Loretta Lynch: need more marching, blood, death on streets

[rangerrebew]

Loretta Lynch: Need more marching, blood, death on streets
Senate Dems post her impassioned plea on Facebook page as 'words of inspiration'
Published: 12 hours ago
 
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made an impassioned video plea for more marching, blood and death on the streets – a video that was later posted on the Facebook page of Senate Democrats as “words of inspiration.”

The video is less than a minute long and begins by stating that people are experiencing “great fear and uncertainty,” with the unstated implication it is due to Donald Trump’s takeover of the White House.

Without offering any specifics, Lynch goes on to say that “our rights” are “being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back.”

But the strongest words come in a statement that seems to suggest the answer is street action that will inevitably turn bloody and deadly.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/loretta-lynch-need-more-marching-blood-death-on-streets/#MumXKmy7xMpGOk4A.99

 

[rangerrebew]

I don't think anything stronger could be said about the hatred, venom, and dislike for America by Obama, the democrat party, and Lynch could ever be said.  To call this "inspired" would be like Charles Manson saying the same thing about the murders he ordered and calling it "inspired."

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Ridiculously idiotic take on what she said, watch the video. She wasn't calling for violence in the slightest.


These idiotic site you post from, like World Nut Daily, are way more dishonest than just about anything the liberals put out.

[don-o]

Ridiculously idiotic take on what she said, watch the video. She wasn't calling for violence in the slightest.


These idiotic site you post from, like World Nut Daily, are way more dishonest than just about anything the liberals put out.

I watched it. Her message is loud and clear. As for "calling for violence", it's between the lines. Hit the streets and create the exact environment that the past shows will result in violence and blood.

As far as source, has wnd been put on any sort of "sketchy" list around here?

@mystery-ak
@EC

[andy58-in-nh]

Ridiculously idiotic take on what she said, watch the video. She wasn't calling for violence in the slightest.

Well, here is exactly what she said:

“It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again."

Is this a direct call for violence? No, it is not.

But neither is it free of a reasonable inference that the speaker believes that violence has been necessary in the past in support of certain unspecified "needs", whatever those might be, and may be required again.

So, as usual, WND baits clicks with brightly colored headlines and follows up with gray-shaded prose.

In truth, Ms. Lynch is conflating the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s with the group grievances of today's Progressive movement. It is a false argument insofar as no one among those groups is today being denied their rights, although Conservatives who attempt to freely express themselves on Leftist-controlled college campuses may well have such a claim. But it is a falsehood that does carry the danger of incitement, and that is a legitimate concern.

And yet, if WND had made that argument in its headline, would you have clicked on it?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

And yet, if WND had made that argument in its headline, would you have clicked on it?

Right, so it's ok to lie in headlines... just like CNN does or any of the other "fake news" stuff you guys screech about.

[andy58-in-nh]

Right, so it's ok to lie in headlines... just like CNN does or any of the other "fake news" stuff you guys screech about.

No. There is a difference between a lie and an exaggeration.

WND exaggerates. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WP and the rest have on more than rare occasion been guilty of simply making shit up, either based upon unsubstantiated claims from unnamed sources, or else from outright fabrication on the part of their reporters.   

[EC]

I watched it. Her message is loud and clear. As for "calling for violence", it's between the lines. Hit the streets and create the exact environment that the past shows will result in violence and blood.

As far as source, has wnd been put on any sort of "sketchy" list around here?

@mystery-ak
@EC

@don-o

WND isn't on the sketchy list. Maybe it should be, but it tends more to factually sensational, as in there is always a fact or two presented somewhere in the article that they're hanging a couple thousand words of speculation on.

Sorry for the delay - I catch up on my current threads before checking my pings. 

[LonestarDream]

No. There is a difference between a lie and an exaggeration.

WND exaggerates. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WP and the rest have on more than rare occasion been guilty of simply making shit up, either based upon unsubstantiated claims from unnamed sources, or else from outright fabrication on the part of their reporters.   

Spot on.

[INVAR]

While we all now recognize that the Alt-Right/Republican leaning media is as sensationalistic, skewed and bullshiiite in their 'reporting' to push their own 'narrative' as much as the MSM does - the fact is that Lynch is an ideological Marxist, and by their very nature - stoking conflict, engendering 'payback' and using subtlety to suggest violence to those ears who know the keywords if their 'system' does not give them what they demand is what they are attempting to achieve.

Her words here are no different than the mass movements in the past that resulted in bloodletting upheaval.

That WND extrapolated that to mean she openly called for blood and death on the streets is an extrapolation too far - and is simply doing exactly what the Left does in accusing their opponents and political enemies of.

[Free Vulcan]

As is often true for WND, the title is clickbait compared to the content.

That said, between the lines Lynch absolutely condones the violence. That's how leftists roll - winks, nods, organize behind the scenes, spread it by word-of-mouth, or these days, social media.

[skeeter]

Ridiculously idiotic take on what she said, watch the video. She wasn't calling for violence in the slightest.


These idiotic site you post from, like World Nut Daily, are way more dishonest than just about anything the liberals put out.

This isn't a lie. Its an interpretation of the words that Lynch used. Anyone familiar with the language of revolutionaries of the twentieth century will find them familiar.

Now 'Russia influenced the election' - thats a lie.

[andy58-in-nh]

While we all now recognize that the Alt-Right/Republican leaning media is as sensationalistic, skewed and bullshiiite in their 'reporting' to push their own 'narrative' as much as the MSM does - the fact is that Lynch is an ideological Marxist, and by their very nature - stoking conflict, engendering 'payback' and using subtlety to suggest violence to those ears who know the keywords if their 'system' does not give them what they demand is what they are attempting to achieve.

Her words here are no different than the mass movements in the past that resulted in bloodletting upheaval.

That WND extrapolated that to mean she openly called for blood and death on the streets is an extrapolation too far - and is simply doing exactly what the Left does in accusing their opponents and political enemies of.

I think that is a fair analysis.

You know, I do find this interesting as well: Progressives have frequently accused conservatives of employing "dog whistles", meaning the use of descriptive language as a thinly-veiled appeal to a secretly shared (and bigoted) set of beliefs on the Right.

I believe the truth is that by making such baseless charges, Leftists project their own tendency to camouflage their own true and hidden agenda, namely to permanently alter the relationship between the individual and the state. By devaluing the former in favor of the latter, and doing so in the service of a collectivist ideology foreign to America's foundational principles, the Left hopes to effectively neuter our Constitution without having to amend it, circumventing the law while pretending to respect it.

A common tactic in the service of the Progressive agenda is the use of the "accusation privilege" (e.g.: racist, sexist, classist, homophobe, heteronormative, etc., ad nauseum). The applied terminology in this effort is the product of academic corruption, specifically the rejection of an empirical search for knowledge in favor of the fervent promotion of a collectivist catechism of Designated Oppressors and Accredited Victims, wherein groups of people are (falsely) held to differing behavioral standards and judged as either innocent or guilty, and each only by association. Such an ideology naturally flies in the face of the entire history of Western culture, legal theory and philosophy, which is why those foundations had to be denigrated, denied validity, and ultimately destroyed.

For his part, what Saul Alinsky recognized was that for the Left to win, it would have to hide its true aims (power, money, and control) while using a set of tactics to demoralize the opposition and put them eternally on the defensive. As all the while, the Left would pursue its "long march through the institutions", gradually taking over the levers of power, education, and communications from within, effectively hollowing out and demoralizing the traditionalist (pro-individual, pro-liberty) opposition.

And that is the real "dog whistle" whose echo we have been listening to for over 100 years.