President Trump’s Sons could put Animal Rights on the National Stage

serial killersThe 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 being 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 administrations. 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.

If animals are your priority, join me in electing Donald Trump. And in defeating the animals’ worst nightmare, Hillary Clinton.



Amory 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!



19 thoughts on “President Trump’s Sons could put Animal Rights on the National Stage

  1. What uneducated person wrote this?
    Facts please. Research links.
    Readers, please dont fall for a lot of words. Look at source data and then at who funds spurce data, before buying into this crock of sh*^!


    • Sandra, you asked who wrote the article? Didn’t you notice the by-line? Every post here as one. I believe every WordPress blog has one by default. And I am pretty sure children are taught what a by-line in in elementary school. As for my education, I hold a doctorate.
      You seem confused as to the nature of an opinion. They cannot be fact checked unless they offer facts to dispute or links to be researched. Opinions are what someone holds due to experience, education, mental acuity, reason, and analysis. You can dispute one’s opinion, but to do so requires logic and alternative views. Your childish expletives hardly qualify.
      In the footer to this post are my guidelines for approving comments. As you seem not to have read the by-line I assume you didn’t read the Armory Notes either. I usually do not approve comments that are disrespectful. Would you care to try again? This time with actual thoughts?


  2. This whole article is based on a ridiculous assumption that Trump would actually keep his word. Trump is nothing but a liar and a cheat, and of course an idiot, and anyone making a decision based on a promise from him is a fool!!!


    • Central to Trump’s campaign has been his opposition to trade agreements and his pledge to reject them if elected. As president, Trump would have the constitutional power and authority to do so. I believe the chances that he would not avail himself of the opportunity to exercise the power to impose his will on the US government are nil.


  3. The Republicans are trying to gut wildlife protections and allow big business to have access to public lands, like gas and coal companies. The NRA has too much say in the Republican party – you aren’t going to see a ban on hunting and even now they are trying to stop bans on the import of ivory and hunting “trophies”. I don’t see that changing if Trump manages to get himself elected.


    • Of course it won’t change. But all those outrageous things the Republicans want to do requires congressional approval. The Democrats will retake the Senate. The Congress will be divided. Nothing that Hillary or Trump want to push though will be approved. Donald will not be able to build a wall, Hillary will not get a single proposal through, either. The real question is who will be in the White House in 2018. Because whoever is, it will be their party which loses the midterms and the other’s party which will get to control reapportionment in 2020.


  4. My argument with your calculus here is that it fails to take into account the types of animals rather than the absolute numbers of animals that would suffer under a Trump administration. Accepting your figures about how many domestic animals will be spared if all of the US’s international trade treaties were to be abrogated (and I have no reason for doubting your assertions) one does need to think about the impact a Trump presidency would have on wild animals. Current estimates are that the combined weight of the world’s human population added with that of domesticated animals raised by Man exceeds the combined weight of ALL terrestrial wild animals by a factor of 36 to 1. That fact alone should illustrate just how under-siege the planet’s remaining wild animals are. The world’s cattle population would survive another 100 million casualties, the world’s elephant, rhino, lion, cheetah, lynx, wolf, wolverine … populations would not. If the Republicans gain control of the White House they will continue and accelerate their attacks on the Endangered Species Act, open up more public lands to hunting and mineral exploration, expand the activities of USDA’s Wildlife Services and stack the Supreme Court with justices who will be antithetical to environmental protection and sympathetic with wildlife exploiters and abusers for the next 30 years. The reality is that more than a few endangered species would likely not survive a Trump administration. That his appointment of his animal abusing sons might inadvertently serve to highlight the fight for animal rights sounds like grasping at straws. Paul Ryan is arguably the second most powerful man in the federal government and his sordid past as a bow hunter didn’t seem to hurt him any or raise much of a ruckus in the media.

    Is an elephant’s life worth more than a cow’s? I guess that is the ethical quandary. On the face of it I’d say no. But if an animal is a member of an endangered or threatened species, surely that needs to get factored somewhere into the moral calculus. Similarly, in the human realm, what would be a greater loss to humanity: a million Frenchmen or a million indigenous Amazon Indians. The former would be quickly replenished, the latter would be extinct. This is a point I’d like to hear you address because even if a true
    anti-capitalist/animal rights revolution were to remake the world sometime in the future, what kind of diminished, dysfunctional world would that be if much of the native fauna had already disappeared.

    One further thing: whomever is the next president will have access to the nuclear codes that could by accident, intention or miscalculation plunge the planet into a nuclear war. People seem to forget that there are still thousands of nuclear warheads on alert in the US, Russia and China. More than enough to eradicate most higher forms of life from the planet should they be employed. If a nuclear war were ever to start, all bets about animal rights, environmental protection, endangered species, ecosystem viability, economic justice, civilization — everything — are off. The recent article in The New Yorker about Donald Trump by the ghostwriter of his book, “The Art of the Deal”, should give pause to anyone, regardless of their politics, as to whether they want somebody of Mr. Trump’s temperament in power.


    • I am not sure I see the connection between Republicans opening federal lands to expanded hunting and a potential further decline in elephant, lion, and cheetah populations, as none are present on US federal lands. And that is assuming the Republicans could even get legislation allowing such expanded hunting through the Congress. In fact, nothing controversial or of consequence will be able to be enacted by a President Trump nor a President Clinton during the next presidential term.
      Unless the next president commits US foreign policy and military resources to the protection of African wildlife and interdiction in the wild animal trade, elephants will continue to be slaughtered at the current rate of 100 creatures per day. Lions, cheetahs, water buffalo, etc, will continue to be murdered to serve the Asian voo-doo medicine trade and to line the walls of scumbags like Walter Palmer and Trump’s sons.
      BTW, I take with a grain of salt complaints by former associates and intimates who were perfectly content in their relationships until money became an issue. Trump’s ghost writer was quite happy with Trump before Trump got close to the presidency.
      I am bewildered by the preoccupation many seem to have about Trump and nuclear war. If anyone is poised to involve us in war, it is the warmonger herself. While Trump sends signals of cooperation with Russia and a reluctance to automatically commit US dollars and blood to NATO allies, Hillary is busy advocating a no-fly zone in Syria, a move Putin himself said would be an act of war against Russia,


      • Oh, there is very definitely a connection between the opening up of more federal lands to hunting and trapping and the continuing slaughter of Africa’s indigenous megafauna. One need look no further than the policy positions of the NRA and Safari International and the Congressional whores who cater to their whims. Both organizations promote more hunting and less wildlife protections on federal lands in the US while at the same time opposing attempts to ban the importation of ivory or mounted trophies like lions and rhinos from Africa and polar bears from Canada. Republicans have repeatedly attempted to hamstring the Endangered Species Act, get wolves and grizzly bears de-listed, and thwart attempts to control lead pollution from ammunition on federal lands. Even the Republican platform just passed at their convention specifically mentions three endangered species they want federal protections withdrawn from. To believe that this attack on environmental protections will not accelerate with a Republican in the White House seems the height of naiveté.

        While multiple factors are driving elephants, rhinos, and lions towards extinction on the African continent, the contribution of trophy hunters (particularly American trophy hunters) should not be underestimated. The pressure for more hunting “opportunities” whether here or overseas are simply different heads of the same vile hydra. The same scum pressing to open up more federal lands to hunting and eliminate predators who might compete for their game in the US are, by and large, the same scum who oppose legislation that would impede their ability to kill African wildlife.


      • No argument that the same scumbags are at work on all fronts. But that doesn’t change the political dynamic which will determine Congressional action. The House will continue to be held by Republicans, the Democrats will retake the Senate. Nothing will be legislated that even comes close to being controversial. This is all a tempest in a teapot, The actual positions Trump and Hillary espouse are really inconsequential, What matters is who is in the White House in 2018, because theirs will be the party that loses the midterms.


      • Specifically regarding the nuclear issue: when Hugh Hewitt asked Trump at one of the early debates “which component of America’s nuclear triad was most in need of modernization” he clearly didn’t know what the questioner was even talking about. Trump’s lack of knowledge was so astonishing that even Marco Rubio commented on it.

        It worries me more than a little that someone who would have their finger on the nuclear trigger is so clueless about the incredibly destructive systems they will have at their command. Even I, who’s never knowingly been within a 100 miles of a nuclear weapon, know what the nuclear triad refers to. This tends to reinforce the observation of Trump’s ghostwriter that he never once, in all the months he spent with Trump, saw him reading a book or that there was even a single book visible in his office or at his several homes. Come on Roland be honest, does this seem to you like an educated guy that you’d want to trust your life, and the life of the planet, to?


    • Geoff, thank you for pointing out the role of American hunters in the decline of African wildlife. I noticed that Roland, who is always criticizing commenters for not reading his remarks in full, conveniently ignored your mention of of lynx, wolves and wolverines.
      I agree with your critique of the superficial view that regards the life of an endangered species as no more valuable than the life of a domesticate. I would go further and place more value on the lives of elephants and mountain lions, even if they are not legally classified as endangered.
      Trump’s plans to abrogate all existing trade agreements will likely include getting rid of CITES, at least once he finds out about it. Not all trade agreements are harmful to animals, especially as regards the wildlife trade.
      I share your concern about Trump’s cavalier attitude toward nuclear war. Living within 100 miles of two national nuclear weapons labs, as well as major nuclear weapons storage facilities, I am also concerned that our liberal Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich is a strong supporter of both nuclear weapons development and opening up more federal lands to hunters.
      The only issue which seems to separate Democrats from Republicans is the right to birth control (including, but not limited to, the right to abortion). Following the death of Scalia, whoever is elected this year will determine the composition of the Supreme Court for a generation. On this issue alone, I plan to vote for Clinton, as my vote in a so-called purple state might actually count, unlike Roland, who is welcome to support Trump if he likes. Anyone concerned about the rights of wildlife needs to be concerned about controlling the human population.


      • Trump’s opposition to trade agreements centers on the loss of American jobs and the manipulation of currencies by trading partners. There is no reason to believe CITES would be jeopardized.
        As for the Supreme Court, i am not a bit convinced that Trump’s appointees would be at all worse than would be Clinton’s. If the current court is any indication of what Hillary would do, I fear her appointees more than Trump’s. There is not a progressive on the court. Every appointment by Clinton and Obama has been a corporatist. Except for some social issue drama, the justices have endorsed corruption, political bribery, money as free speech, corporate personhood, and approved the private insurance scam that is Obamacare. If Trump were to give us another Scalia, we would merely be in the same situation we were in a few months ago.
        Choosing Clinton on some illusory, faith-based belief that she will somehow improve the court is both absurd and myopic.
        We only know of one court vacancy, but we know that if Hillary is in office the Democrats will be swept in the 2018 midterms, assuring Republican control of reapportionment in 2020, and a Republican controlled House through 2030.


  5. Hi Roland,

    Trump’s sons are sick bastards, psychopaths, and I couldn’t support Trump who buys his wife furs. I’m not an American so it doesn’t matter anyway. His wife is an empty-head who has no original thoughts of her own and is unsuitable to be a First Lady – who should be a role model.

    I wonder why you don’t advocate that people vote Greens. In the last Federal election here in Australia about a month ago, I voted for the Animal Justice Party (AJP). Many people said I wasted my vote. My daughter voted for them, too. I walked around the neighbourhood for many hours dropping political leaflets into residential letterboxes before the election. And lo and behold, an AJP person actually got elected into parliament for the very first time in New South Wales. (I’m in Victoria). I voted for them because that’s how the Greens get powerful here… People like me voted for them over the last twenty years until they built up a critical mass of support. I was voting Greens before it became trendy, before anyone else I knew was doing it. Now, they often hold the balance of power in crucial issues in parliament in Canberra.

    In twenty years from now, we’ll have more AJP members in parliament because people like me and my daughter pushed them forward even before it was trendy.

    Perhaps you don’t know this but Donald Trump is considered a buffoon by most of us in the rest of the world. I hate Hillary Clinton with a vengeance, but I think Trump is just ridiculous.

    Why do Americans always feel they have to vote for either the Republicans or the Democrats?

    Like you, I’m a socialist and have been for decades. I wouldn’t vote for either party. They’re all lying bastards that support the corporate plutocracy. None of them give a damn about animals, except on how well they are cooked.

    I believe as the most radical of all animal rights activists (that makes you the best in my opinion), you would better serve our cause by advocating people to vote with their animal justice conscience and that would mean not supporting an animal abuser like Trump. If he condones fur wearing in his family, he’s an animal abuser. If he supports hunting, he’s an animal abuser.

    The US needs more small parties to upset the balance of power in the Congress and stop these Wall Street shills from doing the bidding of corporations. The US is a fascist nation. Worse than Germany or Italy ever was. People can change that, one vote at a time, one person at a time by voting with their wallets at the mall very day, and with their conscience on Election Day.

    I understand your strategy rationale; I read your daily emails. But I think you’re selling out to animal abusers by advocating a vote for an idiot…. On the basis that’s it’s better to have a bad guy than a worse woman. George Bush (son) was an idiot. We, in the rest of the world, don’t want any more idiots with their finger on the nuclear trigger. Or controlling your military.

    You know very well Trump is racist, sexist and good lord… So many negative labels, I’ll run out of room to bash the poor bastard.

    Bernie is a socialist like you and I. I think you are betraying him by not supporting him (and betraying your own beliefs, too.)

    Sorry for being blunt but you and I call a spade a spade. Let’s not mince words when it comes to the welfare of animals who cannot speak for themselves.

    If you wish to respond by sending an email to everyone (instead of me personally, or both) I’m cool with that. Gets the issue out in the open. Hopefully, more people can discuss this, too.

    I often want to comment on your emails but there is no forum to do so, at least not publicly, in an email (unlike Facebook…) Just a thought…

    Kind regards,

    Grace Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.

    Sent from my iPad


    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Grace, for your thoughts and the time it took to address them. We both have the animals as our priority. Were I in Australia I would be doing just as you are, supporting the Animal Justice party and working to grow its ower and influence. Unlike Australia, the US is not a parliamentary democracy. Our system of government makes it almost impossible for third parties to flourish.
      This year might have been different had Bernie Sanders teamed up with the Greens and run as their nominee. But Sanders believes that the best chance to change America is by taking over the Democrats and turning the arty into a democratic socialist party.
      From a strategic, long term view, I do not disagree with him. But for that to occur, Hillary and her Wall Street Democratic allies must be urged from the party leadership. But therein lies the conundrum for Sanders. He cannot be seen to be sabotaging Hillary or he and his progressives will lamed for her loss. So he puts on his loyal Democrat hat and spews the nonsense at the convention about how Hillary will be a great president, etc, and that we must elect her, etc, and that Trump is a bad guy, etc.
      While I am a socialist and a political radical, my priorities are the animals. The tests I employ in determining for whom I will support and vote are simple: which candidate will do the most good for the animals or which will cause them the least harm?
      Those tests have little to do with any other political consideration, although they usually coincide with supporting the most liberal or progressive candidate.
      Applying those tests to this election, Trump has to be my clear choice. Even though he doesn’t care about animals, even though he engages in animal abuse, even though he supports hunting, even though his sons are scumbags and his wife is a fur whore, even though he is a carnist and profits from killing animals, Trump is planning on abrogating our trade agreements!
      Our trade agreements cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals, animals that would otherwise not be bred and murdered. Animals that are turned into corpses and profits by US corporations using Third World labor.
      Trump opposes trade agreements and corporate profiteering, Hillary Clinton supports trade agreements and corporate profiteering.
      For me the choice is black and white.
      With the stroke of a pen, Trump will do more for animals in one year than the entire, worldwide animal movement has done in a century.
      Trump is not a racist, a misogynist, or a xenophobe. But even if he were, I would tolerate such personal shortcomings to save hundreds of millions of animals.
      Happily, if Trump is elected, political radicalism benefits as well.
      Bernie Sanders’ nemesis will be gone. Sanders and his progressives will be left in control of the Democratic party. The Democrats will be well on their way to electing democratic socialists across the country and taking control of the party machinery at the national, state, and local levels.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.