If last week was "what is Hillary thinking" week, I guess this must be "Could Loretta Lynch's reputation plummet any further" week. She would be wise to step out of the news for a while, even if it would deprive me of some column topics.
Tuesday, our formerly-esteemed Attorney General was talking about the Orlando shootings, which gave her the opportunity to say some very stupid things in a vain attempt to toe the Obama party line. That's the fiction that the shootings somehow were not about Islam, but rather were about anti-gay violence and unfettered gun ownership.
This party-line-toeing led to some silly things coming from her mouth, like saying that we might "never really be sure" of the motivation for the attack. "We're never going to be sure", even though the murderer told police and the FBI in his calls during the attack that he was doing it to get America to stop bombing Iraq and Syria -- sentiments 100% in accord with his Internet presence. He said why he was doing it and his actions before the shooting bore that out. But Loretta Lynch will "never be sure."
It's OK, Loretta, the country knows, and your successor as Attorney General knows, even if he or she doesn't know they'll be your successor at this point.
But here is the all-time champion stupid thing she said Tuesday, and I'll explain why it merits its own column:
" ... [Our most effective] response to terror and hate is compassion, unity and love."
La, la, la, la. All we need is love. Sort of like the victims of the San Bernardino killers showed when they threw a baby shower for the couple who would then soon turn around and murder them. All you need is love, la, la, la.
That stupid comment from Loretta Lynch is actually extremely relevant, because it represents the classic mistake that leftists make all the time -- they espouse approaches to solving problems which have universally, or at least most often, failed, or which have no grounding in history to show they worked.
Look at gun control, for example. Leading Democrats, leftists and the press (but I repeat myself) cannot even wrap themselves around the fact that their own proposals would not have stopped any of the recent shootings. They disrupt the House of Representatives to vote on a bill the Senate already rejected. Yet they continue to advocate for those proposals on the grounds of "doing something."
Ignorant of history as far as what happens (lost jobs) when you raise the costs of production, the left continues to pound the $15 minimum wage drum. Ignorant of the almost-immediate fleeing of good jobs from California on merely expecting the downstream implementation of such a plan, and the cancellation by Walmart of planned stores there, the D.C. government has now passed a $15 minimum wage.
Doesn't work, but the left can say it "did something", even if far more detrimental than helpful.
And now comes sunny Loretta Lynch, to say that the most effective response to terror and hate is "compassion, unity and love." So first, let's point out that Orlando was an act of terror, not an act of hate. Miss Lynch still has to toe the line ("it was anti-gay", which it wasn't), so it was imperative to sneak the word "hate" in there, and I'm going to call her out on that. It's a code word, and we all know Hillary Clinton doesn't like it when people use code words. Of course, when Miss Lynch has the FBI's recommendation that Hillary be indicted and reams of evidence in front of her, she may have her own code words. But I digress.
"Compassion, unity and love", as a solution for Islamist terrorism, ranks right up there with the minimum wage, Democrat gun-control proposals, destabilizing foreign leaders we don't like, and government control of health insurance, as things that don't work.
How do we know? Because it never works! I mean, compassion, unity and love work for next-door neighbors and maybe our family members. Compassion, unity and love are actually nice, positive concepts. But they are approaches that have never worked when applied to murderers, terrorists and religious fanatics, neither to communist dictators nor Nazis.
So we have, or should have, this question for Loretta Lynch that the press needs to ask her today. "Miss Lynch", they should ask, "you called for compassion, unity and love as our response to terrorist acts like the murders in Orlando. Can you please give us three examples of where that kind of approach has ever worked when applied to Islamist terrorists, and how it would be effective now based on those examples?"
Or this -- "Miss Lynch, you called for compassion, unity and love as our response to terrorist acts like the murders in Orlando. Can you please elaborate? Who is supposed to offer that response, and to whom is that response supposed to be addressed? Are we supposed to fly to Syria and hug an ISIS member? Your solution was just a bunch of nouns, no subject, verb or object involved. Can you please explain exactly who is supposed to do what to whom?"
We need to ask those questions. Because any reasonable American would agree that the only solutions that should be applied to any problem are those that either have worked in the past, reliably, or which are innovative and have a good probability of working because of empirical evidence X, Y and Z.
But for the left, love apparently trumps logic. And the attorney general sold her soul to that idiotic notion, in the name of Barack Obama.
Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
No comments:
Post a Comment