        Most animal activists who criticize Trump point to Trump’s serial killer sons who hunt big game and post horrific pics of themselves with poor creatures they have murdered for fun. And while Trump himself does not hunt, like Bernie Sanders, he condones and supports hunting.

        Trump also owned a steak company and buys his wife furs.

        At first glance, Trump seems an unlikely ally for animal activists, and an even more unlikely savior of animals.

        Most animal activists are shocked when I explain that Trump will save more animals each year than has the entire worldwide animal movement over the past 50 years.

        A generous estimate of the average number of animals saved by the animal movement is about one million per year, primarily cats and dogs. That equals 50 million over the last 50 years.

        (A disheartening aside, that is about the number of animals that will be murdered in slaughterhouses during the next work shift.)

        And it is about half the number that President Trump will save each year by abrogating our trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, Colombia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Peru, etc.

        Trade agreements kill animals. Hundreds of millions of animals every year die specifically because of our trade agreements, which make it cheaper and more profitable to produce animal corpses. Using Third World labor, US companies ship animals overseas to be tortured, slaughtered, butchered, and returned to the US for sale in American stores and restaurants. Trade agreements require that nations forbid Country of Origin labeling to prevent consumer boycotts. The Obama administration has already enacted such a ban on labeling. Trade agreements override US labor, environmental, and anti-cruelty laws. They make it impossible to ban live export for slaughter of for animal sacrifice in the Middle East, dooming hundreds of thousands of sheep, lambs, goats, and calves to imprisonment in ships’ holds for weeks before before cruelly murdered by religious zealots.

        Trump opposes trade agreements. Hillary Clinton supports them.

        And Trump has promised to repudiate and abrogate every trade agreement to which the US is a party.

        If Trump does what he has promised, it will mean tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of animals saved every year.

        It will be the most sweeping blow for animals in history.

        And it will be accomplished by someone who does not really care about animals.

        Electing Trump should be the primary goal of every American animal activist. It is more important than anything the animal movement has ever done.

        If animals are you priority, you have no choice but to vote for Donald Trump. But if you are like most people, you have priorities that are more important to you than the animals.

        Most animal activists are politically progressive, and many are swept up in the euphoria of the prospect of electing the first woman as president. For those with such an agenda, the fact that Hillary Clinton is perhaps one of the greatest enemies that animals have is unimportant. Clinton’s support of trade agreements causes the suffering and deaths of hundreds of millions of animals each year, yet she manages to pay lip service to animal welfare concerns on her website and thereby silences many activists who do not take the time to carefully look at the policies or her record.

        The revolving door between industry and government is common to both Republican and Democratic administration. Bankers are appointed to Treasury, Big Oil lobbyists go to Energy and Transportation, Big Ag alums and executives get appointed to Interior and Agriculture, Big Pharma controls the FDA and the National Institutes of Health, the military industrial complex gets Defense and Homeland Security. All greased by political bribes and legally sanctioned corruption.

        Usually, the appointment of Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior occur well beneath the radar, and are neither challenged nor closely examined by the media.

        But the policies of those Secretaries affects millions of animals. Agriculture is responsible for all animal agriculture and production in the country. All feedlots, factory farms, slaughterhouses, packing plants, and the rules and regulations that govern them and the inspectors and inspections which enforce those rules and regs, and Wildlife Services, which kills millions of inconvenient wildlife for the cattle industry..

        Interior controls the Bureau of Land Management which conducts the cruel, ongoing wild horse roundups.

        Both Departments are invariably headed and staffed by industry alums,lobbyists, and politicians wholly owned by Big Ag.

        But this election cycle, if Trump becomes President Trump, his animal murdering sons may be appointed to positions in the Trump administration. Both Eric and Donald Trump, Jr, have expressed interest in being involved in public land policy and land use.

        If there were to be appointed to anything involving Interior or Agriculture, the animal movement should rejoice.

        Never in American history has animal welfare, animal protection, or animal rights ever been on the national stage. Eric and Donald, Jr, would catapult animal issues to the forefront of national attention and debate.

        Neither could possibly be any worse than all the mainstream animal murderers who have held those positions. But their track records as trophy hunters would make any appointment among the most controversial of Trump’s presidency, and would not only educate the public and grow the movement, it would turn animal issues into political capital and liabilities in future elections.

        The litmus tests I employ for every election is which candidate will do the most for animals or which will cause animals the least suffering. Even Bernie supported hunting and dairy farms, so even the best candidate in the race was greatly flawed. Of Trump and Hillary, Trump has said he will repudiate our trade agreements. Were he to do so, HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of animals would not be slaughtered each year. Think of that number! Every year Trump would save easily twice the number of animals as has been saved by the entire worldwide animal movement over the past 50 years.

        Voting for Trump is only helpful in those states where he might be able to defeat Hillary, so called “battleground” or purple states. Purple states include or may include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico. North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

        But for Sanders voters in red sates, those carried by McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012. there is nothing to be gained by voting for Trump, as he will carry those states against Hillary with or without Sanders voters. Same with deep blue states like California and New York. Hillary will comfortably carry such states, so a vote against her is wasted. Might as well help Jill Stein.

        Sanders supporters in deep red or blue states have the opportunity to make a profound difference to the American political landscape by voting for Jill Stein of the Green party. While the likelihood is minimal that such votes would do anything to affect the outcome of races in those states, the cumulative effect of a wave of Green party votes could operate to help the party reach the threshold of 5% of the vote to qualify the party for federal funds.


  3. You are saying that I am pulling assumptions out of the air, but seems like you are as well. Especially if you don’t think Global Change won’t be killing even more animals than trade. Again, I am not in favor with the current trade agreements, but I have to look the big picture. To paraphrase, “If animals are a priority in whom you support, you cannot logically support…: Donald Trump.


    • While I believe climate change is real and caused by human agency, capitalism in particular, I do not think it can be reversed. We have entered the Holocene Extinction, and it is irreversible. Corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton will use the threat of climate change as justification for embracing her corporatist and militarist policies, and people like you will embrace her over Trump on climate change alone. Nevermind that Hillary supports fracking, clean coal, takes millions from Big Oil, and supports animal agriculture which is the leading cause of climate change.


  4. Oh, btw, I’m not a “liberal” nor “brainwashed” nor believe murdering Muslims is a good thing. No more than you are.


  5. Oh, and the evidence that points to Trump helping high-income friends wasn’t pulled out of thing air:



    And yes, by assumption that Hillary would listen more to her constituents than Trump is “only my opinion” but then, so are your assertions.


    • While Trump may push for tax advantages for himself and those similarly situated, nothing of consequence will be enacted and signed into law by either Trump or Clinton. The Congress will be divided and gridlock will prevail. Policies within the discretion of the Executive should be of more concern than those over which neither Trump nor Clinton will have control.

      If progressive policies and issues are important to you (I assume animals are not) the consequences of Hillary being elected are particularly dire for Democratic prospects into the future. Democrats will lose 2018 midterm elections and will be swamped in 2020. Republicans will retain enough statehouses to control reapportionment and will control the House for another decade. Just as they gerrymandered the House in 2010, guaranteeing Republican majorities in the House until 2020, they will similarly do so again after the 2020 Census, and will control the House until 2030.

      Exactly the opposite occurs if Trump wins. Democrats will sweep the 2018 elections. They will nominate a progressive in 2020, and will win enough statehouses to control reapportionment.


  6. My only problem with the Bison article is that the author seems to think Trump will help stop this. That is total nonsense. He is no friend to the environment, animals, or regular people. He owns a steak company! Do you really think he’s not going to be supporting ranchers? Bernie is the only one who actually cares about animal welfare.


    • Clinton, Sanders and Trump are all indifferent to animals in the food system. They would all likely continue the barbarism of the Obama administration as to the killing of wildlife for the cattle ranchers and the cruel horse roundups by the BLM. But Bernie and Trump oppose trade agreements, which cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals each year. Hillary supports the killings. If animals are a priority for you, only Bernie and Trump are possible choices.


  7. Sanders is the only real choice for progressive change. Clinton will mean insidious status quo. Trump will harm the Republican machine. For me it is Sanders and if not then Trump in the ballot box.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Not quite sure what you mean. What is better than factory farming? Rounding up our wild horses? That is done in service to factory farming, as cattle on the range are sent to concentration camp feedlots to await slaughter. Killing wildlife by the Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services? Again, those millions of wild animals shot and trapped for the cattle industry because they are inconvenient are being killed because of factory farming. And all of this ignores the billions of animals that die in slaughterhouses each year, each wanting to live as much as you and I do.


  8. Did this article really call for Trump (the socio/psychopath) votes. Really???? Which animal will gain for him in power????!!! Absolutely ludicrous!!!


  9. This is so wrong them poor animals they where there before white man came to there land and killed thousands of them for no reason except they where savages the land belongs to the bison not the cattle men it’s all about money again not how it is for the animals that live there this world would be so much better with out evil humons on it

    Liked by 1 person

      • yes, and Trump himself has his clothing line made in China. He is a liar and won’t help animals his entire family abuses and endorses animal murder. As far as I know we owe china a lot of money too.


      • Only Trump and Bernie Sanders are advocating renouncing these agreements. Hillary has been in favor of virtually every trade agreement, Trump and Sanders have opposed EVERY one of them.

        The agreements we are party to are causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals every year!

        Hillary is supporting the murders of over a million animals each day under trade deals! That she introduces a meaningless bill about animal abuse is laughable, and proof of her duplicity and political pandering.

        I disagree with almost all of Trump’s positions. He wants a border wall, I favor open borders. He wants to ban Muslim refugees, I favor welcoming all refugees. He is anti-abortion, I am pro-choice. He is a Christian, I am an atheist. He supports hunting, I do not. He is a carnist, I am a vegan.

        But on trade, on military interventionism, and on the appointment of industry lobbyists and insiders to positions in government, we agree. Trump opposes military intervention and adventurism. He opposes the revolving door between Wall Street and the Trasury Department. The one between Big Ag and the Departments of Interior and Agriculture.

        Trump does not give a damn about animals, to be sure, but his policies would save billions of animals. And Hillary’s would cost billions of animals their lives.

        The choice is not even close.


  10. Why do you feel. Donald Trump would be there for the animals I know you are aware of his sons Big trophy hunters one of his son is be questioning for a involvement in poaching but yet Donald Trump stands behind his two sons No Donald Trump is not a candidate to run the White House for the next 4 years He isn’t any better than Hilary

    Liked by 1 person

    • I do not think Trump cares about animals at all. But I am suggesting supporting Trump only if Hillary refuses to end the roundups and the killing of wildlife for the cattle ranchers. If she will pledge to do so, I will support her, as should all animal activists. But if she refuses, we should vote for Trump for two reasons.

      First, weighing Trump’s and Hillary’s positions. Trump is marginally better for the animals because he opposes trade agreements. Trade agreements kill animals. They are also a disaster for American workers, US labor and environmental law, and threaten US sovereignty. But we are concerned with animals here. Trade agreements result in more animal exploitation and death than were there no trade agreements.

      Second, if we can politically punish Hillary for not protecting animals, the movement will have gained an immense amount of political power, which could be used in future political efforts. The animal movement has been politically unsophisticated, rudderless, and without direction or leadership in political strategies and analyses. If we can succeed here, we could save the lives of millions of animals each year and create political momentum for other animal protection campaigns

      Liked by 1 person

      • We need to start gathering our strength which has been happening since Cecil, even Safari club Intl are concerned from us. (animal activists) Even if trump opposes trade agreements when it comes to animals he wont care at all. He is an exploiter of animals himself!


      • The most dramatic and politically powerful avenue open to the animal movement is to demand Hillary pledge an end to Mustang roundups and the killing of wildlife for the cattle ranchers. If she agrees, we work our asses off for her. If she refuses, we work our asses off for Trump. If we succeed, the animal movement will become a politically relevant part of every election cycle in the foreseeable future.

        Given that we are presently ignored and scoffed at, such a political earthquake will be even more dramatic.


      • I hope Bernie Sanders wins. I understand what you are saying today about this but Trump lies, changes his mind and so on. Do you think Trump would stick to what he says he is for and against, or waffle, vacillate, fail, cave etc. after elected? Do you think the respective candidates’ choices of Vice President will help/hinder animals?


      • Trump is more animal friendly than is Hillary, even though it is not intended. Hillary supports trade deals which kill hundreds of millions of animals each year, while Trump opposes them. But even if Trump were as bad for animals as is Hillary, it would be to our advantage to defeat Hillary.

        With Hillary defeated, Bernie becomes the most influential Democrat in the party. Bernie’s revolution will continue without obstruction by Hillary and her cohorts. We will nominate Warren, Grayson, Feingold, or another progressive in 2020. We would be running against a failed President Trump, assuring sweeps of statehouses necessary to control reapportionment. If Hillary is president, the Republicans will clean our clocks in 2018 and 2020, with control of the House in their hands until 2030 due to reapportionment after the 2020 Census. They did the same thing in 2010 and the Democrats lost the House for a decade. it will happen again if Hillary is elected.


  11. This is misleading and irresponsible. It is simply not true to assert that —- “As the candidates presently stand, only Bernie Sanders has a pro animal voting record and opposes Big Agriculture”. —-

    Bernie Sanders dismissed Russell Simmons’ concerns about animal agriculture by saying “Americans like bacon” and “I’m for the farmers.”


    • Carolyn, Sanders opposes factory farms and subsidies to Big Agriculture. He is a champion of family farms and small farmers. He also suppoerts Truth in Labeling and GMO disclosure, both of which Clinton opposes. On balance, Sanders’ agricultural policies are more animal friendly than are Hillary Clinton’s, not that that is saying very much.

      A much starker contrast can be made between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While I support Sanders, I fear his nomination would only occur if Hillary were to be indicted. If Hillary is the nominee she will likely face Donald Trump. Trump is a political troglodyte, but he opposes trade agreements. Clinton supports them. Trade agreements kill animals to a greater degree than they would be killed absent trade agreements. Only taking the effect on animals of each candidate, animal activists would do better for the animals by supporting Trump.

      We will be launching a campaign to implore Clinton to pledge to end wild horse roundups and the killing of wildlife for cattle ranchers. It may or may not succeed in convincing her to do so. But if she does not, it should be a simple matter for animal activists to reject Clinton in favor of Trump.


  12. As far as Hillary i will start letting her know. She does have a better record than most when it comes to animals. Her and Bernie. She had something going about factory farm cruelty. All is not lost I strongly doubt she will follow all Obama’s policies. She doesn’t even like him! lol


      • I cannot think of an Obama policy that isn’t either bad or in need of substantial improvement. On animals Obama has been a disaster, same on foreign policy, corporate welfare, industry appointees to his administration, and breaking up families through deportation. Th only thing he has accomplished is Obamacare, which is better than nothing, but is a far cry from universal health insurance.


  13. Animals have nothing to lose with a Trump presidency? are you kidding? he wears fur so does his entire clan, his sons trophy hunt and he thinks its fine. He has no sympathy for circus elephants and claims he wont go evr again with no Ele’s. Trump doesn’t care about people! You think he will care about bison more than his steak? get real. i totally disagree with that part of your claim. there is no way in hell, I’m voting for Trump.


    • Trump is no defender of animals. But his position on trade agreements makes him a better friend to animals than is Hillary Clinton.

      Trump opposes trade agreements.

      Clinton supports trade agreements.

      She supported NAFTA. She lauded the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which she reluctantly repudiated in the face of overwhelming opposition of rank and file Democrats.

      Trade agreements kill animals.

      Both wild animals through environmental degradation, and those trapped in the food system through currency manipulation and trade incentives. Trade agreements abrogate US environmental laws, labor laws, and food safety laws. Trade agreements are written by lobbyists for the benefit of multinational corporations and Wall Street.

      Trade agreements undermine US sovereignty.

      Trade agreements allow trade disputes to be tried in tribunals that override US courts.

      On paper, Trump is a better choice for animals than is Hillary Clinton.


      • What you are leaving out of the equation is that Trump is a liar and he also had to re evaluate his stance on a few issues already because he knows it could never happen. Hes unqualified and he doesn’t give a rats ass about animals. Bernie would be a better choice if you don’t like Hillary. just sayin’ Also with trade, its the companies that control it.. I mean Tyson foods took the USDA to world trade org. court to be able to send chicken to china and back. You think Trump will fight the US industries? He himself has products made in china and mexico but he wants to build a wall? also said to boycott apple when he uses apple. lol He’s seriously a joke. Anyone can say whats o their mind its making things happen that is the key. Also hes a racist, war mongering arrogant slob. 😀


      • Trump’s campaign has been entirely about immigration and trade. While his complaints about trade agreements relate to the losses of US factories and jobs, his solution is to bail out of NAFTA, the Permanent Normalized Trade Relations with China and Viet Nam, the Colombian and Korean trade agreements, and to NOT approve TPP.Only Bernie Sanders has the same views.

        Animals are my priority. We are visiting a holocaust upon them, and under Clinton it will continue. It may well continue under Trump as well, but Trump’s positions on trade agreements at least offers hope for the animals. Trade agreements make it easier to kill animals and make their corpses more profitable.

        I support Sanders. I would only support Hillary if she repudiates Obama’s Mustang roundups and the killing of wildlife for cattle ranchers. If she won’t, animal activists should vote for Trump on the merits of his trade policies.


    • I cannot see Trump as being a better choice… at least Hillary will stand up against Global Climate Change. I cannot see Trump doing a thing about climate change since it will hurt the pocketbooks of many of his billionaire friends. So, in worse case, if Hillary really keeps following the anti-environmental policies of pre-Obama policies along with the pro-environmental policies that Obama initiated, in the grand sum of things she will be helping more animals than harming them. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, I would say write your congressmen and senators and the White House asking them to change the Bush initiated Policies. She would be more open to listening to the voters than Trump would ever be. However, placing blind faith in “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” Trump would be much worse for our planet and the future of the human race. Of course, if Sanders wins the Primary, I will vote for him, but I won’t be diluting the vote by voting for a yet unnamed third-party candidate that can’t win… and not voting at all is almost as bad as casting a vote for Trump.


      • I must interject here. Dale, your assumptions about both Trump and Hillary are not based in fact. You seem to pick assertions out of thin air. That Trump would look out for his billionaire friends and not listen to voters is preposterous rhetoric. That Hillary would be open to listening to voters is equally preposterous, as her record so amply demonstrates.

        Further, you unfounded allegation that Trump “would be much worse for the future of our planet and the future of the human race” ignores that Hillary is as bad on the environment as is Trump (she supports fracking, clean coal) and is considerably more prone to military interventionism and violence than is Trump. By any objective standard, Clinton is a war criminal with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians on her hands. She supports drones killing womn and children, and actually supplied Saron gas to Syrian rebels to use on Syrian civilians.

        In the twisted minds of many brainwashed liberals, saying politically incorrect things about Muslims is a greater sin than is murdering Muslims.


      • Fact: Trump did say “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”

        Fact: More than 90% of Climate Scientists agree that Global Climate Change is the greatest challenge our world faces

        Truth: Trump is more worried about his rich friends … again I point to the quote above

        I really cannot speak on what Clinton did or didn’t do to support the foreign wars, so I give you that. However, There are recordings and videos of Trump advocating giving nuclear weapons to Japan, killing the families of terrorists, and more. Yeah, he sounds like a Saint to me.

        You need to worry about more than one thing at a time. I am an active animal rescuer and environmentalist, and have studied climate change. I worry about our people, our animals AND our future. I must assume you do as well… but to think Trump is a better choice out of a pack of bad choices is absurd. And I come to my conclusions about Trump based on what he has said… flip-flops, he advocates violence, and he is not coherent.


      • Hillary is responsible for killing more than just a few animals while hunting. She is responsible for the killings of hundreds of millions of animals every year caused by the trade agreements she supports. Trade agreements encourage and reward the most barbaric animal agriculture practices, they make slaughter more profitable, animal corpses cheaper, they prevent banning live export, they require countries to ban county of origin labeling to prevent consumer boycotts, they override environmental, labor, and anti-cruelty laws.

        Hillary not only supports those agreements, she helped write them. Donald Trump, in contrast, opposes every single one of them.

        If animals are a priority in whom you support, you cannot logically support Hillary Clinton.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s