Unethical Quote Of The Week (And Nominated For Un-Self-Aware Quote Of The Year): Hillary Clinton

wait_what_logo

“If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun.”

—–Hillary Clinton, forgetting all sorts of things in her speech in response to the Orlando massacre.

Cowabunga, Hillary!!! Do you think, while I am trying to explain why the only responsible course for an ethical citizen is to vote for a horrible candidate like  you in order to stop Donald Trump from becoming President Asshole, you might at least try not to make it harder by talking like an autocratic idiot yourself? Do you think you could do that, please?

PLEASE???

Not for the first time, Hillary Clinton just made one of those boomerang assertions that applies to her as much as those she is supposedly criticizing. Her all-time classic, of course, was when she said that the victims of sexual abuse had the right to be believed (unless, of course, the sexual abuser is her husband and meal-ticket, in which case she personally will see that said victim is discredited and destroyed.)

Was the statement in her speech even worse? Hmmm, close one! Here is Hillary, herself under a criminal investigation by the FBI for violating a federal law or five and still running for President because, after all,  it’s just an investigation, and in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave one does not lose rights and privileges until one is actually convicted in a court of law. And yet here she is saying that an FBI investigation should suspend a Constitutional right.

Talk about throwing blood in the water. Talk about cynically appealing to low information voters. Talk about pandering. Talk about walking into a buzz-saw.

Talk about stupid…

I would not be the first to ask, fairly and accurately, if Hillary also believes that merely being investigated should suspend other rights, like the right to not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to have a lawyer, the right not to have to incriminate oneself, and the right to free speech? Does she know that the right to purchase a gun is also as much of a right as any of these? Or is she really saying that she wants to eliminate that right?

Perhaps she was just speaking carelessly, irresponsibly and in vague generalities–like, oh, just to pick an example out of the air, Donald Trump.

You’re not making it easy for me, Hillary.

Not at all.

43 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week (And Nominated For Un-Self-Aware Quote Of The Year): Hillary Clinton

    • I understand many people see voting third party as a waste of a vote, but Gary Johnson is polling (relatively) high lately.

      If he got, say 15% of the vote in the general election, wouldn’t that be a game changer, at least for the future of third parties?

      • I don’t know enough about American politics… Can someone tell me definitively: Can a president be elected with a plurality of the electoral college, or is a majority necessary?

        • At the national level it is the Majority of Electoral votes,

          However, the vast majority of State award the total of their State’s electoral votes to the candidate with the plurality of the popular vote.

          Which is why, a 3rd party could siphon enough votes from one party, that the un-siphoned party could win a very narrow plurality in each state but have an Electoral landslide at the national level.

          Declare Faithless Elector laws unconstitutional and Declare winner takes all laws unconstitutional…I’m cool with more Presidential elections being thrown to the House (you know, America’s 1 popular assembly).

    • You know, pretty soon, people like you and me are going to start sounding like the people who talk about going vegan or how they do crossfit… It’s a catch-22, right?

  1. Judges revoke passports all the time while defendants are awaiting trial. And, they are ordered to stay within the jurisdiction. In some states, you have to surrender firearms as a condition of bail. These people have not been convicted of a crime yet.

    These are all restrictions of rights because of a balancing test that takes into account public safety. The same argument can be made with an FBI investigation.

    • If you are “awaiting trial” that means “charges have been brought”. If “charges have been brought” that means a preliminary investigation has taken place and probable cause has been found. So yes, let’s use that as a standard, but that still doesn’t help with “an FBI investigation” in this recent scenario.

      • Well, that’s not a bad test, but you do realize that terrorist investigations are different? If someone sees you rob a bank, you are are arrested and will be put before a judge quickly. But a terrorist investigation? Those can be years in the making, involve undercover agents and lots of electronic evidence research. Plus, the FBI doesn’t actually try cases. You need to get the DOJ involved or refer the matter to the local authorities (this almost never happens) who then need to investigate before bringing charges. So, while your test may be the fairer one, and would prevent potential abuse, it would not stop terrorists from getting their hands on dangerous weapons.

        • I think the FBI would like to not implement your suggestion then.

          “Hey we’ve got this guy under investigation, let’s put his name on a public list that everyday people selling firearms can check and when he gets turned down, now he knows he’s under investigation.”

          Most investigations are successful when the target of the investigation doesn’t know about the investigation. Once they become aware, behavior changes and they shore up all of the loose ends, making a prosecution unlikely, if not, impossible.

          Still, with this specific scenario presented to us, he was under investigation at certain points, but was not presently under investigation (if I read my sources correctly.) He had been cleared, marked as interesting, but “watching” someone for deviation in normal behavior is still just watching normal behavior.

          • Well, the person wouldn’t have to know why they failed the background check. And, if the person WAS planning a terrorist attack, he would have to find a different route. At a minimum, violence would be delayed.

            • Failed Background Check = notification by default. It’s something out of the ordinary. So, the $200k the FBI spent monitoring him is now never going to bear fruit. Sounds fine to each of us, but to the government agent who is going to lose his job because he can’t show any results, it sounds pretty bad. If you want to pursue that idea further, you’d have to explain to me how someone who isn’t a terrorist can file an appeal and have the decision reversed in a timely fashion. Also, this is why I bought my firearms a while back. Who knows what happens in the future that might prevent me from buying a firearm…better buy them now while my record is clean so I don’t have to worry about a background check ever again. Literally anything can happen to me and change me between now and the end of my life but I own my unknown quantity of firearms that may or may not have been purchased through a federally licensed dealer, from another individual second hand with no background check, or built by myself with no serial number or identifying marks.

              • Truthfully, I think I agree with you that an FBI investigation in and of itself is not enough to prevent anyone from exercising a Constitutional right, I just wanted to put it out there that we do this in other situations as well.

  2. “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun.”

    Not sure this is technically hypocritical, since she’s not under investigation for suspected terrorist links.

    But “technically” is probably Hillary Clinton’s favorite word.

  3. First off… condolences to Orlando and America.

    But to the present topic, if a president (Obama) or a presidential candidate (Hillary or Donald) were to suggest limiting the right of people to associate with whom they please, or to limit the right of people to utter even the stupidest of thoughts, or to limit or regulate religious practices, or to regulate and limit what is published on the Internet (the media), most rational people would be alarmed as a dangerous infringement of 1st Amendment rights.

    In recent years, we see more and more proud advocates of these infringements through American politically correct academia. At the same time, some politicians (Hillary in this case) seem perfectly comfortable with the idea of cutting off 2nd Amendment rights on just about any pretext. Many of those in academia and even in the media do not seem to see this as a problem.

    I sense that the 1st Amendment is just as much in jeopardy as the 2nd Amendment. If present trends continue, both will be severely compromised or lost in another generation or two.

  4. I don’t think Hillary’s comment is stupid or lacks in self-awareness. Hillary and her handlers know there is a power that comes with being able to say things that drive your detractors nuts, knowing that you can get away with it.

  5. “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just speak your mind in the public arena.”

    “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go to church and worship.”

    “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just associate with other people.”

    “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

    “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just safe from being held without indictment.”

    “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just have a speedy and fair trial.”

    “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just be informed of the nature and cause of accusations.”

    “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just have representation in court.”

    • Well, the obvious difference between your analogies and this is that terrorists don’t use those other rights to kill people.

      Different rights are balanced and at times restricted in different ways.

      I’m not saying whether or not I agree the second amendment should be restricted in this way. I’m on the fence. But there is no 1:1 comparison between the second amendment and the others. Guns in the wrong hands can be more dangerous than words in the wrong hands. We balance all rights with restrictions, some more than others.

      • Somebody once said “The pen is mightier than the sword.” And this is true. Words can be dangerous too. So that is why we need to watch closely what may appear to be little and innocent threats against the 1st Amendment.

      • Excuse me, but Omar certainly used the fact that they didn’t hold him without indictment to commit this tragedy…

          • Oh, I agree, but Chris claimed that those other rights aren’t used by terrorists to kill people, which I was attempting to prove was wrong by counterexample. The ability to detain anyone they wanted under mere suspicion would certainly save lives… but I wouldn’t be willing to give the FBI that right.

      • “Guns in the wrong hands can be more dangerous than words in the wrong hands.”

        As I recall, it was HRC herself who asserted that the deaths in Benghazi were caused by a whole bunch of words that were recorded in a video.

        –Dwayne

  6. Only people who are being investigated, though. Once they’re convicted, they’re a protected class again, being involved with the justice system and all.

    Actually, looking at the direction she’d like to take rape investigations on campuses, the investigation and accusation is going to end up being WORSE than an actual conviction. Suspicion never needs to be proven conclusively, after all.

  7. The core of all this is…

    It’s clear that Hillary does not understand (likely just doesn’t give a damn) the difference between suspected of doing something illegal and charged and/or convicted of doing something illegal; in this regard, she’s a blatant hypocrite. It’s all about political gain for the Clinton political machine.

    Hillary has absolutely no problem stripping other citizens of their constitutional rights as long as her Constitutional rights remain intact.

    In the words of Monty Brewster, right now I have to choose “None of the Above!

  8. Jack,
    What really blows my mind is that so many of the people currently outraged that a SUSPECTED terrorist can buy a gun are the same people who criticized the whole concept of a watchlist (under Bush) was unreliable.

    After all, is this not the same list which named (the artist formerly known as) Cat Stevens at one point?

  9. What’s not being said here is that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force(s) have been decimated by loss of agents to even conduct these types of investigations. I know this from personal immediate family experience. Without getting details I’ve seen the stress, incredible hours and the extreme complexity of getting one of these “lone wolves” charged, indicted and in court. The Government doesn’t really care to do it.

    Secondly it’s not just Crooked Hillary. It’s all the Progressives and Fellow Travelers that will come into government with her; people who will not think twice about taking away Constitutional Freedoms via Presidential Edict, with a wussified Congress who will wring their hands and go raise some more $$. So a vote that puts Her AND her fellows in power is to vote to end the US.

  10. My opinion…

    If the November election consists of Clinton vs Trump and no viable Independent candidate; then it’s clear to me that Clinton should win the Presidential election in a landslide of epic proportions. This win will have nothing to do with her ideology (although they will claim it’s and ideological mandate) but because people (regardless of past party affiliation) will vote in droves against Trump. If the unthinkable happens and Trump wins the Presidential election (I hope he doesn’t) the responsibility should be dumped into the lap of the political left which is loaded to the hilt with politically ignorant people and a blindly ignorant media that is going out of their way to intentionally smear all things Republican and Conservative and not focus their attention on the looming disaster that is Trump.

    This is a unique time where the political left and many on the right can literally unite forces to take down a completely unfit narcissist, unethical, immoral, and ignorant Presidential candidate in favor of another less unfit Presidential candidate. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be how modern politics work for the left; for the left, it has been and still is all about demonizing all things Republican and all things Conservative. People that support the political left don’t seem to realize what happens when you back an “animal” into a corner; the Democratic Party, Progressives, Liberals, and moderate Liberals NEED to figure this out FAST because right now they are in the process of driving away those voters that will literally help them achieve a landslide win.

    Unfortunately; the Democratic Party, Progressives, Liberals and moderate Liberals are in the process of showing just how blindly illogical and utterly ignorant they can be.

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

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