Loretta Elizabeth Lynch is the current Attorney General of the United States.
On December 3, 2015, Loretta Lynch stated that she would prosecute anyone who expressed “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that led to violence against Muslims. Among other things, she also invited members of the Muslim community to contact her if their children are bullied at school. Wow! Does anyone else have Lynch’s direct line so they can hop, skip, and jump over the playground monitor, teacher, counselor, vice-principal, and/or principal to the Attorney General of the United States? I can almost hear the phones dialing now with the next wave of fabricated clock boy complaints.
Lynch is treasonously enforcing Sharia law, creating two classes of citizens. Muslims are the protected class and non-Muslims are second-class citizens. I’m amazed Black Lives Matter folks aren’t up in arms over this, because blacks have just been relegated to a lower rung on the priority ladder (unless you’re black and Muslim, in which case, you’re golden).
But back to Lynch’s threat to prosecute those who don’t uphold Islamic blasphemy law. First, Pamela Geller wrote an excellent piece at Breitbart, where she states:
If Lynch is serious in prosecuting hate speech, then she will have to start closing down mosques and banning the Quran. She wants to restrict the First Amendment so as to curb “actions predicated on violent talk?” Then she should ban this “violent talk.”
Geller then lists a multitude of passages from the Quran that mandate such peace-loving ideas as expel, persecute, fight, slay, banish, beat, slaughter, crucify, chastise, smite, force, ambush, terrorize, and kill.
When Lynch made her treasonous statement, the bodies were still warm in San Bernardino….
Yet when she spoke to the 10th Anniversary Dinner of Muslim Advocates, the group that got the Obama administration to scrub all counter-terror training materials of any mention of jihad and Islam, Lynch said that her “greatest fear” was the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America. (snip)
Loretta Lynch said that the San Bernardino jihad attack gave her a “wonderful opportunity.” She said, “We’re at the point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change.”
Lynch’s statement about a “wonderful moment to really make a significant change” should give us all chills (and not the good kind). It echoed Obama’s “fundamental transformation” and should give anyone pause. The Attorney General of the United States wants to treasonously enforce Sharia law.
Meanwhile, George Pataki is urging Lynch to arrest him for strongly suggesting we fight this war that has been waged against us. And while this may be a desperate bid for attention from a GOP presidential candidate polling at zero, it’s nonetheless a welcome development. On Saturday, Pataki sent out the following tweet: “We must declare war on radical Islam, . . and Loretta Lynch I’m not edging toward violent speech, I’m declaring we kill them. Go ahead, arrest me.”
You might not be a big fan of George Pataki, but we should take our hats off to him on this one.
As previously stated, Loretta Lynch said she would prosecute speech that “edges toward violence” when speaking to a Muslim organization a few days ago. On Monday (December 7, 2015) she backpedaled a bit, stating: “Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words.”
Sure, Loretta. Whatever. (Raise your hand if you trust Ms. Lynch.)
Meanwhile, on Sunday, (December 6, 2015) she made this unbelievable (in a normal world) statement in reference to the San Bernardino jihad attack, as Politico reports:
In an interview Sunday about the San Bernardino shootings that killed 14 people, Lynch said she was “not sure” which ideology the San Bernardino shooters were driven by. However, hours later in an Oval Office address, President Barack Obama discussed the shootings and the need for the U.S. to “destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant group.
Asked by POLITICO why she was reluctant to publicly say even that the shootings were inspired by ISIL, Lynch stressed the need for investigators to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
“At this point… we’re not prepared to limit any particular ideology to what may have inspired these individuals,” the attorney general said. “There are a number of groups that are on social media, looking to encourage people to commit acts of violence within the homeland, so at this point we simply do not want to rule anything out.”
Wow. We are truly living under a treasonous government, or what many would say is The Twilight Zone.
Hat tip: Legal Insurrection
Loretta Lynch’s lies and corrupt actions are treasonous.
Months before her secret airport meeting with Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch went on television and promised the American people that Hillary Clinton would not receive special treatment.
On March 10, Lynch appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. The host asked Lynch if Clinton would be indicted for risking national security by setting up private servers to conduct government business while at the State Department.
Lynch assured Colbert and his audience that her Justice Department would act “fairly” and “independently” and that anyone with a “famous name” or “political interest” would be treated not at all differently from someone “you’ve never heard of before.”
“Americans look at what we do,” she said, “and have to have that faith in the Department of Justice.” Lynch also stated that “we don’t talk about ongoing matters under review in the Justice Department.”
Attorney General Loretta Lynch thinks she can fool Americans with that honey-toned, lullaby voice of hers, but she is another garden-variety agenda-driven leftist who, just days after the suspicious encounter with Bill Clinton in Phoenix, announced that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton would not be indicted.
Apparently, the top law enforcement officer of the United States and a Harvard-trained lawyer did not understand how a clandestine 30-minute meeting with Bill Clinton followed shortly thereafter by a refusal to indict his wife might look to the outside world. Lynch quickly responded to criticism at the time by insisting that the meeting was “primarily social” and that “I certainly wouldn’t do it again.”
Three months after the “grandkids and golf” talk, Lynch’s chickens are coming home to roost. The recent WikiLeaks revelations coupled with FBI director Comey’s decision to reopen the criminal case against Hillary Clinton has Lynch in the hot seat. Joseph Klein at Frontpage Mag accused Lynch’s DOJ of “corruptly aiding and abetting the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, to escape legal accountability for her actions.”
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is suing the Department of Justice, demanding records “containing the names of any DOJ official, staff or employee who participated in any discussion regarding the meeting between General Lynch and Bill Clinton that occurred on Monday, June 27, 2016, at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.”
If Lynch truly wants to restore Americans’ faith in the Department of Justice, she should resign immediately and then prepare for a separate investigation into her decision to grant Clinton special treatment.
On Jan. 3, 2017 outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch secretly signed an order directing the National Security Agency – America’s 60,000-person-strong domestic spying apparatus – to make available raw spying data to all other federal intelligence agencies, which then can pass it on to their counterparts in foreign countries and in the 50 states upon request. She did so, she claimed, for administrative convenience. Yet in doing this, she violated basic constitutional principles that were erected centuries ago to prevent just what she did.
Here is the back story.
In the aftermath of former President Richard Nixon’s abusive utilization of the FBI and CIA to spy on his domestic political opponents in the 1960s and ’70s – and after Nixon had resigned from office in the wake of all that – Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created a secret court that was charged with being the sole authority in America that can authorize domestic spying for non-law enforcement purposes.
The standard for a FISA court authorization was that the subject of the spying needed to be a foreign person in the United States who was an agent of a foreign power. It could be a foreign janitor in a foreign embassy, a foreign spy masquerading as a diplomat, even a foreign journalist working for a media outlet owned by a foreign government.
The American spies needed a search warrant from the FISA court. Contrary to the Constitution, the search warrant was given based not on probable cause of crime but rather on probable cause of the status of the person as an agent of a foreign power. This slight change from “probable cause of crime” to “probable cause of foreign agency” began the slippery slope that brought us to Lynch’s terrible order of Jan. 3, 2017.
After the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, numerous other statutes were enacted that made spying easier and that continued to erode the right to be left alone guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act permitted FBI agents to write their own search warrants for business records (including medical, legal, postal and banking records), and amendments to FISA itself changed the wording from probable cause “of foreign agency” to probable cause of being “a foreign person” to all Americans who may “communicate with a foreign person.”
As if Americans were children, Congress made those sleight-of-hand changes with no hoopla and little serious debate. Our very elected representatives – who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution – instead perverted it.
It gets worse.
The recent USA Freedom Act permits the NSA to ask the FISA court for a search warrant for any person – named or unnamed – based on the standard of “governmental need.” One FISA court-issued warrant I saw authorized the surveillance of all 115 million domestic customers of Verizon. The governmental need standard is no standard at all, as the government will always claim that what it wants, it needs.
All these statutes and unauthorized spying practices have brought us to where we were on Jan. 2 – namely, with the NSA having a standard operating procedure of capturing every keystroke on every computer and mobile device, every telephone conversation on every landline and cellphone, and all domestic electronic traffic – including medical, legal and banking records – of every person in America 24/7, without knowing of or showing any wrongdoing on the part of those spied upon.
The NSA can use data from your cellphone to learn where you are, and it can utilize your cellphone as a listening device to hear your in-person conversations, even if you have turned it off – that is, if you still have one of the older phones that can be turned off.
Notwithstanding all of the above gross violations of personal liberty and constitutional norms, the NSA traditionally kept its data – if printed, enough to fill the Library of Congress every year – to itself. So if an agency such as the FBI or the DEA or the New Jersey State Police, for example, wanted any of the data acquired by the NSA for law enforcement purposes, it needed to get a search warrant from a federal judge based on the constitutional standard of “probable cause of crime.”
Now, because of the Lynch secret order, revealed by The New York Times late last week, the NSA may share any of its data with any other intelligence agency or law enforcement agency that has an intelligence arm based on – you guessed it – the non-standard of governmental need.
So President Barack Obama, in the death throes of his time in the White House, has delivered perhaps his harshest blow to constitutional freedom by permitting his attorney general to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, thereby enabling people in law enforcement to get whatever they want about whomever they wish without a showing of probable cause of crime as the Fourth Amendment requires. That amendment expressly forbids the use of general warrants – search where you wish and seize what you find – and they had never been a lawful tool of law enforcement until Lynch’s order.
Down the slope we have come, with the destruction of liberty in the name of safety by elected and appointed government officials. At a time when the constitutionally recognized right to privacy was in its infancy, Justice Louis Brandeis warned all who love freedom about its slow demise. He wrote: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
Someday we might learn why Obama and Lynch committed this treasonous act. I hope that when we do, it is at a time when we still have personal liberty in a free society.