As sure as the sun sets in the West, no tragedy can ever pass without the left knee jerking, and more times than not this knee jerking involves limiting or regulating your Constitutional right to free speech.
In the other recent post we had our resident leftest declare that no person of power or influence (whatever the hell that means) can ever report, discuss or opine anything unless it is done in a responsible manner (whatever the hell that means) because these words/opinions just might catalyst some nutjob into horrible acts of violence. What is left out of these ridiculous goofy pulled out of ass declaratives is who determines/defines all these subjective elements, and who decides what punishment is meted out once the elements (however weak or thinly proven) are met. Do we jail these free speakers, fine them, or just pillory them in the public square?
Proving that idiocy is not just reserved for the blogosphere, our current AG has decided to double down on the hysteria;
The day after a horrific shooting spree by a “radicalized” Muslim man and his partner in San Bernardino, California, 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.”
Here we go again. Drawing an ambiguous line between A and Z, without anything in between, she will throw the First Amendment out the window. Of course, we don’t know what “aggressive actions” means (again, jail, fine or pillory, her choice), what “anti Muslim rhetoric” means (does even identifying jihadist killers as jihadists qualify?) and what on earth does “edges towards violence” even mean? When Trump says he saw Muslims celebrating on rooftops after 9-11, can this observation spur some unstable person to violence against Muslims, and should Trump then be prosecuted for this participation/instigation in the violent act?
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
That is her greatest fear? Gee, mine is another 9-11 style attack on the homeland, and along with that is the fear that PC and this head in the sand administration will tie the hands of those tasked with protecting us to the point where protecting the folks is hindered.
For all the talk that this AG was going to be different from Holder, better than Holder, I just don’t see it. She is an Obama stooge just like Holder, who will protect her boss and his dumb polices to the detriment of her oath as protector of the folks.
I get the intent here, supplicating themselves to the Muslim community is pretty much status quo, but she just crossed the line. The downright refusal to label radical Islam as such, the masquerading of a jihadist attack as workplace violence, these are their shortcomings, blind as they may be, but when they monkey around with my protected Constitutional Rights, there will be push back, count on it.