Tag Archive for: Loretta Lynch

VIDEO: The Criminalization of Dissent

I filmed this “Robert Spencer Moment” for Jamie Glazov’s Glazov Gang on some recent experiences that I have had, showing how those who reject establishment views are coming under increased law enforcement scrutiny.

Jamie Glazov adds:

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Robert on the Glazov Gang discuss To Flood America With Muslim Refugees, where he exposes the real meaning of the Islamic State threatening to flood Europe with 500,000 refugees in February, 2015: CLICK HERE.


LGBT Group Calls on Government to Address ‘Disturbing Trend’ on Religious College Campuses

Hugh Fitzgerald: The madness and malevolence of Kuwait

France: Muslim group sues over “illegal” post-Paris anti-terror police raids

EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Please donate through their Pay Pal account, subscribe to their YouTube Channel and LIKE them on Facebook.

A Sad Day for Free Speech in America

The day after a horrific shooting spree by what appears to be a radicalized Muslim man and his female partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a Muslim advocacy and lobbying group that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’:

Lynch failed to describe what constitutes speech that “Edges toward violence”. No one wants to see incitement to violence. But the non-standard enunciated by Lynch is so ambiguous that  anything Lynch or the Obama administration decides they don’t like may be defined as “edging toward violence” and could subject a person to prosecution. This is also a violation of the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio 1969 which held that free speech is protected unless the speech leads  to “Imminent Lawless Action” or is a “Clear and Present Danger”. Edges toward violence does not meet this standard. It is no standard at all. Under Lynch’s non-standard the Obama administration could find it actionable if a person notifies the authorities that a Muslim might be involved in terrorist activities but it turns out to be inaccurate.

This is a sad day for the rule of law and free speech in America and only used to happen in totalitarian countries.

The FBI and police are already overwhelmed by the number of Muslims under investigation. Allowing Muslim refugees and other Muslims into the country without more thorough and accurate vetting than in the past will only exacerbate the problem. It is sad that Muslim clerics and the Muslim population don’t publicly call for changes in the interpretation of their ‘Supremacist Religion’ and expose Radical Islamists before they act.

It is no secret that Radical Islamic terrorists generally live and emerge from the bowels of the Muslim population. They are the only ones who can effectively fight extremism.

Read more: Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’


Egyptian TV Host On California Terror Attack: Americans Should Stick Obama On An Impalement Rod

Muslim bangs on cockpit door, threatens to down plane, “wanted to see Allah”

Robert Spencer in Italy’s Libero: “Occidente remissivo fino al suicidio”

Loretta Lynch Must Go

lorettalynchgraphicOn Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia.  Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promote tolerance, to ensure public safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)

She went on to say, “Since becoming Attorney General last February, I have heard from Arab Americans and Muslims who say they feel uneasy about their relationship with the United States government.  Some feel that they have not been afforded the full rights of citizenship.  Others are worried about the safety of their families, communities, and places of worship.  And, too often, Muslims and Arab Americans have told me that they feel as though they are treated by their fellow citizens, by their government, and especially by those of us in law enforcement as though it were ‘us versus them.’  That is unacceptable, and it is inconsistent with what America is all about.”

So if a few Muslims are worried about the safety of their families, their communities, and their places of worship, what is that compared to the fear and dread that radical Islamists have spread among the hundreds of millions of peace-loving people of Europe and North America?  And if Muslims and Arab-Americans feel as if they are the victims of an “us versus them” political and social environment, just who do they think created that atmosphere?  It is not Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims who have rejected Muslims, it s Muslims who have come to our country and have refused to assimilate into our culture.  Not only have they not assimilated into our culture, they have let it be known that it is their intention to obliterate our culture and our form of government from the face of the Earth.

Lynch went on to say, “Muslims and Arab Americans have helped to build and strengthen our nation.  They have served as police officers, teachers, civic leaders and soldiers – strengthening their local communities and safeguarding their country.  And the cooperation of Muslim and Arab-American communities has been absolutely essential in identifying, and preventing, terrorist threats.  We must never lose sight of this.  And, as we work to create a brighter and more prosperous future, we must not fail to heed the lessons of our past.”

No one but an Obama administration toady could ever stand up in public and say with a straight face that Muslims and Arab-Americans have helped to “build and strengthen” our nation, have played a vital role in “identifying and preventing terrorist threats,” and have worked to “build a brighter and more prosperous future” for all Americans.

When asked to comment on the Obama administration’s attitude toward anti-Muslim rhetoric in the days since the Paris attacks, she said, “My message to the Muslim community is that we

stand with you in this.  Where we do see anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions turning into violence, we do take action… We have charged 225 defendants with hate crimes over the last six years… most of those in the last three years.  Since 9/11 we’ve had over 1,000 investigations into anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric and bigoted actions, with over forty-five prosecutions…”

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

Looking directly into the camera, she said, “My greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all the American people, is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence…  When it comes to combating these heinous crimes, our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry – no matter the object or nature of your hate – we will bring you to justice.

Lynch challenged her Muslim audience, saying, “Often, you learn of incidents before law enforcement and I encourage you to report these incidents to the Justice Department.  I assure you: each and every report of a potential hate crime is taken seriously and, as our record of recent activity makes clear, we will investigate and prosecute violations of federal law whenever we can.  Last year, two Tennessee men were sentenced to more than 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to spray painting swastikas and the words ‘white power’ on a mosque – and then starting a fire that destroyed the mosque.  And last month, an Illinois man was sentenced to one year in prison after he pleaded guilty to sending a threatening e-mail to a mosque.”

Either the attorney general has failed to notice that, in recent years, nearly every act of violence stemming from hateful rhetoric has originated in the Muslim community, or she was delivering a stern message to the Muslim community that, unless they behave themselves, they would find themselves praying to Allah five times a day from behind prison walls.  However, being Barack Obama’s principal legal henchman, it’s pretty obvious to all concerned, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that her thinly-veiled threats were directed toward non-Muslims.

Reaction to the attorney general’s threat was swift and predictable.  Radio talk show host Joe Walsh, a former congressman from Illinois’ 8th Congressional District (suburban Chicago) produced the below YouTube video describing exactly how he feels about Muslims and challenging the attorney general to have him arrested.

In his video, he said, “You come out today and you say you’re going to prosecute Americans who use anti-Muslim speech.  That doesn’t happen in this country.   I can say what I want about Christians, Jews, and Muslims.  I think Islam has a real “fricking” problem, alright?  There’s a cancer in Islam.  And if they’re not gonna’ learn to assimilate, I don’t want them in this country.

“You got a problem, Loretta Lynch, with me saying that?  Then throw me in jail.  Here… I’ll give you a perfect opportunity.  I think Islam is evil.  I think Islam’s got a huge problem.  I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values.  I don’t want ‘em here.  So, what?… you’re worried about a backlash against Muslims?”

“Fourteen Americans were killed three days ago and you come up the next day and say you’re greatest fear is anti-Muslim backlash.  Well, you know what?  I hope there is a backlash.  There should be a backlash.  I’m going to encourage a backlash.  And you know what, Loretta Lynch?  If that bothers you, prosecute me.  Throw me in jail.”

In a written follow-up, Walsh argued that “most Muslims around the world are (either) terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law.”  He went on to say, “Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed.  If ‘moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.”

Directing his final words to Loretta Lynch, he said, “Is that ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ that edges toward violence?  Go ahead and prosecute me.  I dare you.”

As sharply divided as liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, are on these issues, one wonders how those liberals and Democrats who support the Obama administration’s policies on Muslim immigration would react when posed with a problem that brings the question of life-or-death a bit closer to home.

Since the San Bernardino attack, conservatives have attempted to put the Muslim immigration question into a context that even liberals can understand.  For example, on June 13, 2014, CNN reported that more than 4,000 pounds of rib-eye and other fresh beef, produced by the Fruitland American Meat Company in Jackson, Missouri, were subject to recall because of a fear that the meats could contain mad cow disease.  The meat in question was distributed by the Whole Foods distribution center in Connecticut, which services all of New England, one restaurant in New York, and one restaurant in Kansas City, Missouri.

With the understanding that northeastern liberals and Democrats appear quite willing to go along with Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Muslims each year because of the belief that only five out of every 100 (5%) of the world’s Muslim population are radicalized, how much of the suspect meat would New Englanders purchase if they were assured that no more than 5% of the meat was contaminated with mad cow disease?  If, as an inducement, Whole Foods reduced the price of prime filet mignon and rib-eye steaks to 50ȼ per pound, would New Englanders and New Yorkers be willing to take a chance?

For the Obama base, the low information voters of America, conservatives have restated the question in terms that even they might understand.  They were asked, “If you were presented with a bowl of 100 M&Ms and told that five of the 100 pieces were toxic (poisonous), how many pieces of candy would you eat?”  Even they, accustomed as they are to accepting “freebies,” would have sense enough to decline.

When Loretta Lynch was before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation in April 2015, most conservatives held high hopes that she would be a welcome change from her lawless predecessor, Eric Holder.  However, all hope were dashed when Lynch refused to assure senators that, under her leadership, even the president of the United States would be required to obey the law and to uphold the U.S. Constitution.  What a disappointment she has been.  She must go.

And as for me, I’m with Joe Walsh.  If I can’t criticize radical Islamists, then come get me.

Loretta Lynch Should Not be Confirmed

The United States Senate is bound by law not to confirm Loretta Lynch to be our next Attorney General (AG).

Lynch is the current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, which includes Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island. Last November, President Obama nominated her to replace current Attorney General Eric Holder.

While her legal background is impressive, that’s not the point. In her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee she disqualified herself from being confirmed as the next Attorney General.

The United States Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government and, as the head of the Justice Department, considered to be part of the President’s Cabinet. The US Attorney General is nominated by the President, but then confirmed by the US Senate. There is no set term of office; the US Attorney general serves at the pleasure of the President.

The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.

The Attorney General is the only cabinet department head that is not given the title secretary.
As the chief law enforcement officer in the U.S., the AG is “sworn” to uphold and enforce all the laws of the U.S. Here is the oath she would have to take if she is confirmed by the Senate: I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’

In all my years of working in politics, I have never seen a nominee say on the record that they support violating the very laws they would be sworn to uphold.

Here is a question asked of Lynch by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “Who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful immigrant who is here—a green card holder or a citizen or a person who entered the country unlawfully?”

Lynch’s response is stunning: “I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here… and certainly, if someone is here — regardless of status — I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.”

U.S. law makes it illegal to work in the country if you are not authorized by a green card or some other work permit.

How can anyone, Democratic or Republican, justify voting to confirm someone who said on the record that she supports illegal activity? But, of course Republicans will cave in and vote for her simply because she is Black and they don’t want to be labeled as a racist.

Voting against her nomination has nothing to do with Lynch’s skin color and everything to do with the rule of law. This administration, more than any other in history, has picked and chose which laws they will obey strictly on the basis of whether they agreed with the law or not.

If Republicans are too squeamish to block Lynch’s nomination strictly based on her stated unwillingness to uphold and enforce the laws on the books, let me provide another rationale for her rejection.

Obama’s proposed amnesty is a clear violation of the separation of powers—executive, judicial, and legislative. If Obama doesn’t like our current immigration laws, only Congress can change them. But, Obama has chosen to ignore the laws he disagrees with by signing executive orders; and Republicans in Congress have done nothing but feign perfunctory anger.

Republicans have, yet again, another opportunity to stand in opposition to Obama based on the core principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers; and I am afraid, yet again, they are going to cave.

Attorney General nominee Lynch: “Illegal Aliens have a right to work!” Will Republican’s Approve Her?

The Republicans now control the 114th Congress. The most pressing issue facing the American worker is the invasion of illegals under President Obama. Will Republicans approve Loretta Lynch, will she get voted out of Committee?Loretta Lynch quote on illegals

Senator Sessions, Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, questioned Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch at the January 28th Judiciary hearing to consider her nomination. Sessions asked Lynch about the President’s decision to bypass Congress to order a sweeping amnesty, and how this action undermined the rights of disadvantaged American workers.

Senator Sessions states:

In addition to suspending enforcement for nearly all of the 12 million individuals unlawfully present in the United States, President Obama issued an executive decree on November 20th, 2014, extending work permits, Social Security, Medicare, tax credits, and government identification to 5 million illegal immigrants and illegal visa violators. This would allow illegal immigrants to take any job in America, regardless of chronic high unemployment for Americans—including a 10.4 percent unemployment rate for African-American workers. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, explained—contra AG Holder’s “breathtaking” contention that amnesty was a civil right—that unlawful amnesty for illegal immigrants violated the rights of U.S. citizens to the full protection of their laws, including those laws passed by Congress to protect their jobs and wages from illegal competition. The President’s executive edict (an edict he said previously only an Emperor would deign to issue) voids Americans’ legal protections in law, supplanting them with a new executive policy that Congress and voters have rejected, a policy which forces unemployed Americans to compete against a large and growing illegal workforce.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of NBC News.