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

Nope, the current administration did not say they will do anything to combat the issue of domesticated radicalization of our citizens. They did not say but are continuing to push to bring in more. What they did do, is not only threaten to take away our only form of protection but warned us to not be Anti-Muslim.

Really? But it is ok to hate those who oppose abortion. It is not ok to be a christian in school or the workplace or the military but you have to swallow the fact that there are elements to an ideology that is killing our citizens.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a group of Muslim activists that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used "anti-Muslim rhetoric" that "edges toward violence."

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocate's 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her "greatest fear" is the "incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric" in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

Assuring the pro-Muslim group that "we stand with you," Lynch said she would use her Justice Department to protect Muslims from "violence" and discrimination.

Link

They should be vowing to protect us. That is what the AG is there for. Instead, in the wake of tragedy we as a country are threatened? If you are still not awake to what is going on you should be. We have become what Israel said would happen to us years ago. That we would be in the same boat they are with the threat everyday of violence.

Wasn't it fairly recent that a cop was acquitted of charges regarding the planning to kill and eat someone because intent does not equate to a criminal act?.

Here are those legal assholes, once again trying to steal our rights from us with bull# threats of unlawful legal action.

Once again, stupid ass public opinion will probably go along with the opinions of this #bag.

FIne, thats it, I'm converting to Islam.
I'm also going to leave and re-enter the country with no id.
I'll be a new arriving immigrant, study hard for citizenship and accept $3,000.00 a month in benefit money,

Don't even try to hate me either, I'll be protected.

a reply to: matafuchs

They should be vowing to protect us.

Is that not exactly what they are doing? Or are Muslims not included in 'us'?

a reply to: matafuchs

This, on the heels of a woman who could have stopped this but she was afraid to say something as to appear racist.

Who's side is the government on?

a reply to: matafuchs

She should be protecting EVERYONE in the US, without exception, from violence issuing from any and every quarter.

That includes the Muslim population. You would have thought that with all the people happy to live on their knees, with PRISM's boot on their necks, the rest of the US was feeling protected enough. All of those with security concerns living in the West make me sick though. The fact is that any person who values their liberty, would rather die than trade it for anything else, regardless of the risk to themselves or their countrymen. No one who feels otherwise is appreciating the freedom they were born with to a great enough degree to render their opinion relevant.

a reply to: Learningman

Us is citizens of the US of any race, color or religion. A woman who escaped violence in Iran was killed by these people in CA. They kill without discrimination. They knew those people.

Terror is finally not at the shores of this country but the heartland also. Coast to Coast. My feelings in her saying this is causing more of a divide. This will incite those who do not like Islam to further come out of the woodwork. It is not to calm ALL of us that they are working to stop this. That is all that needed to be said. That is what we got in previous admins.

This was not meant to be a Anti_Islam thread by any means.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Wasn't it fairly recent that a cop was acquitted of charges regarding the planning to kill and eat someone because intent does not equate to a criminal act?.

Was his plan being made public? You might be seeing a legal distinction between a private intention to do something, which doesn't become criminal until it is carried out, and inciting others to do something.
In the UK at least, "incitement to" is a potential criminal act, so public words encouraging violence might come into that category.

You have to bear in mind that these people NEED America to be against all Muslims, in order to create a coalition of all Muslims against America.

Wonder when she is going to announce the same for Christians, Buddhists, etc?

Violence-inspiring speech is out there. It's everywhere. And argue this or not, it is a perfectly logical conclusion that an over-saturation of this type of speech may compel people to leap from giant speech to violent action. It's called More stochastic terrorism, and it is in some cases intentional.

Example: How do you think groups such as IS rally people against everyone but those who believe as they do? And how does their violence inducing speech differ from someone's who incites violence against a whole religion based on the actions of a few?

originally posted by: PresidentCamacho
Wonder when she is going to announce the same for Christians, Buddhists, etc?

That did not happen to be the topic of her speech or of this thread. But it can and does equally apply.

a reply to: Learningman

Is that not exactly what they are doing? Or are Muslims not included in 'us'?

Then shouldn't they also prosecute Muslims who threatens people of other beliefs with violence?

a reply to: joemoe

Is she going to prosecute these guys? I highly doubt it.

There are types of speech that are not protected. This is nothing new.
“Fighting words” require an immediate risk of a breach of peace in order to be proscribable.
The question in every case is whether the words used create a clear and present danger.

The government is tasked with protecting ALL from this not just one group.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The question here is, what does "edges toward violence" mean? I always look at unintended consequences of laws, or at what abuse do laws enable.

Inciting riots or killing etc. is already covered under the law, and often prosecutorial (political) discretion follows. Hell, look at the U Chicago student who said distinctly he would be shooting white people with a specific weapon, etc. I don't see him in jail for inciting / threatening violence. Where was Lynch over that issue?

To me, the AG particularly under the Obama administration has become a complete political podium for cultural Marxism, with hypocrisy being blatantly practiced.

We gotta control guns, yet we're running them to cartels. We gotta protect muslims from "speech edging towards violence" but we need to understand and accept when angry minorities make specific threats of mass killing.

Who remembers the ICE employee who called for genocide of whites? Google Ayo Kimathi, and realize this person was working for DHS under the Obama administration for years.

The AG in my mind has lost all credibility as a position, and in my opinion may enable / push folks that are anti-Government minded further away from verbal compromise.

I got just a few words for her in return. Lynch you can kiss my nasty........cat's pan.

Interesting that she thinks she has the manpower resources to follow through with people exercising their 1st amendment but not enough manpower resources to follow through with prosecuting actual crimes.

a reply to: joemoe

Do they not?

What law is she going to say was broken?

a reply to: Learningman

There have been plenty of instances where they are not. Google is your friend.

a reply to: matafuchs

And they wonder why that neighbor of the San Bernardino terrorists did not call in her suspicion. The clock boy got an invitation to the White House. Had the neighbor called in Fyook Sayed would have also. Probably with his radical wife, whose photo apparently is not available, wiped from the internet just like any good ISIS terrorist, covering their identity.