Why does Pat think Loretta Lynch could be more extreme than Eric Holder?

January 29, 2015

Writer

Could Obama's nominee for Attorney General be more radical than Eric Holder? With this administration, Pat thinks anything could be possible. During her confirmation hearings, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tried to nail down some questions about her stance on gay marriage which she managed to sidestep. But when questions came up about her stance on torture, she was unequivocal. Why one and not the other?

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

PAT: Yesterday there was a lot of -- a lot of discussion about the attorney general. The attorney general nominee. Loretta Lynch. At first I thought they had nominated Loretta Lynn, the country singer, but it turns out the coal miner's daughter wasn't up for that. She wasn't interested. Is she even alive?

STU: I don't know.

JEFFY: Yeah, she is.

PAT: I don't think she wanted the gig. They went with Loretta Lynch.

JEFFY: She is only in her 80s. Don't worry about it.

PAT: Loretta Lynn?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: She's spry compared to say Robert Byrd.

STU: Or compared to Jeff Fisher, whose birthday is here today at 109 years old.

PAT: Happy birthday, Jeffy. You don't look anything over 203, I'd say.

STU: Yeah. That's fair.

JEFFY: Thank you. I appreciate it.

[laughter]

PAT: All right. So Lindsey Graham tried to pin down Loretta Lynch, our attorney general nominee. This woman is at least as extreme, I think, as Eric Holder.

STU: That's possible.

PAT: Yeah. It's possible. And in this case, with the Bush -- with the Obama administration, it's likely. Because everybody -- everybody that comes into this administration is an extremist, it seems. Can you name a moderate that he's appointed to any position. I can't think of one.

STU: I think people would point to people like Chuck Hagel who was a Republican at one point.

PAT: Chuck Hagel, that's right.

STU: There's been a couple -- secretary of defense holdover. I don't know. Not many. Few and far between.

PAT: No. Not many at all. So Lindsey Graham tried to pin her down on the difference between -- okay, so the same-sex marriage thing is before the Supreme Court. So he was trying to get her to say, all right, is polygamy the next domino to fall because it would seem likely it is. Here's how that exchange went.

GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages bans are unconstitutional and violates the US Constitution for a state, try to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that's clearly the law of the land, unless there's a constitutional amendment to change it.

What legal rationale would be in play that would prohibit polygamy? What's the legal difference between a state, a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional, but a ban on polygamy being constitutional? Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the Constitution and the other not?

LYNCH: Well, Senator, I have not been involved in the argument or analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court. So -- and I'm not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point, but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you.

PAT: Okay. So she wasn't involved in the argument or the analysis. All right. You know, they're going to say that every time they don't want to answer a question. But she wasn't involved in the argument or analysis. So then they asked her about waterboarding.

VOICE: Do you agree that waterboarding is torture and that it's illegal?

LYNCH: Waterboarding is torture, Senator.

VOICE: And thus illegal?

LYNCH: And thus illegal.

PAT: Wait. I don't think she was involved in the argument or analysis of that either, but she still had an answer somehow on that, that waterboarding is torture, and it is illegal. How can you say that definitively when you weren't involved in the argument or the analysis of that?

STU: I don't know.

PAT: That's kind of weird.

STU: Yeah. I was not involved in the argument or analysis of every episode of Law and Order, but I always have an opinion how it's coming out.

PAT: I don't know why Graham -- well, he sucks.

STU: You mean that he gave up on that?

PAT: Yeah. You don't give up on that. You just push her. Well, I know you were not involved in the argument or analysis, but you've stated an opinion on everything else. Why won't you answer this? The answer to that is, no, there should be no legal barrier to polygamy at the point where same sex becomes the law of the land. Why wouldn't polygamy? I don't understand that. As long as they're consenting adults, I don't understand it. Right?

Because that's the argument for all the other stuff. Why not this too?

STU: Yeah. I think there's a very strong argument to be made there. And, you know, the correct argument I think is, this is why you don't have the government getting involved in people's love life at all.

PAT: At al. Get them out of straight marriage, homosexual marriage. Everything.

STU: Yeah. Do you on your anniversary send a card to the place that gave you the marriage license. Do you make sure that they're a part of the ceremony with you? Do you make sure they're part of the ceremony, and every time we celebrate, do you take them out to dinner as well?

PAT: I have to say, I've been so inconsiderate. I have not done that.

STU: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. After all they've done for you.

PAT: Throughout my marriage, yeah.

STU: Which is nothing. They don't do anything for anyone.

PAT: Well, they gave us a piece of paper.

STU: To think of this, to allow you to express your love for your wife.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: They gave you -- of thing this as a conservative. We are allowing a system in which we say, okay, government, please give us a piece of paper so we can express who we love. Why don't why do we care about that at all?

PAT: We talked about that quite a few times over the last couple of years. Really it's the only position that makes sense. And glenn has articulated it many times. Get government out of all marriage. Let church handle it. It's a church institution anyway. And if you're an atheist, then go to city hall and do a justice of the peace, so what? Who cares.

STU: Yeah. And you don't have to worry about that if they're out of marriage. You can find someone else you like to do the ceremony for you.

PAT: Like a humanist person.

STU: Right. Weren't you and Glenn at one time ministers in a specific church that may or may not have had a physical location in Modesto, California, perhaps?

PAT: I believe we still are. There's not an expiration.

JEFFY: Once you are, you're still in good standing.

PAT: We can still marry people. And we have in the past.

STU: Yes. And you did it to married people. Think about that again. Okay, so you have to get another license, you have to be a licensed minister so that you can join a union between two licensed people who like each other so you can license their love. Conservatives are like, oh, this sounds great. Really?

PAT: It's been the wrong position from the beginning. We screwed up on that one at the beginning, just like we screwed up on the immigration thing. Should not have fought against illegal immigration. We should have fought for legal immigration. That should have been the battle cry the whole time. And get the government completely out of it.

The Libertarian stance on marriage is the right one. When I was in Salt Lake City a couple of weeks ago, doing the speech for the Eagle Forum and then afterwards, you know, there was a dinner and all that kind of stuff. And one of the local TV stations interviewed me. Their little reporterette came up to me. She wanted a few comments. So, okay.

And I knew it would probably be -- she wanted to do something that would try to trip me up and something she could beat us with. That was in the back of my mind. Sure enough, what was her big deal. The Supreme Court taking up same-sex marriage. And I said, you know, I'd like the government out of all marriage. Yeah, but how do you feel about this? How did this affect the conference when they heard about it? I don't think it affected the conference at all when they heard about it. They just mentioned it, and we kind of moved on and didn't dwell on it.

Well, what do you think about the same-sex marriage amendment.

I said, well, I don't think the government has any business in anybody's marriage. And I think that horse has probably left the barn. I think the Supreme Court will probably rule in favor of same-sex marriage. It will become the law of the land.

STU: You should have just said, I was not involved in the argument or analysis of that particular --

PAT: I should have. But that's the hot button issue that people try to trip you up on when they want to trip you up. And there's no tripping when it's just, get the government out of it. Don't make my church perform a same-sex marriage.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: But if you can find a church that will marry you, and you're a same sex couple, great. Do it. Then the government is completely out of it. But that's not where we are.

As far as the attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch, she was asked about illegal immigration.

LYNCH: Well, Senator, I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. Certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

PAT: Isn't that amazing? Here's the attorney general nominee, and she's saying, regardless of how got here, whether they're legal or illegal, I don't care what you're doing. If you've committed identity theft or if you're involved in tax fraud, you have a right to work in the United States of America.

That's the future attorney general?

JEFFY: I would like to see more citizens involved in the workforce in America.

PAT: I think the citizens would like to see that as well. I think the tens of millions who are unemployed would like to see the citizens of this nation be employed, rather than people of illegal status have the right to work. That's insanity.

This is the person who sworn to uphold -- not yet, but she will be. Sworn in to uphold our laws and she doesn't care about them. How do you vote to confirm her?

STU: I don't know. It seems that's what we do now. People get placed into office by somebody, and if they happen to dislike particular laws, they are not enforced. That is not -- I don't remember that with the founders. I don't remember George Washington harping on that particular way of doing business, but that does seem to be where we are. I mean, immigration is the number one thing. How can she be nominated if she had any other stance. The president of the United States has taken this as basically his main pathway of getting things done.

PAT: Yeah. It's inconceivable. And yet, I don't think we know what that word means because we keep using it. It just keeps happening.

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

me liking tweets celebrating the assassination of the united healthcare ceo pic.twitter.com/N41w51ZuZR
— 🔻 (@pegasustits) December 5, 2024

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

A liberal TikToker is selling a t-shirt that glorifies the recent assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in NYC.
“deny , defend, depose” was reported to have been on the shell casings. pic.twitter.com/IWpHYkx2lF
— SteveSant66 🇺🇸 (@SSant66) December 8, 2024

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.

Glenn's Show Prep