She’s referring to public statements by Clinton that, while seemingly bipolar, are more reflective of political opportunism and pandering. But while the widely-presumed potential Democrat presidential candidate talks duck hunting to one crowd of useful idiots, and gun registration to another, her underlying affinity for gun-grabbing remains unquestioned for those who keep an eye on such things. That's because it reflects a history of deception on disarmament that goes back to the early years in Arkansas.
Few gun owners today recall that, before their political fortunes were assured, the Clintons would suck up to the “gun lobby” with the best (worst?) of them. And Hillary, of course, has always tied her ambitions in with her husband’s, so she stood by her man.
“Running for a second term as Arkansas governor in 1982, Clinton had submitted an NRA political preference chart questionnaire of the type that the special interest organizations routinely ask candidates to complete to assess their views on key issues,” Feldman related. “The ILA [Institute for Legislative Action, NRA’s political arm] called Clinton to announce that his questionnaire did not pass muster. Clinton immediately changed it, telling [then-Executive Vice President J. Warren] Cassidy “I am in support of the NRA position on gun control.’ The NRA gave him an ‘A’ rating.”
That was then. This is now, when most have forgotten that old act of outright political fraud, rating right up there with perjury for sheer self-motivated dishonesty.
“I think that we've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime,” Hillary advocated at a National Council for Behavioral Health conference in Maryland earlier this month."I don't believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”
That was an interesting venue choice, considering that during their time at the White House, I actually agreed with Clinton’s current premise, and challenged her to do more in that regard.
“It has been my long-standing contention that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian,” I wrote. “After all, if someone is mentally dysfunctional, how can they be expected to safely exist in a society that provides easy access to potential weapons of mass destruction such as matches and gasoline?”
My point, of course, was not to advance anti-gun edicts, but to illustrate the woman’s crass hypocrisy by playing off a magazine interview in which she’d run interference for her husband’s lack of personal control by blaming his “scarred childhood” for his “erratic” behaviors, and shielding him, at least in public, with the ferocity of a sow protecting a wayward, ridiculously juvenile cub.
“If Mrs. Clinton, an impassioned champion of gun control, truthfully believes her husband to be mentally and emotionally dysfunctional, then the only consistent course of action open to her is to initiate a legal filing and obtain an injunction barring her husband from access to firearms until such time as he is deemed fit and whole by qualified mental health professionals,” I challenged.
If such behaviors are the issue, and are to be deciders on who Hillary tells the behavioral health wonks ought to be allowed to have a gun, forget her husband for a moment and concentrate on one of his alleged victims.
Does Hillary think Juanita Broaddrick should have had a gun when Bill was accused of sexually assaul ... no, raping her, and telling her “You better put some ice on that” to help heal the swollen lip he allegedly gave her when he bit her?
Put more directly, will any “Authorized Journalist” ever just up and ask Bill or Hillary “Is Juanita Broaddrick a liar? Yes or no?”
As a politician who stakes much of her career on being a supposed champion of women, it seems a fair question. After all, you know what your answer would be if someone falsely accused you of something heinous. But it won't be asked because the "real reporters / legitimate news media" are neither.
And as long as she’s going to rely on “feminists” to support her candidacy, perhaps another question would be appropriate as well: Will the Clinton Foundation give back donations made by super-wealthy fascist proponents of Sharia “laws” that discriminate not just against women, but against other “liberal” constituencies?
If no “progressive” Authorized Journalist will ask these questions, perhaps one of the foot soldiers from the “conservative war on women,” who for some reason also happen to champion and cherish the right of independent women to defend themselves from “dysfunctional” attackers, will.
Perhaps @BillClinton or @HillaryClinton would be good places to start, as it’s not too likely many of us will be allowed to attend, let alone be offered the microphone at upcoming photo ops or press conferences any time soon.
If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
Isn’t it a little early to be talking about the 2014 elections? Not if you want to win. My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Get Out The Vote -- Especially Your Own!”
My latest JPFO alert, “Nigerian people caught in perfect storm of tyranny and terrorism,” shows readers what happens to children when all the "common sense gun safety" measures Demanding Moms shriek for here become matters of settled law. Curious, the common people who pay the price for such disastrous edicts are now asking for guns...