Attorney general vows to prosecute those who speak of Muslims

What does the attorney general of the United States say the day after Muslim terrorists kill 14 and wound 21 in San Bernardino? Does she vow to protect Americans from such ideology-motivated assaults?

No, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vows to prosecute those who say hateful things about Muslims.

Loretta Lynch at Muslim Advocates Dinner.

“Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech,” Lynch said at the Muslim Advocates Dinner Thursday night, “but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals … when we see that, we will take action.”

She went on to say, “I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

So when does free speech become prosecutable speech that incites violence? I guess whenever Lynch says so. That is a fuzzy line indeed.

But she said the Justice Department has already instituted since 9/11 “over a thousand investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric and bigoted actions, with over 45 prosecutions arising out of that.”

Including rhetoric and bigoted actions? That is a pretty broad definition. Would opposing Sharia law be a bigoted action?

Also, at that dinner she announced that the feds are investigating the Irving, Texas, police department for arresting Clock Boy, whose family has filed a $15 million lawsuit.

Who does this Obama appointee think she works for?






25 comments on “Attorney general vows to prosecute those who speak of Muslims

  1. Steve says:

    It’s next to the last bastion of the constitutionally protected freedoms. To take out the founders intentions the first and the second must be “interpreted” out of existence.

  2. Patrick says:

    I wonder what John Adams would have thought? Wait, that’s right, he was behind the Alien and Sedition Acts (and the Declaration of Independence); never mind.

  3. Bruce Feher says:

    This is NOT the America I served in the Military for. She and her boss don’t have a clue. First they want OUR guns, now they think they can control are RIGHT to Free Speech, I don’t think so. My RIGHTS are MINE and they do not belong to them!

  4. And Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, allowed them to expire.

  5. Patrick says:

    “They’re coming for our guns, they’re coming for our guns”

    “They think they can control are (sic) First Amendment Rights to Free Speech”

    Which America are we living in anyway?

  6. Connie Foust says:

    Holy cow, now what do I have to talk about if it is not radical Muslim terrorists who would take glee in chopping off a Christian’s head. Lynch is more than misguided. We have a Constitution Loretta, not going down your PC road.

  7. You can now see why the lady next door was afraid to alert the authorities as to the suspicious late night activities of her bomb producing “middle eastern” neighbors. November 2016 will be a rude awakening for Democrats who are hypnotized by and who keep pushing this politically correct bravo sierra about the so called religion of peace down the throats of it’s citizens. Loretta Lynch is proving herself to be little more than an Eric Holder in a skirt. This pathetic administration is hell bent on putting this nation at great peril.

  8. Meanwhile back at the ranch…Black Lives Matter instigators continue to outwardly and publicly threaten the lives of active duty police officers…haven’t heard nary a peep from Miss Loretta about that one!

  9. Patrick says:

    Speaking of ranches and threatening lives of police officers; wonder why Loretta ain’t peeped up about Nevada’s resident terrorist Clivin Bundy?

  10. Scofflaw maybe, but terrorist?
    Who first showed up with snipers and tasers and attack dogs and automatic weapons?

  11. Patrick says:

    No need to go through our respective interpretations of the events Thomas, the facts are that Bundy broke the law, continued to break the law, and challenged the state to enforce the law and the Courts numberous orders.

    Serious question here: are you among the people who say that when a police officer tells you what to do, that you do it, lest the consequences be on you?

  12. The President will speak tonight from the Oval Office (for the first time in five years) to try and reassure Americans that he is ahead of the curve with what happened in San Bernadino. Good luck with that one…out here in fly over land we’ve known for a long time he’s one of the few in the country that just doesn’t get it. The other four who apparently still don’t get it…Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Loretta Lynch and the New York Times have been waffling all week just like our Community Organizer in Chief. (The rumor is he will actually mention the word “terrorism” tonight in regards to San Bernadino…be still my beating heart. Don’t hold your breath though…you can rest assured it won’t be used in conjunction with Islam). Which will exemplify yet again…that he STILL doesn’t get it. Oy vey…

  13. Rincon says:

    The San Bernardino shooting exacted the highest death toll for a terrorist attack since 2001. 14 years and 14 was the largest death toll. 1) Quit criticizing our prevention efforts. They are obviously working. 2) Everybody seems to wring their hands about 14 deaths, but completely ignore the 93 people violently killed on the same day. Can you guess where? Another 44 died violently on the same day by different means. Can you guess again? Why do we ignore high numbers of deaths and focus so intently on tiny little numbers? Answer: It’s much more entertaining. The terrorists’ only weapon is our minds, and we have provided them with a potent weapon indeed.

    That being said, the Muslim religion will be a problem for centuries to come. Their holy book, which they all claim to follow, urges them to kill nonbelievers.

  14. “Respected MSNBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel isn’t particularly impressed with President Barack Obama’s plan to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    Obama reiterated his four-point plan to defeat ISIS in an Oval Office address Sunday night. After the speech, Engel took on each point in the president’s plan in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, noting that the plan was “really the same strategy that hasn’t been working for the last several years.”

    Let me emphasize Mr. Engel’s last point “NOTING THAT THE PLAN WAS REALLY THE SAME STRATEGY THAT HASN’T BEEN WORKING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.” !!! This isn’t some radical Republican presidential candidate…this is from the President’s own praetorian guard…the lapdog media.

  15. Mr. Engel continues: “After conceding that Obama has been “quite strong” in pursuing the first point of his strategy, hunting down terrorists, Engel explained how the other three planks of the president’s strategy haven’t been going so well.

    On point two, training and equipping Iraqi and Syrian forces on the ground, Engel said that part of the plan has been a “complete debacle.” On point three, closing the Turkish border so ISIS cannot freely travel back and forth, Engel noted the border remains wide open, so that part of the plan is “not working particularly well.” And on the final point, working towards a political solution to the Syrian conflict, Engel expressed skepticism and noted it was “very much a work in progress.”

  16. Your last sentence was spot on Rincon….

  17. Rincon says:

    “NOTING THAT THE PLAN WAS REALLY THE SAME STRATEGY THAT HASN’T BEEN WORKING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.” !!!” Isn’t that what Bush said about Clinton’s handling of the Saddam Hussein problem just before he decided to invade Iraq?

  18. I don’t know Rincon…I thought it was because of possible weapons of mass destruction, 9-11 and the fact that Saddam Hussein was paying $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers who took out innocent Israelis. At any rate…I was personally opposed to the war in Iraq. I am for doing whatever it takes to stop ISIS.

  19. Rincon says:

    Just citing an example of changing a strategy that was less than perfect only to find that the new strategy is much worse. As I’ve said elsewhere, Obama is pretty much doing what Conservatives advocate, except for the discrimination thing. What would you do differently?

  20. From what I’ve read…ISIS is the remnant of Al Qaeda In Iraq, a group so blood thirsty and brutal that Al Qaeda disowned them. They quickly grew into the cancer they are now because of the vacuum created when President Obama failed to leave a residual transitional force as strongly suggested by his joint chiefs of staff and Leon Panetta. So now the problem is much more complex …and will require boots on the ground as well as comprehensive air strikes to beat them back and decimate them. How this can best be accomplished will require the best military brains at our disposal. It’s a mess quite frankly…and Iran (assisted by Russia) is taking advantage of our weakness. What would I do differently…I would stop tying the hands of our top military strategists and quit firing Generals who differ with the President’s PC opinions…and try to build a coalition that would be financed by the Saudi’s, the Emirates, and all those rich countries in the region who would benefit from the demise of ISIS. The French, the British, the Russians and many others are already on board…but no one trusts Obama to get the job done…which leads me to believe it will be up to the next President to clean up this disastrous mess.

  21. Rincon says:

    Boots on the ground are what got us into this mess. Invading Iraq was the best propaganda the jihadists could have asked for. I see three major mistakes with Iraq:

    1) Invading in the first place. Saddam was a good check on Iran.
    2) Failing to provide a working transition government after our so called victory.
    3) Withdrawing prematurely.

    The answer: Help Iraq. It’s our mess. Let Putin worry about Syria – his headache. Stop sending oil money to middle east countries. That’s the terrorists’ supply line. Especially the money that goes to the Wahabis

  22. Steve says:

    Bush failed to listen to his military advisers and Obama followed Bush’s lead, failing (again) to listen to his military advisers.

    As for sending oil money to the Middle East, the administration just agreed to allow Iran to sell oil to us…and the whole of Europe.
    Oil money comes from the entire “free” world, Rincon. The USA is only a large portion of it. Collectively, the other countries in that agreement easily equal the US demand for oil.
    The US, in preventing Iran selling its oil to us, really was having little effect on their economy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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