Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a video days ago that utilized a coy method of calling for blood and violence in the streets of America to oppose a duly elected President. The conceit of her argument was couched in a historical reference to America’s civil rights struggles, in which many suffered egregious abuse and even death at the hands of violent racists intent on oppressing the civil rights of minorities. Mrs. Lynch’s argument is based almost solely on the hyperbolic perception that we live in a modern version of those civil rights oppressing times again. She’s not alone in either this perception (if she indeed holds it honestly) or her calls for dramatic action based on these perceptions. Yet she’s offered no substantive argument backing up this assumption of widespread civil inequity. Instead, in this video she used this ungrounded assertion to launch what can readily be observed as a conspicuous request for violence from the present unending series of demonstrations, riots, and viscous assaults nationwide that have erupted since President Trump was elected; viscous assaults that have led to numerous injuries, some very serious, on both sides of the pro-Trump-anti-Trump divide; viscous assaults that do not seem in anyway to be in equal measure: the pro-Trumpers are losing if this was a fighting match measured by blows. In her own words,
“I know this is a time of fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it’s a time of concern for people who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on, and even being rolled-back. I know that this is difficult, but this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our founding fathers.
And, it has been people who banded together, ordinary people, who saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who’ve made a difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled. Yes some of them have died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before we can do this again.”
Dancing with sedition, Orwell would no doubt be impressed by her use of ‘good’ in this twisted context.
The ongoing violence perpetrated by the anti-Trump crowds doesn’t seem to bother her in the least either. Her encouragement is confined to them, advocates of her former boss’s political agendas, agendas that contributed to his ideological successor having lost the election. To his credit, Mrs. Lynch’s ex-employer had himself been a bit more measured in his condemnation of violence at Trump rallies. Then President Obama said,
“That’s not what our democracy is about. That’s not what you do. There’s no room for violence…. I believe if you’ve got the better argument, then you don’t need to do that,… Just go out there and organize and persuade.”
Organizing and persuading,… perhaps this is what our former President is doing now: his former chief advisor inhabiting his family’s new home while they direct an activist group to undermine the current elected President with protests and whatever else. Isn't former AG Lynch singing directly to this choir? And from the same song sheet, President Obama’s often measured public sentiments for the past eight years belie how often his administration resorted to rank agitation, exploiting fear and natural differences to divide the citizens of the US into vitriolic special interest groups, ultimately setting them against each other and any non-citizens that might take an interest in violence for political purposes. The general argument that both he and Madam Secretary Clinton utilized through-out the course of the last election, as it was parroted by their surrogates in the various establishment news sources, was that non-establishment Republicans are racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and thus unfit to be the unbiased President of the entire United States (and the rest of the world if the open-borders crowd is to have their way). These types of baseless, malevolent assertions popped-up long before the last election, long before Trump took the media by storm and struck such deep fear into the established circles of power in government and beyond. Slandering political opponents with ‘–isms’ and ‘–ists’ is a tired, old ploy traditionally used by Democratic Party hit-men that dates as far back as Goldwater’s bid for the Presidency during the civil rights era; a slanderous ploy that’s used so frequently today that it finds voice against almost any opponent of the multitudinous injustices of globalist neo-liberal progressivism.
A tragedy for so many reasons, not the least of which are the facts that progressivism was in its original incarnation a vehicle for women and minorities to achieve equal rights and equal protection under the law, and that liberalism was in its original incarnation a vehicle to advance liberty, tolerance, and dignity away for the despotic grasp of thousands of years of government tyrannies. The grand irony herein is that globalist neo-liberal progressivism has itself been the philosophical basis of innumerable civil rights violations and differential treatment under the law, driving a kind-of crash-course return to tyranny with widespread suppression of free speech and the rights of people to peaceably assemble for the purposes of redressing grievances with our government; with freedom of religion subjugated by the arbitrary concerns of social justice; with freedom of the press subjected to Stasi-style controls, wire-tapping, and persecution. Furthermore, we’ve endured years of unrelenting infringement against the right to bear arms in addition to an outright contempt for the Fourth Amendment by our most recent President who distinguished himself as a result as one of greatest enemies to personal privacy in US history. The President before him wasn’t much better.
None of this is to make a general critique of the well-documented long-diminished state of liberty in the US, rather it’s to point out that the US has for too long been a country without a government that abides by our Constitution, its classical liberal values, nor the promises of its founding fathers, despite whatever people like our former Attorney General might say in one breath, while with the next breath coyly advocating violence against political opponents, violence that she was vehemently against given different political contexts, contexts that indeed served a particular interest group.
Speaking at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner, Lynch said since the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, she is increasingly concerned with the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear.”
“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”