Anti-Muslim Rhetoric needs Agressive Action

[Compost]

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


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."

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.

Claiming that violence against Muslims is on the rise and citing France's clamp down on potentially radicalized mosques, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect "actions predicated on violent talk" and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American," said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

"My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'" said Lynch.

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.


We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

 

[konradv]

We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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


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."

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.

Claiming that violence against Muslims is on the rise and citing France's clamp down on potentially radicalized mosques, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect "actions predicated on violent talk" and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American," said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

"My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'" said Lynch.

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.


We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

The Left has no clue of the violence they are promoting. They have no understanding of human nature whatsoever.

 

[Davros]

We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

 

[Jroc]

Obama has got to keep the flow of muslims coming



U.S. Granted 680,000 Green Cards to Immigrants From Muslim-Majority Nations in Past Five Years

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

The behavior of Democrats is making it worse.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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


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."

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.

Claiming that violence against Muslims is on the rise and citing France's clamp down on potentially radicalized mosques, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect "actions predicated on violent talk" and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American," said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

"My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'" said Lynch.

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.


We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

All Muslims need to leave non-Muslim countries to the Muslim country of their choice. Any found remaining after a grace period should be arrested and put in a detention center then forcibly deported. Any found thereafter should be "dealt with."

 

[Davros]

We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

The behavior of Democrats is making it worse.

How so?

 

[Davros]

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


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."

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.

Claiming that violence against Muslims is on the rise and citing France's clamp down on potentially radicalized mosques, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect "actions predicated on violent talk" and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American," said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

"My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'" said Lynch.

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.


We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

All Muslims need to leave non-Muslim countries to the Muslim country of their choice. Any found remaining after a grace period should be arrested and put in a detention center then forcibly deported. Any found thereafter should be "dealt with."

That policy would require a gestapo.

 

[TheOldSchool]

After Paris and California attacks, U.S. Muslims feel intense backlash

Rabia Chaudry kept her 7-year-old daughter home from her private Islamic school in Maryland on Thursday, fearing anti-Muslim backlash from Wednesday’s massacre nearly 3,000 miles away in San Bernardino, Calif.

“I think we are all feeling exhausted and very vulnerable,” said Chaudry, a lawyer and national security fellow at the New America Foundation. “I’m angry at those people who did this attack. And I’m angry at how this is being politicized. Everything boils down to, ‘We should fear Muslims. And they shouldn’t be here.’ ”

American Muslims say they are living through an intensely painful moment and feel growing anti-Muslim sentiment after the recent Islamic State attacks in Paris and this week’s San Bernardino shootings, carried out by a Muslim husband and wife.

"I really think that if people would just get out there and talk to a Muslim person, they would see that they are human just like you. We’re just as upset about what’s going on and how people are being hurt. It’s devastating to us as well.”

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[guno]

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


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."

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.

Claiming that violence against Muslims is on the rise and citing France's clamp down on potentially radicalized mosques, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect "actions predicated on violent talk" and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American," said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

"My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'" said Lynch.

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.


We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

All Muslims need to leave non-Muslim countries to the Muslim country of their choice. Any found remaining after a grace period should be arrested and put in a detention center then forcibly deported. Any found thereafter should be "dealt with."

sounds like the brown shirts of the 1930's and you of all people should know better

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

The behavior of Democrats is making it worse.

How so?

By importing a clear and present danger, and calling it good.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

The behavior of Democrats is making it worse.

How so?

By importing a clear and present danger, and calling it good.

I wish we could deport clear and present assholes like yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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


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."

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.

Claiming that violence against Muslims is on the rise and citing France's clamp down on potentially radicalized mosques, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect "actions predicated on violent talk" and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American," said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

"My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'" said Lynch.

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.


We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

All Muslims need to leave non-Muslim countries to the Muslim country of their choice. Any found remaining after a grace period should be arrested and put in a detention center then forcibly deported. Any found thereafter should be "dealt with."

Sarcasm? I hope.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

The behavior of Democrats is making it worse.

How so?

By importing a clear and present danger, and calling it good.

You are a clear and present danger, hate mongering is not who we are, nor what we act upon.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

The behavior of Democrats is making it worse.

How so?

By importing a clear and present danger, and calling it good.

I wish we could deport clear and present assholes like yourself.

Of course you do, Comrade.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

The behavior of Democrats is making it worse.

How so?

By importing a clear and present danger, and calling it good.

You are a clear and present danger, hate mongering is not who we are, nor what we act upon.

Who and what we are has been defined over the last 250 years. We require no redefining by the likes of you people.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I agree. Hatred towards Muslims is a problem. Worse now than after 911. Something troubling is afoot.

The behavior of Democrats is making it worse.

How so?

By importing a clear and present danger, and calling it good.

You are a clear and present danger, hate mongering is not who we are, nor what we act upon.

Who and what we are has been defined over the last 250 years. We require no redefining by the likes of you people.

Ignorance ^^^ is Strength

Manifest Destiny was led by those who took what they wanted with a callous disregard for Native Americans; but we are defined by the abolitionists, and men and women of good will. People like you, callous conservatives, existed then, and as you demonstrate in every post you make, even today.

Not every American supported the methods used to move our nation west, in fact if I thought you could read I'd recommend, THE REAL ALL-AMERICANS a true account of football, Carlisle University and one man of good will against many like you.

Carlisle Indians football - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peter Hauser (American football) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We've just had yet another terror attack here in the US, is "anti-Muslim rhetoric" really the most pressing problem the Justice Department ought to focus on?

If it plays into the hands of ISIS, YES.

No it doesn't.... ISIS and the Jihadists don't give a shit. Their goal is the destruction of America, that goal isn't going to change.

This PC bullshit is going to be our undoing.