When I read that our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, made this provocative statement—
“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, 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 directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action…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.”
…my first thought was “oh-oh” and my second thought was, “Boy, Obama’s appointees are as careless with their rhetoric as he is, or Hillary.”
For what really was she saying? It sounds like a threat, but is it? What does “edges towards violence” mean? Violence? Calling for violence? Or rhetoric anti-gun progressives will blame if there is violence? What does…let me rephrase that…What the HELL does “the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric” mean? For that matter, what are “actions predicated on violent talk”? Does an action that would not be a crime without violent talk become one based on the rhetoric that inspired it? You’re a lawyer, Ms Lynch, how about speaking precise English? What exactly are you trying to say?
So my third thought was, “Well, we better find out, since is this our top law enforcement official talking and if she is really saying, as one might reasonably interpret her vague and convoluted statement to mean, that she’ll be arresting anyone who dares to venture a harsh judgment of Muslims, it would be good to know.
Donald Trump, I’m sure, would like to know.
And lo and behold, here comes former GOP tea party congressman turned radio talk show host Joe Walsh to settle the issue! He provides a rant on his Facebook page:
“I think Islam has a real freaking problem, alright? There is a cancer in Islam, and if they’re not going to 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. I think Islam is evil. I think Islam has a huge problem. I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values. I don’t want them here…[M]ost Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism and/or support Sharia Law…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. Is that ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ that ‘edges toward violence? Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz is this…
Whose statement is more irresponsible, Walsh’s, or Lynch’s?
Now, Joe Walsh is not only one of the most unethical Congressmen of recent vintage, but he is also a fick, as I noted in this post. His statement is way over the top and redolent of bigotry, and I’m sure he means every word. Yes, it’s irresponsible. It is not, however, as irresponsible as what Lynch seemed to be saying, however inarticulately. She is trying to chill free speech. Yes, I know: she was pandering to an audience of Muslims, just as her horrible predecessor, Eric Holder, regularly pandered to Al Sharpton followers. Can’t-Do-That. I know Obama is working hard to redefine the role of Attorney General into Chief Partisan Hack, but that’s still not what an Attorney General is supposed to be. She is not supposed to be threatening free speech to bolster current Democratic party obsessions, or corner the Muslim vote.
Or the terrorist vote.
Walsh is disgusting, but somebody had to call Lynch’s bluff. It would have been better coming from someone who had some credibility, but Joe was the first, and whether he believes what he said or not, good for him.
Your move, Loretta.