Bernie, Hillary, and Trump all Support Hunting.

deer in scopeIs a deer’s life worth less than the life of a leopard? Apparently so.

I believe that all sentient beings have the same rights to life and to be on this Earth. But many animal activists seem to hold the view that some lives are worth more than others.

There were precious few animal activists condemning Bernie Sanders for his support of hunting and animal agriculture.

And few animal activists are condemning Hillary for her support of hunting, that Bill hunts, or that she also supports animal agriculture.

But when it comes to Donald Trump, there is a deafening outcry about Trump’s sons hunting and his support of them.

One would presume that of all people, animal activists would find all animal murder to be reprehensible. That some are selective in their outrage suggests that they are either being hypocritical or are serving an agenda other than the animals.

There are many reasons to oppose Donald Trump, but very few to support Hillary Clinton. And for those supporting Hillary, the interests of animals cannot possibly be one of them.

Animal activists who support Hillary are constantly pointing to her HSUS score while a US Senator as proof of Hillary’s being a friend to animals. To get an accurate reading on Hillary and her concern for animals, they need to look instead at what she has done since leaving the Senate and what she is advocating now, It is hardly a stellar record of caring about animals, and is very discouraging if animals are your priority, or even a concern.

Hillary’s animal positions in the Senate were mere puffery and posturing. After leaving the Senate, she became the second most powerful person on the planet. Secretary of State of the United States of America.

What did she do for animals with all that power and influence? Absolutely nothing.

She was certainly capable of extorting money from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation, but unable to secure anything for the animals from those same governments. Why?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that animals are not a priority for Hillary Clinton? That they are not even on her radar when she is not campaigning? That personal aggrandizement, wealth, and power are her concerns?

Imagine what she could have done in her position for animals around the world. Imagine how she could have raised public awareness, Promoted animal campaigns, forged alliances with activists and governments, commanded national and worldwide attention to whaling, sealing, bullfighting, trophy hunting, poaching, the slaughter of endangered species for trinkets, trophies, and voodoo medicines.

Did she do any of that? No.

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 weight to stop Japanese whaling, Canadian sealing, the dolphin murders in Tajii or the whale killers in the Faroe Islands? No.

Did she set up interdiction of wildlife trafficking or poaching? Propose sanctions on countries which import ivory and rhino horn? No.

Did she ever do anything for animals during her entire tenure as Secretary of State? Did she ever make a single public statement condemning any atrocity against animals that occurs daily around the world? No, she did not.

Now she is supporting 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 a decade ago? That she has a page on her website which spouts meaningless verbiage about her concerns for animals? That she strokes a few animal activists in private meetings?

What we must remember is that she is again running for office and is again pandering to animal people for their votes.

Hillary is one of the animals’ biggest enemies. And nothing she has ever done proves otherwise.

Of course, Donald Trump is no better. He doesn’t care for animals any more than Hillary does.

But trophy hunting is anathema to most people, and Hillary supporters use trophy hunting as major issue to define Donald Trump.

They ignore the fact that Hillary enthusiastically backs hunting and her husband regularly murders animals.

Which strongly suggests that Hillary supporters really do not care all that much about animals, and that animals are merely a useful campaign tool to promote Hillary Clinton.

That any animal activists participate in the deception is remarkable.

That they are unaware of what they are doing is doubtful.

That they would betray the animals for some other political agenda is troubling.

That they assert they are supporting Hillary because of animals is absurd.

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.

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. And as president he will have the constitutional authority to do so unilaterally.

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.

 

 

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!

donate2

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Bernie, Hillary, and Trump all Support Hunting.

    • Animal activists who support Hillary are constantly pointing to her HSUS score while a US Senator as proof of Hillary’s being a friend to animals. To get an accurate reading on Hillary and her concern for animals, they need to look instead at what she has done since leaving the Senate and what she is advocating now, It is hardly a stellar record of caring about animals, and is very discouraging if animals are your priority, or even a concern.

      Hillary’s animal positions in the Senate were mere puffery and bullshit. After leaving the Senate, she became the second most powerful person on the planet. Secretary of State of the United States of America.

      What did she do for animals with all that power and influence? Absolutely nothing.

      She was certainly capable of extorting money from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation, but unable to secure anything for the animals from those same governments. Why?

      Could it have anything to do with the fact that animals are not a priority for Hillary Clinton? That they are not even on her radar when she is not campaigning? That personal aggrandizement, wealth, and power are her concerns?

      Imagine what she could have done in her position for animals around the world. Imagine how she could have raised public awareness, Promoted animal campaigns, forged alliances with activists and governments, commanded national and worldwide attention to whaling, sealing, bullfighting, trophy hunting, poaching, the slaughter of endangered species for trinkets, trophies, and voodoo medicines.

      Did she do any of that? No.

      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 weight to stop Japanese whaling, Canadian sealing, the dolphin murders in Tajii or the whale killers in the Faroe Islands? No.

      Did she set up interdiction of wildlife trafficking or poaching? Propose sanctions on countries which import ivory and rhino horn? No.

      Did she ever do anything for animals during her entire tenure as Secretary of State? Did she ever make a single public statement condemning any atrocity against animals that occurs daily around the world? No, she did not.

      Now she is supporting our trade agreements which cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals each year.

      And we are supposed to be impressed because she got some meaningless score while pandering for animal people’s votes a decade ago? That she has a page on her website which spouts meaningless verbiage about her concerns for animals? That she strokes a few animal activists in private meetings?

      What we must remember is that she is again running for office and is again pandering to animal people for their votes.

      Hillary is one of the animals’ biggest enemies. And nothing she has ever done proves otherwise.

      Like

    • That’s it? Just the rhinos? I am certainly all for saving them, but there are many other causes and animals that need help. The Clinton Foundation has a lot of money, and I believe more could go for animals and the environment. After all, Hillary claims to believe in and be concerned about climate change which is driving some species to extinction.

      Like

  1. Since animals can’t vote or donate, Hillary will have very little interest in their well-being. So her lack of involvement with bullfighting, whaling, sealing, dolphin killing, horse roundups, live export and other atrocities against animals is not surprising. However, she may not be the only one unwilling to risk condemning animal abuse. Both diplomatic caution and political correctness may diminish that potential for other politicians and officials, as well.

    For example, after Caroline Kennedy was appointed ambassador to Japan, she noted on Twitter that the dolphin killing at Taiji was cruel. That caused a backlash from Japanese officials who claimed it was inappropriate for Ambassador Kennedy to criticize a Japanese cultural tradition. Robert Dujarrie, director of the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies at Temple University of Japan, said Kennedy’s remark “will start a nationalistic reaction against meddling by a [foreign] country.”

    Papers on the art of diplomacy now discuss “how important it is that diplomats and politicians pay attention to and accept the fact of cultural diversity.“ And in the “Impact of Cultural Diversity on Multilateral Diplomacy and Relations,” Dietrich Kappeler tells those involved “to converse and interact . . . in such a manner as to not threaten sensitivities.”

    But animal rights organizations and activists are threatening those sensibilities.

    PETA has stated that animal abuse does not bring honor to any culture and condemned, for example, the Ukweshwama torture of a bull in South Africa under the country’s “cultural liberty” exemption. In Defense of Animals avers that “blind adherence to tradition is a dangerous thing” and has caused great suffering and oppression. The Humane Society International avers that culture is never an excuse for cruelty, giving bullfighting as an example of gratuitous violence and cruelty for the sake of entertainment.

    However, some countries are fighting back. One way is to affirm and legitimize their traditions. For example, some locations in Spain have outlawed bullfighting. However, officials in other areas are attempting to save the barbaric spectacle. This March thousands marched in Valencia supporting the centuries-old tradition. Last year a pro-bullfighting lobby, The Bull Foundation, was started, and at one point the Ministry of Culture planned to petition UNESCO to include bullfighting in UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage List.

    Africa is justifying trophy hunting by appealing to human welfare. As criticism mounted over killing wildlife for “conservation” and the travesty of Cecil’s killing by Dr. Palmer, more stress has been placed on how the money from the trophy hunts benefits the poor. And recently a 12-year-old girl was shown, beaming with delight, next to the giraffe she killed. After the killing was condemned on-line, it was reclassified by some as a charitable deed—the dead giraffe would feed 800 hungry orphans.

    The appeal to human need has also been used to excuse whaling and sealing, as well as the poaching of animals for food or body parts. Attempts to abolish such hunting have been deemed culturally insensitive, since killing the animals provides money and food for people.

    The battle against cruelty has also resulted in name calling. “Mother Jones” reported on the protests against the abuses in Asian live markets in California. Visitors to the markets saw fish “flopping in thin layers of water,” and stacks of “skinned amphibians.” The killing of turtles received the most attention. If the turtle stuck its head out, it was decapitated. If it did not, the shell was broken open in order to severe the head, which took another 1-1/2 minutes. The head was said to live for up to an hour after it had been removed. Activists said the process constituted cruelty, and Asian-American leaders in the community accused the activists of racism.

    In “The Killing Fields of South Africa: Eco-Wars, Species Apartheid, and Total Liberation,” Steven Best discusses complaints against elephants who were regarded as pests by their human neighbors and accused of damaging habitat and crops and completing with cattle for food. The solution offered by government officials, park service managers, and even environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund was to “cull” the offending animals because “human interests trump the lives and interests of elephants.” Opponents of the killing maintained that destroying the elephants was unethical, that they had a right to their lives, and that there were alternative methods of controlling damage besides a death sentence.

    But attempts to save the elephants was called “a form of eco-fascism: brutally authoritarian environmental policy, devised by activists, codified by democratically unaccountable technocrats, enforced by zealots–and thoroughly imbued with a poisonous misanthropy which rides roughshod over human desires and human nature.

    Thus as the fight for animal rights grows, so does the backlash against it, and the final argument is always that human lives are more important. That is the universal ethics. Animals are at the mercy of cultural relativism and whatever traditional suffering awaits them.

    So while government officials and politicians can influence opinion by calling attention to the evils of the world, they are also hampered by the politics of diversity. Criticizing the cruelty of other cultures and ethnic groups can lead to accusations of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misanthropy, imperialism, Western elitism, and cultural insensitivity. Most politicians and diplomats are too ambitious to jeopardize their career for animals. So the fight will be left to activists and whatever celebrities are willing to join in.

    Now in the age of massive trade agreements and with the TPP still threatening, more animals than ever are at risk. Advocates will have to fight hard against the abuse, the backlash, and the political correctness bullies.

    http://www.hsi.org/news/news/2013/05/bullfighting_cruelty_052113.html
    http://www.peta.org/blog/tradition-excuse-cruelty/http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/why-tradition-is-a-poor-excuse-for-unethical-practices/
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/21/kennedy-dolphin-tweet/4700405
    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2007-09-02/news/0708300167_1_michael-vick-case-cultural-differences-cruz
    http://www.idausa.org/tradition-is-no-excuse-for-cruelty/
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/03/culture-vs-cruelty
    http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/impact-cultural-diversity-multilateral-diplomacy-and-relations
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/04/24/ukip-not-just-racist-fruitcakes-but-elephant-murderers-too/
    https://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/2_2/best.html

    Like

  2. I am swept up in the euphoria of the prospect of electing the first woman as president. Her name is Jill Stein and she is a friend of animals as much as is possible in our society that devalues animals so much. Humans are an unfortunate species.

    Like

    • Agreed! Thank you for naming Jill Stein. Hillary is a stain on humanity. She is not alone there are billions like her which is why animal suffering is so callously dismissed.

      Like

  3. Pingback: Bernie, Hillary, & Trump all Support Hunting. – VeganVoices by VeganDude

  4. You did mention Jill Stein’s position on animals. Me Thinks she has compassion for them. Dick Warren

    Voting is People Power that Kicks Corporate America out of Congress VoterNinja.com

    Like

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