Posted on 01/20/2026 10:42:57 PM PST by SmokingJoe
Arrests coming.
This weekend an anti-ICE mob targeted a church, emboldened by the reckless rhetoric from Minnesota's sanctuary politicians and the media.
The First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly – not rioting.
This administration is committed to upholding federal law and defending the rights of all Americans. These agitators will be held accountable.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
If you’re gonna arrest, arrest. Don’t talk.
For 12 months, a lot of talk and TV appearances.
Negligible results.
Until I see results, I call bullshit.
Please explain to me why such blatant crimes have not been prosecuted.
How weak and incompetent is the DOJ?
Those terrorists who invaded a house of worship committed federal civil rights crimes. It’s all documented. The perps admitted to their crimes.
Bondi, you and yours are proving to be incompetent, useless, and corrupt.
Prove me wrong.
You can not.
You will not.
Treachery.
Over 2.5 million illegals deported out of the country is not “Negligible results”
Just how many did Biden/Mayorkas deport in 4 years?
Oh wait they imported a massive 20 million illegals made up of gang members, murderers, rapists etc.
Under Trump/Noem, the US border with Mexico has been sealed tight. No illegals coming in. This is the tightest the US/Mexico border has been in US history. Give Noem credit for that.
Don Lemon LIES About His Role in Disgusting Church Disruption and Slams Parishioners, w/ James Woods
I was addressing Bondi and the DOJ, not Noem.
No one of substance will ever be held accountable just like they NEVER are.
Minnesota don’t matter. They’ll be federal charges.
CC
A lot of people say a lot of things.
Yes they will.
So?
It’s spelled “Whining”. Spell-check keeps you from looking like a doofus. Like now, for instance.
CC
I prefer to see action.
The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.
Does this mean that one is free to assemble a protesting group to invade a religious ceremony and disrupt it? No, I think the Supreme Court if called upon to define these intersecting rights would maintain that each one is absolute and not to be disrupted even by another right.
On our side we may feel strongly that a false religion is being preached in a mosque or temple, but I do not feel that the U.S. constitution or for that matter Canadian law or U.K. law gives me any right to enter that religious space to protest their false religion (as I see it). Nor does it give any leftist or non-Christian a right to enter our religious sanctuaries. What about during times when there is no religious ceremony or observance? It would apply then also, the building is purposed for religious observance and therefore protests inside it (or on its property including outside grounds) would be against the law.
Another place where rights intersect is at a place of government and this is why the J6 demonstrators ran into problems because there is ambiguity about whether a citizen’s right to protest extends to the working areas of government. Clearly long-standing tradition allows for protest on the grounds of government facilities, but within the working areas? For example, if you disagree with the mayor of your home town can you enter the space where the town council meets and shout down the mayor? This has been done and it has been met with legal sanctions, as I believe it should be, unless it could be clearly demonstrated that what the mayor was saying was illegal — for example if the mayor was saying he would allow child molestors to run the schools in your town, would any court punish you for taking the fight to the highest possible degree? (don’t answer I already know the answer because to some extent that has already happened) ...
It would probably be helpful if the President calmly addressed the nation on these subjects without trying to score political points, and stated that in American legal and constitutional traditions, places of worship of all kinds and philosophies should be sanctuaries in the legal sense of the word. There is no place for protest gatherings within these locations. Outside is a different matter, but people should not be harassed or prevented from going in and out of their chosen places of worship.
I believe this should also apply to political gatherings. One side does not have some guaranteed right to disrupt the other side’s political meetings. Forces from let’s say the Libertarian Party would not be free to enter the Green Party’s nominating convention and disrupt the proceedings, etc. But they would be free to stand outside with signs and chant slogans. There has actually been fewer occasions of political than religious disruption of freedom of assembly in the history of the country, perhaps because people take religion more seriously than politics.
These church invaders in Minnesota need to be shown the full force of the law as they are breaking a fundamental foundation law of the country as expressed in the constitution. Everyone must be entirely free to worship with like-minded individuals in a place of their mutual choosing (with the exception that it would be trespassing to do so in some other already-claimed place of worship).
“That is the last thing law enforcement normally wants to do is “send out warnings of upcoming arrests”.
That lets people flee, destroy evidence and more.”
You do huh?
Go out on a Friday night to a bar with hot chicks then.
Chuckle.
Nope, just pissing off the semi-literate.
CC
I am somewhat glad that this Kelly character stated that his intentions were revolutionary. This underscores my contention that globalism was a revolution carried out in plain sight against the people of whatever countries allowed it to govern them, and it identifies the Trump administration as being inherently counter-revolutionary, which is to say, a defender of the previous order (which was revolutionary going back over two centuries).
There are no laws for revolutions, only outcomes. It is fine to declare one’s self a revolutionary, at least that is honest, but in so doing, one runs the inherent risk of being treated as such by the regime one is trying to overthrow with consequences that anyone can predict. I believe the governing equation of this is FAFO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.