In the wake of the savage Islamist-inspired San Bernardino attack, in which two Muslim terrorists murdered 14 innocent U.S. citizens and injured 23, Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s “greatest fear is — not terrorism — but a nonexistent Islamophobic backlash,” according to the National Review Online’s David French. He aptly notes that “Lynch has offered an almost Onion-level self-parody of liberal pieties” and reminds us common non-elist folk that, “Per Obama administration protocol, the attorney general was determined to never let a crisis go to waste. There is now a ‘wonderful opportunity and wonderful moment to really make significant change,’ Lynch declared…” In other words, are Obama et al — in their ineptitude, cowardice, and appeasement of Muslim terror — willing to silence or punish, even arrest, people who speak candidly about issues like terrorism? Why didn’t Lynch emphasize sympathy for the victims and express outrage over Islamist-inspired terror?
Obama and friends are sympathetic to what they see as the “historical” and current “persecution” of Muslims world-wide — even though many Muslims historically and are currently (and mostly) persecuting each other and those they deem as infidels. The President and his followers also suffer from the fallacious belief that if they appease Muslim extremists, they’ll be spared the wrath of Islamist terrorism. The truth is that Islamists disdain those who appease them and consider appeasers weak.
As French correctly notes:
… discarding the Bill of Rights is part of the Obama administration’s mission statement. The First Amendment takes a back seat to the administration’s desire to build a national “safe space” for Muslims. The Second Amendment should be tossed aside (without due process, no less) if a person’s name appears on a bloated bureaucratic watch list — a list so over-inclusive that it has included such nefarious characters as The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes and the late senator Ted Kennedy. …
Remember that Obama belittles us little people as folks who “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” when he is possibly one of the most divisive presidents in American history.
French warns us that:
… The First Amendment protects an enormous range of speech — even speech that’s anathema to the Obama administration. Americans are perfectly within their rights to not just condemn jihad but also to make sweeping and angry statements about Islam. If the administration disagrees with this speech, it’s free to make its own statements, but when it starts making up legal categories of problematic speech, it is getting disturbingly close to discarding the Bill of Rights. …
He concludes that:
… A competent attorney general shouldn’t even be talking about her ‘greatest fears,’ much less that her greatest fear includes free speech. A competent attorney general should be speaking the language of vigilance, courage, and resolve. We know the Obama administration is capable of resolve. It is resolved to fundamentally transform our nation. It is resolved to advance the sexual-revolution agenda of the radical Left. It is resolved to turn our nation’s military into an engine of social justice. But it is not resolved to defend our nation and Constitution from a vicious enemy who seeks to soak our streets in blood. And that lack of resolve is worse than a shame — it’s a disgrace.