Leading Animal Rights Group Attacks Trump’s “Inhumanity” In Clinton Endorsement


Trump represents the greatest threat ever to federal policy-making and implementation of animal protection laws, and a threat to animals everywhere.

*The following is an opinion column by R Muse*

It is probably the case that there are few Americans that actually hate animals, and if there are very many at all, they are certainly outnumbered by the uncivilized Americans that actually hate other Americans. Of course at this particular juncture in time there is plenty of evidence that the Americans exuding hatred for American people who aren’t white, aren’t evangelical fundamentalists, aren’t wealthy, and aren’t male all support Donald Trump. What is fairly certain is that even the barbaric savages that support Trump likely support efforts to protect animals from people with a predilection to abuse and slaughter innocent animals, and it is also fairly certain they are unaware that animal rights groups have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and slammed Donald Trump as “a threat to animals everywhere.”

The national animal rights and protection group, the Humane Society Legislative Fund, announced that it was taking the “unusual step” of wading into the presidential race to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The reason the animal rights group gave was because they believe “Trump represents the greatest threat ever to federal policy-making and implementation of animal protection laws, and we are taking the unusual step of wading actively into a presidential campaign.” The group made it very clear that it “evaluate[d] candidates based on a single, non-partisan criterion—their support for animal protection—and did not default to one party or the other.

The HSLF is a lobbying affiliate of the Humane Society of the United States that also said that Ms. Clinton’s Republican opponent was “a threat to animals everywhere.”

On the exact same day the HSLF announced their endorsement of Hillary Clinton, they launched a vicious anti-Trump ad campaign (video here) that cited his past record on animal protection; a record that should sicken any animal lover, even Trump supporters. The group also explained that its biggest concern was that a Trump administration would be stocked with anti-animal rights barbarians.

The HSLF said that based on potential policy decisions under the aegis of the U.S. Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Institutes of Health, and various other executive level agencies, the stakes are just too high to allow a Trump presidency. The HSLF also noted that “there could not be a greater contrast among the White House hopefuls” that guarantees either the “potential for advancing animal welfare reforms at the federal level, or rolling back the recent gains and rule-making actions” that will have devastatingly adverse effects on animals. They also, rightly noted, that where Hillary Clinton has a clear, compelling record of support for animal protection,  the opposition has already assembled a team of advisors and financial supporters “intricately tied to trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries.”

The names that Trump’s campaign has floated to run the Interior and Agriculture Department issues are a veritable “who’s who” of vicious anti-animal welfare activists. One of those names,according to Politico, is an oil magnate considered to be the front-runner for Trump’s Secretary of the Interior as well as currently serving on Trump’s agriculture advisory committee. The man, Forrest Lucas is the funding machine providing money for the front group, Protect the Harvest, behind every attack on every organization in the nation involved with protecting animals and defending wildlife.

As HSLF noted, “Lucas has never met a case of animal exploitation he wouldn’t defend,” and he is a fierce advocate “for trophy hunting, puppy mills, and big agribusiness.”  Lucas also personally provided the funding for attacks on a Missouri ballot measure (Prop. B) because its purpose is insuring there are “humane breeding standards for dogs” and regulations on horrendously inhumane puppy mills; something Lucas will not allow even though it has no impact on his oil business. Lucas opposes humane treatment of animals so ardently that he personally financed the attack on Missouri’s Prop. B  because it is one of the animal welfare movement’s most important ballot measures designed to enact humane breeding standards for dogs and crack down on puppy mills.

more: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/24/leading-animal-rights-group-attacks-trumps-inhumanity-clinton-endorsement.html

Leading Animal Rights Group Attacks Trump’s “Inhumanity” In Clinton Endorsement


16 thoughts on “Leading Animal Rights Group Attacks Trump’s “Inhumanity” In Clinton Endorsement

    • Why can’t people review a situation and analyze it independently? hillary is not better than trump for animals. Why does anyone think she is better for animals? She has not done a single thing that shows she cares at all! Any animal lover who thinks she will be better for animals, will be sorely disappointed, but it will be too late. HILLARY DOES NOT CARE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT OR ANIMALS. BE A JACK ASS AND VOTE FOR HER TO LEARN YOUR LESSON! In the meantime, hillary gets into office and the far right hunters will take all their anger and frustration out on animals, as they have been doing for the past 8 years! Why don’t you people learn to be more analytical and insightful about these things? Why do you always make the mistake that the power dealers want you to make? Like when everyone believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because the media kept repeating it! The more we push for democrats the more horrible life becomes for animals. Why is it so hard to distinguish that a situation is more complex than what some animal organization tells us to believe!

  1. Nope. When the inevitable happens (and it will) and newspapers and everybody and their mothers are criticizing her choices, I’ll know in my heart I never contributed to Ken Salazar, a terrible Interior appointment, more delistings, non-listings, and wild horse eradication. I simply cannot contribute or compromise any longer. Green Party for me, unless something dramatic happens between now and election day (Ken Salazar bows out). I haven’t been opposed to these things for years only to compromise now. Plus, I think under our one-party system where Trump is merely a foil for HRC, she’ll win by a landslide anyway. 😦 They don’t need my vote, and I can feel free to vote my conscience.

      • I have to give her a vote of ‘no confidence’. After eight years of the Obama administration’s compromise, wolves delisted, grizzlies next, sage grouse not listed, climate change an issue for people, but not for the remaining 300 or less wolverines, these terrible mistakes cannot be undone. I won’t contribute to more of it.

      • I think more animals were killed during 0bama’s eight years than any other president in recent history. Some far right conservatives went as far as wearing masks like the KKK took pictures of themselves hanging the wolves they had killed and posted it on social media. Every time 0bama made conservatives angry, they took it out on animals. But the democrats don’t care, they just pretend that they care to deceive us and make us vote for a vile woman who never ever did anything to even give a hint that she cares about animals.

  2. hillary is our modern day Madam Bovary! No she doesn’t sell her body to get what she wants, she sells million dollars speeches to wealthy powerful allies that she accumulated through 30 years of playing to their tune and doing them favors and now they are returning the favor. hillary is cunning and black at heart she is completely devoid of moral standards and she goes the distance without any moral stop signs. Does anyone think this woman has anything to say that is worth $1,000,000?! Bovary of the nineteenth century ended shunned and killed herself. If she had Hillary as her teacher, she would probably end up having a nice life being a courtesan in the King’s palace instead of taking her own life and dying a painful death.

  3. Hillary compromised for thirty years, and made sure she didn’t make enemy of anyone. Now hillary’s powerful allies are returning the favors. We and all the animals will all pay for it dearly, animals will pay with their lives. As the voting day approaches we see more brain dead zombies going around chanting “Hillary is lesser of the two evils vote for her, Hillary is the lesser of the two evils vote for her, Hillary ….” This evil douche bag is even sending illegal aliens door to door to collect allies. How much lower does she need to go before the zombies stop chanting for her!!

  4. I was all set to voter for her, and I feel robbed of an opportunity now. Whatever in the world made her pick Ken Salazar as her transition team leader? Reward for years of crony support? At least Bill picked one of the best ever as Interior Secretary, but I don’t think that Hillary feels the same way about these matters. Maybe it is the change of times where Anthropocene boosters are looking ahead and making sure that only people’s needs are taken care of. I have no indication that she cares at all, and I’m tired of gambling with my votes. Her record on these things is minimal, and not a mention of any of it during this campaign, except one or two vague references to climate change and green jobs – which means massive solar and wind farms given carte blanche from environmental and ESA requirements. To politicians and the general public the environment only means energy (just read any news article and you’ll be shocked) and nothing else. I do not feel good about this election cycle at all.

    • By choosing Ken Salazar as her transition team leader, she has told me everything I need to know about her views on the environment. He is pro-fracking, pro-TPP, and ranching’s BFF. He also pushed for a wind farm in what should be a marine sanctuary. I don’t feel that HRC is very knowledgeable about ecology and the environment (very few politicians know enough), or else she isn’t saying very much and keeping it close to the vest on the campaign trail and the debates. I still hold out hope that she will appoint Raul Grijalva for Interior Secretary, if he’s willing.

      All of the battles making headlines during this election cycle have been fought and should be won, but yet they keep coming up. The last battle will be to save the environment and wildlife and it gets little attention. People haven’t learned from eight years of the Obama administration that a leader should not be chosen strictly by race or gender, or to show how progressive we think we are. When the confetti settles and the champagne fizzles out after your chosen candidate wins, then reality will set in. I’ll know I didn’t take part in it.

  5. Republicans have voted against the environment and wildlife 92-99 % of the time the past 15 years They want to gut and undermine EPA, ESA, and relegate them to state contro and turn over public lands to corporate interests, ranchers, extraction industries, damaging recreational activities, essentially to state management.

    The parties or candidates are nowhere near equivalent, again: are nowhere near equivalent, again nowhere near equivalent. So aside from the candidates, consider the vast differences n party platform, policies, attitudes toward environment, and socioeconomic policies. Republicans are from the dark side of the force on animal rights, animal farming, recreational wildlife killing (aka hunting), the environment, public land, the environment, management of national forests, keeping public land public, environmental policy, wilderness protection, wildlife protection, as well as most social and economic issues.

    They, the conservatives, want state control of wolf management, grizzly management, predator management in general, endangered species, ESA, EPA, so that they can marginalize, or wipe out wolves, other predators, favor economic special interests, I.e. hunters, ranchers, extraction industries.

    The alternative universe party (GOP) that denies science, logic, facts, is also the anti environment, anti wildlife, anti public lands party. Don’t vote republican if you care much about wildlife, wilderness, public lands, refuges, or parks, if you care much about the environment. Republicans are generally anti-environment and anti-wilderness and anti-wildlife.

    Now, there is a growing effort to turn public lands over to state and local “management” and demonstration of that nature, a Pandora’s Box. They are generally anti-science, anti-logic, arti-fact, alternative universe party, make believe what -they-want party. They are the the party of climate change denial, the only free world major party this obtuse and paranoid (believing climate change a leftist conspiracy). The GOP has voted against the environment and wildlife 90%-99%the time in the past 15 years. Examples: MT Senator Steve Daines ® has voted against the environment 99% of the time, Congressman Ryan Zinke ® of MT 97% of the time. GOP capitalistic, self-centered greed is no doubt a major factor. But many on the GOP far right believe in creationism. It is basically a party that is anti-logic, anti-science, anti-facts when it conflicts with capitalistic short-term, self-centered greed (no concern for the environment, let’s make a buck now). It is the Anthropocene Extinction Party.

    Saber rattling, war mongering, meddlesomeness, law and order (profiling, stop and frisk, over policing, police militarization, fill up prisons), privatization of social security, Medicare, healthcare, corporate tax deductions even more than its current low, all this is the Republican Party. “Trumped up” trickle down as Hillary said, and she is right.

    The republican brain thinking may have a genetic basis. It is somewhat of a worldwide manifestation of conservative thinking. They staunchly resist change and progress. They stubbornly stand by failed economic-political theories (trickle down economics, unfettered/unregulated capitalism, states’ rights over federal general public rights, neoconservative militaristic meddlesomeness). They are the party of “No”.

    The conservatives repeatedly, annually, try to sneak through their anti-environment, anti-wilderness agendas on riders to must pass bills, like the defense bill or Interior bills. They are the Grand Obstructionist & Paranoid Party. They are the party that wants to devvy up what is left of public lands and wilderness to corporate interests, rancher, extraction industries, development. They keep trying trying end runs, flank attacks, on public land. Watch out for forest “management” tactics or other attempts at opening up Pandora’s Box on local/state management of forest or other public land. They are the unfettered commerce party of let’s have it now now wanton greed. Sit down republicans when little thoughts start rumbling, round them up, sit down before you hurt yourselves or the rest of













    Trade Agreements Trump Loves to Hate Actually Have Small Positive Effects
    Bloomberg 10/01/2016
    A Congressional Budget Office report shows that trade agreements have benefits, albeit uneven ones Read the full story




    missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/republicans-can-t-be-concerned about the environment










    http://sacb.ee/6jz0 Who are the good peoplehttp:







    • And you think electing hillary is going to change that? Think again. Even a politically unsophisticated person like me knows laws are set by the congress and the senate, except of course if we are talking about 0bama who pushed everything he wanted into law all by just signing executive order. Do Remember the last election of congress after 0bama’s executive orders brought minors from other countries and then he quietly sent them to safe houses? All that anger bottled up ended in turning the elections against democrats. And you think hillary is going to do what to make this better?!

  6. I know, I know – and I still may vote for HRC, I’ve never seen such a huge distinction between parties as in this election. What concerns me is that a lot of anti-environment legislation has been snuck through already in the name of ‘compromise’. I really don’t want to be indirectly responsible for any more of it. I wish we’d hear more from Hillary as to what she plans to do, but obviously anything of an environmental nature is still a bad word in public. It is my right to consider carefully who I will vote for, even if it takes right down to the wire for me.

  7. Reblogged this on uddeer and commented:
    Putting an oil executive, Forrest Lucas, in charge of the Interior Department should the Trumper win is like the old adage of putting a fox in charge of the hen house.

  8. Pingback: These guys are hunters? – uddeer

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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