“Unethical” Is Too Mild To Describe Elizabeth Warren, And “Gullible” Is Too Nice To Describe Her Supporters

Above is what Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who presumes to tell us that she is qualified to be President of the United States,  tweeted to her followers last week. This deliberate and disgraceful lie could be presented on Ethics Alarms as evidence that Warren is an Ethics Dunce. It would easily qualify as an Unethical Quote of the Week (Month…Year…). It is fully qualified as an Unethical Tweet of the Week, in a category that is becoming increasingly contested. None of these, however, quite capture the miserable, cynical, disgusting nature of Warren’s statement.

Let’s be clear: Mike Brown was not murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson. This is not a matter of debate or rational dispute, at least not beyond the “The moon landing was faked” and”Elvis lives!” level. As National Review writer David French rapidly tweeted back at her, the Obama Justice Department, which was as biased, politicized and racialized as they come and which would have loved to have indicted Officer  Wilson to please Al Sharpton, black activists, police-haters, Black Lives Matters and the progressive  race-baiting “base,” had to admit that the evidence for murder, or any crime, wasn’t there, and the evidence of self-defense ( and that Brown had engineered his own demise) was strong. This was the reason the grand jury didn’t indict the officer. French completely debunked Warren with a highlighted selection from the report:

Black Lives Matters still claims on its website that Officer Wilson murdered Brown, but that is because Black Lives Matters is an anti-white, anti-police hate group that owes its existence to the media-hyped Brown fiasco. Brown’s friend and partner in crime  concocted an imaginary account of his death (“Hands up! Don’t shoot!”) that was reported as fact because progressives and the news media wanted it to be true. There was, perhaps, some excuse for believing that false narrative five years ago if one was bigoted and intellectually lazy, but not today.

Warren isn’t intellectually lazy, or flummoxed by a false narrative. She is pandering. She is lying. She is doing what she evidently thinks will gain her power and the Presidency: saying what she thinks will attract needed support, even though she knows, knows, that it is false. Warren is a law professor and a litigator, and from all reports skilled in both roles. She knows that the facts made it obvious that Brown wasn’t murdered. She knows that competent, fair citizens must not call other citizens murderers when not only have they not been charged,  tried, or duly convicted, but when authorities have concluded that there is insufficient evidence for an official accusation.

The tweet isn’t a mistake or an opinion. It is a deliberate lie, a public and a defamatory one. I see no reason why Darren Wilson could not sue Warren and win.

In light of this and Warren’s other well-documented prevarications and flagrant demagoguery, I do not comprehend how anyone with an appreciation of the importance of character and integrity in leadership could possibly think this awful woman should be President, or have any opportunity to wield power over others. I especially cannot fathom how lawyers I know claim to be supporters.

I do salute Ethics Alarms readers, however, who made Warren their #1 choice for Most Unethical Democratic Presidential Candidate in the recent poll even before this latest display:

42 thoughts on ““Unethical” Is Too Mild To Describe Elizabeth Warren, And “Gullible” Is Too Nice To Describe Her Supporters

  1. Unfortunately, a lot of folks think they are entitled to their own facts as well as their own opinions. As far as Sen. Warren and her supporters are concerned, Mike Brown was murdered after saying “hands up, don’t shoot,” Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, and Obama was a saint. You can parade the facts in front of them until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t matter. Once it was that the truth had been covered up too well, then it was that the speaker was “splaining” of some kind, now if you dare challenge the progressive cant you’re a “white supremacist.” You can prove the left wrong a hundred times over, but all you’ll get is the equivalent of them sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “lalalalala I’m not listening.”

      • Oh, but those are those redneck, good old boy, barely effective, doughnut- chomping local cops. They’re going to send the FEDERAL officers, who are perfect unless they are investigating a Democrat, to do this job.

      • That ultimately is the conundrum, no? If you take Facebookers and their screeds on social media seriously, you will come away with the following:

        1. Guns bad. No one “needs” an extra-large magazine for an assault rifle for hunting and/or shooting competitions. I mean, do you see those types of rifles in the biathlon in the Olympics? No.

        2. Reasonable people support “reasonable restrictions on ‘assault rifles qua weapons of war.'” Anyone who does not is by definition “not reasonable” and probably a white supremacist gun nut.

        3. Unreasonable people are involved in law enforcement, which means law enforcement agencies are unreasonable, illegitimate, and extensions of the white supremacist government.

        4. All law enforcement agencies are, by definition, agents of an oppressive state.

        5. ICE is a law enforcement agency. See, Nos. 3 and 4, above.

        6. The FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, US Marshals, local, city, state, and federal police agencies are law enforcement agencies. See Nos. 3 and 4 above, except that James Clapper, James Comey, and the like are exalted people because they have demonstrated commitment to their jobs for a long time and see Trump as the fascist he is.

        7. All law enforcement agencies must be disbanded and replaced with social justice-driven community-approved groups.

        8. All private ownership of guns should be respected by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution until such time as alternative community support organizations can be set up to replace existing law enforcement agencies. Once that is done, citizens will no longer need weapons because their protection will be guaranteed by replacement community approved organizations.

        9. Private ownership of weapons/firearms will be declared in violation of the new rules. Therefore, anyone possessing firearms will be declared in violation of new laws, which will result in outright confiscation, by force if necessary.

        jvb

    • Sen. Warren also forgot that Officer Warren served on the diversity committees and community outreach programs between police and community organizations, and taught courses in diversity, specifically dealing with the African-American community. Sen. Warren (man, that hurts every time I see it!) is an awful human being. She is ambitious and will say and do just about anything to advance her career.

      jvb

  2. And yet this bitch wants more “common sense”, “sensible” gun legislation- while either not considering, or outright ignoring, that these laws will be enforced by racist cops.

    As my longtime Usenet ally, Chris Morton, wrote,

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/12/daniel-zimmerman/black-gun-owner-liberals-lack-the-capacity-to-discuss-gun-rights/#comment-4142220

    As a Black man, here’s what I say to “woke” SJWs:

    1. The police are all violent, racist sociopaths.
    2. Only the police should have guns.

    Pick ONE.

    • It fluctuates, just like the FBI are a bunch of incompetent stumblebums when they investigate a Republican and come up with insufficient evidence, but uber-competent and above reproach when they investigate a Democrat and reach the same conclusion.

      • What is striking are the attitudes towards the 1994 Crime Bill.

        The early 1990’s saw an all-time high in criminal homicide and other violent crime rates. There were calls to “do something” (sound familiar?) The 1994 crime bill was enacted. This was followed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Lautenberg Amendment two years later.

        But as recently as a month ago, the 1994 Crime Bill was criticized by many Democratoc candidates for President because the bill is claimed to have caused the mass incarceration of young black men. Joe Biden in particular has been criticized for supportong the bill

        But with these shootings last week, there are calls to “do something”, to enact “common sense”, “sensible” gun legislation, with all concerns about overcriminalization and mass incarceration suddenly disappearing, with no memory of how or why the 1994 crime bill was enacted.

        • Oh, it’s not striking at all. Crime was waaay up on Clinton’s watch, as you rightly pointed out, and we got hit at home for the first time with the first World Trade Center bombing in early 1993, with Democrats in complete power, with no one else to blame. Bill Clinton’s presidency was just getting off the ground and his attempts at a healthcare law and lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military had both tanked. He wanted to tack to the center and the Democrats needed an achievement. These laws were the result. I believe Joe Biden voted for them all, he was then a much less powerful senator from Delaware (with much less hair) who had been accused not that long ago (relatively speaking) of plagiarism. Then the Democrats lost Congress and a lot of governorships, and things tacked even further to the center. The effects of this tough new crime law took some time to take effect, and really started to bloom into full flower under GWB. Of course then the Dems blamed him and his Republican leadership.

          1994 also saw NY toss longtime liberal governor Mario Cuomo out, partially over his decision to keep convicted murderer Thomas Grasso in prison in NY rather than hand him off to Oklahoma, who was going to fry him. Crime was up, and the optics of hiding a convicted murderer from his just punishment just weren’t good.

          Now the Democrats are all about doing something again – as long as it won’t hurt their base among minorities. The quickest way to look like they are doing something is to push anti-gun legislation that will hit white legal gun owners very hard, but not really change too much in the black community, where hunting, target-shooting, and so on just aren’t big things, and legal gun ownership isn’t as big.

          In the UK they also have strict anti-knife laws. If you so much as leave work having put your utility knife in your pocket during the day and not returned it to your work station, you can be jailed for up to five years. A lot of Dems would be just fine with similar harsh laws here, as long as they don’t fall on their people. Don’t send the dealer up the river for possessing a rock of cocaine, a drug that has no legitimate use other than getting high, but if some hunter doesn’t case his gun quite properly, even though it’s not loaded and no danger results, lock him up! Putting some black or Hispanic dealer in prison, problem. Putting some white hunter in prison for a good long time, no problem.

          It’s the same deal with the cake-baking and other nonsense. Turn down a new-fledged cop’s request for a cake with a badge or the thin blue line, no big deal. Turn down two homosexuals’ request for a wedding cake, and you will be burned at the stake, metaphorically speaking. It’s all about who’s favored by who.

          • He wanted to tack to the center and the Democrats needed an achievement. These laws were the result.

            Plus, working-class Democrats (especially those of color) were demanding more laws to untie the hands of the police so that they can go after these thugs.

            The quickest way to look like they are doing something is to push anti-gun legislation that will hit white legal gun owners very hard, but not really change too much in the black community, where hunting, target-shooting, and so on just aren’t big things, and legal gun ownership isn’t as big.

            For much of the anti-gun cult, their support for gun control is based upon their hostility and bigotry against white men. they associate lawful gun ownership with white men, which is why they want to severely restrict it.

            The big question is why they expect that this new round of anti-gun legislation would hit white legal gun owners at all, much less harder than black people.

            If we are to credit the idea of systemic racism in criminal justice (as Elizabeth Warren did in her tweet), then extreme risk protective orders would be issued against blacks more often than whites with a similar set of facts, just as black people receive harsher sentences than white people for the same crimes.

            And that is the irony. Much of the anti-gun cult rank-and-file support gun control out of racial animus against white men, but much of law enforcement will enforce gun control laws based on racial animus against black men.

            Turn down two homosexuals’ request for a wedding cake, and you will be burned at the stake, metaphorically speaking. It’s all about who’s favored by who.

            In previous comments on the issue, I did note it was a very close case, dependent on a facts. Given slightly different facts, I would be inclined to side with the customers.

  3. Yet more signature significance why Warren is not only manifestly unqualified for the White House, but for public service in general. This is the sickest thing I have ever seen from her, and I have seen a lot of revolting statements from her.

    The Republican Party should hang this tweet around her neck from now until she finally has mercy on the country and leaves public service. It can’t be soon enough for me.

    I pegged her in your earlier poll as the most unethical candidate in the race. I’m thinking that vote has been vindicated in spades after this loathsome utterance. Not only is it a lie, it is explicitly designed to divide the country and force blacks and whites, and blacks and police, into distrust and conflict.

    I’m not sure it’s possible to be more unethical than this.

    • This tweet does not specifically show she is unqualified. Her qualfications are up to the voters.

      This tweet does show that she is dangerous to our society. Trump’s hyperbole is routinely cast as more lies. None of his over the top characterizations were ever designed to cause civil unrest. Warren’s lies are designed to bring us to the brink of societal breakdown.

      She can never be allowed any power.

      • This tweet does not specifically show she is unqualified. Her qualfications are up to the voters.

        Yes, I suppose that’s true. I should’ve been more explicit that this was my personal opinion of her, not some objective comment on presidential qualifications.

        I pretty much agree with the rest of your comment as well. She is, in my opinion, the most dangerous, demagogic candidate in the race. Trump almost pales by comparison.

        • Glenn I knew what you meant. The voter reference was reflect earlier statements here that the voters decide who is “qualified”.

          Warren is far too dangerous to be elected. If she gets elected the electorate bears that responsibility.

          • If she gets elected the electorate bears that responsibility.

            Heh. Ironic, isn’t it? Exactly what the Left says about us “deplorables.”

    • Hatred and division are still coins of great worth in the game of politics. It’s a lot easier to manipulate people if their brains are clouded with hatred and a lot easier to eke out a vote if the populace is divided.

      • Hatred and division are still coins of great worth in the game of politics.

        Yeah, and she’s spending both like a drunken sailor with a hooker habit.

        Shameful.

  4. Obviously, Liz is in desperate need of the black vote, so called. She’s following the playbook of our first Black President. If should could with impunity, she’d go all Rachel Dolezal. Liz is a woman but not one of color. And she’s STILL got the fauxchahontas thing to deal with if she gets the nomination. She’s really wasting her and everyone else’s time.

    • I’m grateful that she’s old and white, and trying to follow in the footsteps of another elderly white lady. If you could transplant Warren’s brain into Harris’s or Gillibrand’s body, you’d have truly dangerous candidate. Bernie brain in Beto’s body would be similarly ominous. Joe Biden’s brain…no, there no body that would be sufficient to cover for Joe’s brain. It’s best left where it is.

        • By the time AOC is 35, she will have been out of politics for several years. I don’t think she’ll survive the 2020 election. The Dem establishment is already working on primary challengers for her. Pelosi & Co. need to kill her career with haste to send a message to other rabble-rousers to stay in line.

          To be honest, now that she’s thrown Chakrabarti under the bus, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him cutting a deal to rat her out for some of her campaign finance “irregularities”…

  5. Here’s more to add to the case against Warren:
    Vows investigations into opponents of gun control – as well as banks that don’t engage in the corporate version:
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-taxes-nra-investigation-gun-control

    In 2013, Obama at least initially showed some disapproval over the IRS targeting the Tea Party.

    Six years later, Democrats openly embrace government persecution of their political opponents.

    Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on using the power of government to punish and persecute opponents of her agenda on gun control. Will it stop there? Or will other groups, like Americans for Prosperity or the Angel Moms, also feel the heat?

    And will political opponents lose their access to the financial system?

    • Six years later, Democrats openly embrace government persecution of their political opponents.

      It’s every bit the concise and valid justification for armed seditious revolt one could ask for. One would have to have complete faith in their incompetent stupidity to think that’s not the very thing they’re intending. It’s a claim that they’re going to disregard all facts and laws which ought to protect a very large portion of the voting public because they know demographics are moving in their direction, so they inevitably can. Given the political climate they’ve generated, it’s strange how hard they have to work to concoct one right wing extremist out of a recent handful of nebulous cases. I expect they’re either more surprised by this than anyone or staring blankly at the latest edition of the New York Times with a vague, ersatz religious disposition and humming the latest degenerate popular music ditty.

      Perhaps they’re stratified… No, I won’t go into that again.

      • I think you cased ost of my opinion on this, Ben.

        In particular, “It’s every bit the concise and valid justification for armed seditious revolt one could ask for.

        i will say this more plainly, though.

        Such actions WILL cause dead politicians. If they have bodyguards, those will be targeted as well, until they don’t have anyone willing to be a bodyguard. This is human nature, and perhaps justified self defense. Denying political opponents access to their money, access to medical care, groceries, housing: the basic necessities, is war. This is the equivalent of roving death squads, economically speaking.

        Likely not ethical, but the left declared this war.

        The right will finish it.

    • Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on using the power of government to punish and persecute opponents of her agenda on gun control. Will it stop there?

      How could it stop there? What rationale could we use to imagine she wouldn’t do exactly the same violence to the rest of the Bill of Rights as she’d do to the Second?

      I can’t see any.

      Liz Warren’s election as president, in my opinion, would virtually guarantee a civil war and the United States breaking up into smaller countries. She’s the most dangerous political candidate of my generation, and the most unrepentantly anti-Constitutional.

      The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would likely overturn virtually all of the laws she proposes unless she engages in overt court-packing. That means she would do it without hesitation.

      This woman talks like a Soviet-era Communist Party apparatchik, and some Americans actually support her.

  6. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is a willful liar; I’m shocked, shocked I say.

    I haven’t seen a presidential candidate yet this year that is ethical, including President Trump. I can’t figure out how to numerically define most unethical, they’re all terrible, I can’t vote.

  7. Why are we all piling on Warren like this? Let’s be fair. Kamala Harris tweeted the same thing.

    They can BOTH be the least ethical.

    • Kamala Harris at least has the excuse of being a minority. One could more easily understand, if not excuse, such a racist statement coming from her than Elizabeth Warren. That makes Warren’s so much worse, in my opinion.

    • We are piling on Warren because she was the first to post something this mindbogglingly stupid. But, you are correct. Harris did the same thing and her comments/postings are just as revolting.

      jvb

    • I actually posted about this.

      https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/Talk.Politics.Guns/rkOPVZdFTEM/GPb5UtdHBwAJ

      “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine
      who can carry a concealed weapon,” said Kamala Harris, who was then the
      California Attorney General.

      I have always wondered how #BlackLivesMatter would view this. After all,
      according to their narrative, cops are just Klansmen with badges who
      habitually gun down unarmed black men. How could we trust such people with
      discretion to determine who may carry a concealed weapon.

      And yet, just yesterday, she tweeted this:

      Today, we remember #MikeBrown and recommit to ensuring truth,
      transparency, and trust in our criminal justice system. #BlackLivesMatter

      So I wonder if any reporter from the network broadcast and print media would
      ask her any of the following questions:

      – If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
      discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they
      are just Klansmen with badges, why shouldn’t the Stormfront White
      Nationalist Community also get to decide who can carry a concealed weapon?

      – If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
      discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they
      habitually gun down unarmed black men, why shouldn’t the Crips also get to
      decide who can carry a concealed weapon?

      – Is more black men dead or in prison a worthy price to pay to make lawful
      gun ownership more difficult?

      – Is making lawful gun ownership more difficult a worthy price to pay to put
      more black men in prison?

      – Does some magical guardian fairy turn these Klansmen with badges into
      freedom riders whenever they exercise their “discretion to determine who can
      carry a concealed weapon”?

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.