Biden's Gestapo tactics, Enrique Tarrio

The Gestapo tactics of the Biden Administration are out of control: " [Enrique] Tarrio’s 22-year-long sentence is also significantly longer than if you light someone on fire in the name of Black Lives Matter, as Montez Lee did during a 2020 riot in Minneapolis. The Department of Justice’s sentencing guidelines call for someone who commits a crime like Lee’s to face 20 years in prison. But on the same day a judge sentenced Tarrio, the Department of Justice argued in a sentencing memorandum that, because BLM protesters “felt angry, frustrated, and disenfranchised,” the judge should reduce his sentence to 10 years, which is less than half the sentence length of Tarrio. The New York Times explained that federal prosecutors dismissed BLM charges by the thousands because “protesters were exercising their basic civil rights,” and in most cases that is probably true. But in demanding harsh sentences for nonviolent January 6 rioters and leniency for violent BLM rioters, Biden’s Justice Department is openly engaging in political prosecutions."

"Where federal prosecutors brought charges against 1,146 people connected to the January 6 riot, they only brought charges against 300 people connected to BLM riots across the country. Where at least 10,000 people were arrested in the summer of 2020, some for minor offenses but others for burglary, looting, or assault, in BLM riots, about 2,000 January 6 protesters entered the Capitol Building."
Histrionic Narcissism Behind Unequal Sentences For January 6 And Black Lives Matter Protesters (substack.com)

Biden has completely decimated our Bill of Rights. They aren't even finished arresting people yet for J-6. Yes, this is Whataboutism--that's what the Bill of Rights is about! What about the freedom of speech, what about the right to assemble, what about the right to be secure in their houses and effects and free from unreasonable seizures, what about the right to an impartial jury, what about the right to a speedy trial? Biden's violated them all. He's the insurrectionist (hiding behind his crooked Department of "just us." The irony is he's allowing millions of non-citizens to flood the borders who believe they'll have more rights here than their home country!

Huckabee is alarmed by Trudeau's tyranny, U.S. silence

 

"Can we see the tyranny that's already here? by Mike Huckabee

Perhaps, for Americans, the most shocking thing about the autocratic power-grab in Canada is the failure of our own government to speak out –- forcefully –- against it. Instead, the current administration is engaged in a similar process of trampling dissent, right here in the good old U.S.A.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau didn’t simply adopt temporary “emergency powers” to clear the streets of big rigs, as much of an overreach as that was. What he did appears to be even more serious, as he's shown no intention of relinquishing those powers now that the protest has been broken up.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ottawa-blockades-over-but-canadas-trudeau-says-emergency-powers-still-needed-01645469116?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

In an update to the above story, the leftists in the Canadian parliament have shown themselves to be accomplices of this tyrant, voting to allow him to extend his “emergency” powers AFTER the emergency is over. Read this and be shocked.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/canadian-parliament-votes-to-extend-emergencies-act-for-30-days/#slide-1

And Robert Spencer at PJ Media has a must-read commentary on what has just happened there. Note especially the new regulations for crowdfunding and payment platforms. He’s right: this is how democracies die, by starving dissenters financially.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/02/20/democracy-dies-in-canada-trudeau-government-to-make-some-of-their-new-authoritarian-measures-permanent-n1560716

On Monday, Tucker Carlson interviewed a man who'd been repeatedly kneed by police in Ottawa after cooperatively climbing down from his rig, kneeling before police and putting his hands behind his head. Ironically, this man, named Csaba Vizi, had come to Canada after fleeing Communist Romania. Video of him inside his truck shows him calmly describing to police how he’s going to surrender peacefully and get on his knees. Then he does so, and waits for them to take him away. But as he tells it, he heard someone yell, “Arrest him! Arrest him!” and he was pushed down onto his stomach. They piled on top of him. We see from other video taken from farther away that one cop very forcefully kneed him, over and over, as he lay on the ground. “I feel like I was beaten, but I took it like a man,” he said.

Yes, they had injured him, he said. “They break my body a little bit, but not my spirit.”

He said that when he came to Canada from Romania, he loved it there, especially the friendly people. He was “so happy.” It was like that for 20 years, but the last couple of years have been different. “It’s impossible to live here anymore,” he said.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6298431733001#sp=show-clips

A quote from George Orwell featured Monday on Instapundit seems apt: “I have no particular love for the idealized ‘worker’ as he appears in the bourgeois, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.”

It’s a shame to see a policeman treat a compliant ‘worker’ such as Csaba Vizi as a natural enemy. Those chilling video images depict an unforgivable abuse of power.

By coincidence, that Orwell quote led into discussion of an article by Glenn Greenwald that I was already planning to highlight in today’s commentary. Greenwald has a new piece on Substack called “The Neoliberal War On Dissent in the West.”

Greenwald comes from what used to be the political left; he would call himself a classical liberal, someone who believes in freedom and free thought, religious freedom, civil rights, equality under the law (as opposed to “equity”), and a government limited by the Constitution. But in the 21st century, classical liberalism has given way to “progressive” authoritarian neoliberalism, with its rigid beliefs, two-tier “justice” system and strict censorship. He knows these people well. And he has a big reality check for us.

We in America have no problem recognizing tyranny across the globe: A Chinese tank sitting ready to crush a lone protester in Tiananmen Square. An East German wiretapper spying on the lives of others behind the Berlin Wall before it fell. The censorship and even criminalization of all dissent. “Re-education” camps. Journalists silenced. We know it when we see it if it’s someplace faraway.

But when it’s right here in front of us, in a DEMOCRACY, we might have a little more trouble recognizing it for what it is: the same kind of tyranny. And if we do see it, there’s still something faintly heretical to some of us about admitting it out loud. It’s as if the idea of this happening in a Western democracy were so absurd it can’t be real. I’d liken this situation to one in which a horrendous crime has happened in your own neighborhood. “This just doesn’t happen HERE,” you likely think. Your neighborhood has always seemed...different. When it happens somewhere else, you take notice, but when it’s two houses down, you’re in shock.

When we were children and pledged allegiance to the Flag, and said “one nation under God,” we took for granted that the freedom given to us by God would always remain, that America was special, shielded by Divine power. It had existed for about 200 years, which to a child is an eternity. As we grew older, we knew there were wars and that freedom can be taken away by other human beings, but, other than the vague atomic threat from faraway Soviet Russia, we still had that feeling of comfort and safety inside our own borders. This was America.

We assumed that the Bill Of Rights protected us as individuals, even if we disagreed with the majority. Our country was set up as a democratic republic, not a pure, majority-rule democracy that might be prone to “popular” uprisings that squelched the rights of the minority. And it has lasted that way for a long time.

But now, even in America, we’re seeing despotism. It’s easy to point to situations in which “due process” doesn’t even apply. In civil asset forfeiture, for example, the government will seize your assets before you’ve even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. It’s blatantly unconstitutional. Justin Trudeau has done something similar in Canada, freezing assets not only of the protesters but even of people who donated a few dollars to buy them meals. When we witness such tyranny in, say, Russia, we see it for what it is. IT’S THE SAME THING HERE.

Greenwald cites the decade-long repression of Julian Assange as another example. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder, after investigating for years, failed to find evidence of criminality, but financial institutions such as MasterCard, VISA, PayPal and Bank of America were pressured by the Senate Homeland Security Committee into terminating WikiLeaks’ accounts, crippling it.

Financial pressure is a standard weapon these days, with the government joining forces with corporations. GoFundMe tried to steal---I mean, divert, millions in donations intended for the truckers. When GiveSendGo raised millions more, Canadian courts blocked their distribution. The financial system is being used to crush dissent.

Greenwald notes recent protests against the Spanish government by people in Barcelona who wanted more autonomy. The government came down hard on the protesters, treating them like terrorists, seditionists and insurrectionists. (Sound familiar?) Protesters were treated violently, arrested en masse, charged with terrorism and sedition and given long prison sentences.

And when Julian Assange spoke up about how wrong this was, Ecuador rescinded his asylum at their London embassy. They cut off his internet access. Then they allowed London police to come and arrest him.

Anyway, Greenwald makes a critical point: The despotism we so easily recognize around the world is becoming entrenched right here, right now. We can't permit it. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-neoliberal-war-on-dissent-in?utm_source=url

It's not science, it's totalitarianism

 December 7th, 2021

A Constitutional Cure for Covid-19

by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.

Covid, Covid, Covid. Variant, variant, variant. Trust me, I’m the government’s highest paid employee, and “I represent science.” Show your papers, wear a mask, take a shot or lose your job. And the beat goes on for an infection where 99.95 percent of infected persons under age 70 years recover. It’s becoming clear that Covid-19 is not merely a disease but an excuse to concentrate power in the government.

It’s time for the political histrionics to stop. Multiple studies have shown that the consequences far outweigh any potential (and illusory) benefits of masks, lockdowns, and school closures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director admitted that the current Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, while helpful in reducing deaths and hospitalizations, do not stop transmission of the virus. “Breakthrough” cases in vaccinated persons are on the rise. Moreover, the current vaccines likely are not effective for the new, likely less lethal Omicron variant. Public health experts opine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that causes Covid-19) and its multiple variants are becoming endemic. That means SARS-CoV-2 and its infinite number of variants will not be eliminated, but become a manageable part of the human-viral ecosystem.

Sadly, our government is not responding in accordance with the scientific facts. Instead, federal and some local governments are mandating more vaccines, culminating in proof of vaccination to engage in society and continue living as a normal human being. This is not science. This is nascent totalitarianism.

Two lines from the 1990 Cold War era spy film, The Hunt for Red October foreshadowed our government’s warp speed trajectory to authoritarianism. “Privacy is not of major concern in the Soviet Union, comrade. It’s often contrary to the collective good.” And a White House official casually boasted, “I’m a politician that means I’m a cheat and a liar.”

It didn’t take long for President Biden to tell the big lie. As president-elect, Mr. Biden said there would be no vaccine mandates. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (the third in line for the presidency) brilliantly illustrated the intersection of lying and privacy. As late as August 2021, Speaker Pelosi said, “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated. That’s just not what we can do. It is a matter of privacy to know who is or who isn’t.”

Without skipping a beat, the executive branch issued three separate vaccine mandates: all federal contractors (including remote workers), an Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) requirement for businesses with more than 100 employees, and a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requirement for employees, volunteers and third-party contractors of health care providers certified by CMS.

The judicial branch is fighting back against the President’s attempt to jettison the Constitution’s separation of powers clauses, a large chunk of the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court precedents on bodily autonomy with these mandates. On November 9th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put the OSHA mandate on hold. The Court reasoned that the mandate “threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” And “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

Citing the lack of congressional authorization and harm to access to medical care, on November 29th a Missouri federal district court placed a temporary halt on the CMS health care workers “boundary-pushing” mandate. The government planned to enforce the mandate by imposing monetary penalties, denial of payment and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid program. The ruling covers providers in Kansas, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

On November 30th, a Louisiana federal district court blocked the CMS mandate issuing a nationwide injunction in a lawsuit brought by 14 states (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia). “If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands. … [C]ivil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.”

That same day, a Kentucky federal district court issued a hold on the federal government contractors mandate, citing lack of authority of the executive branch—“even for a good cause”. The court reasoned that if a procurement statute could be used to mandate vaccination, it “could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency.” The ruling covers Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

The mainstream media finally reported on the toxicity and poor results of Dr. Fauci’s “standard of care” treatment, remdesivir. This prompted families to use the courts rather than watch their relatives needlessly die. Victories for patients are growing. A Chicago area judge recently ordered a hospital to “step aside” and allow a physician to administer ivermectin in an effort to save a dying patient. It worked.

People are tired of lies. When Google employees are signing a “manifesto” to fight the mandates, you know the seeds of revolt have sprouted.

Pronouns are not protected by the Constitution!

https://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-throws-out-lawsuit-against-ohio-college-for-forcing-professor-to-use-trans-pronouns.html

A Christian professor who sued his employer has lost—calling a trans person by their actual correct pronoun can get you fired.

“I encourage my students to express their political and religious views, and professors should have the same freedom,” Meriwether said in a statement sent out from ADF.

“But the University insisted that I endorse an ideology I do not believe is true. This is simply wrong. True tolerance must be a two-way street. Now the district court suggests that professors have no free speech rights, which should trouble us all. Public universities have no business compelling people to express ideological beliefs that they do not hold. But the court’s decision opens the door for them to shift from being a marketplace of ideas to an assembly line for one type of thought.”

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

Before we had a Constitution, Americans had the Articles of Confederation and the most important piece of legislation of that era was the Northwest Ordinance. In 1785 and 1787 that government sold land in "the west" claimed as spoils of the war to investors (to pay for the war) on condition that certain rights and responsibilities be observed. It's the core of our Bill of Rights, and also the concept of local education, and the humanity and freedom of slaves and native Americans. Not all townships or states followed the rules--particularly on education and religion--because there's always graft and greed in government especially in collusion with capitalism, but when you read it, you see how far ahead the thinking was for any other existing government. 

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/northwest-ordinance/

The Castro in Obama's Administration

 

This is outrageous. How long before the first amendment is declared hate speech by the Obama government, an administration that has inflamed racial unrest for years? How long before the creation story in Genesis is declared hate speech or the story of Noah and the flood? After all, it could be code for male and female and procreation.  How long before the only place you'll be able to pray is your jail cell and then in silence so you don't upset your guards?

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” said  [Martin] Castro, an Obama appointee, in a separate statement that marked the report’s release.("Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles With Civil Liberties" 

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/are-religious-freedom-advocates-christian-supremacists/

We will again see the mixing of the words "freedom to worship" and "religious freedom."  Did you know that the Civil Rights Commission had met in 2013 with "scholars and legal advocates" to determine if Christians could be charged with violating the Commission's  interpretation of religion and not ours?  Now, of course they don't say "Christians" in the report, just other code words. Just as bureaucrats, not law makers, changed the word "sex" to "gender identity" in many laws and regulations, now they want to our cherished protections are hate speech.  I think they want to wear us out with law suits.

I read through the "scholars" reports and recommendations.  They are reinterpreting the Supreme Court decisions, and it will translate to regulations and law suits by the Commission.

Where do rights come from? God.

“The tradition of American civil rights is a noble — and fragile — enterprise grounded in the belief that all people have inherent rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" Truths? Created? Creator? Almost makes you think the American Founders believed that God exists and that rights flowed from Him.

This declaration is a moral precept grounded in centuries of Western history. But as the Founders and countless others understood, any claim of rights must have at their source the belief that man indeed possesses "inalienable rights." Religion, in other words, is the wellspring of the morality that shapes and guides the culture. In our world, Christianity (and Judaism through it) is that wellspring.

Human rights then, depend on a religion that serves as the source of a shared moral tradition and shapes a consensus on basic matters of right and wrong. If that tradition is abandoned the consensus shatters, and our ideas of what constitutes a human right are shorn from their moral moorings. (Think a moral tradition doesn't matter? Reflect on Islam and see how its notions of rights differ from ours. Not religious? Think of the blood spilled over Nazism, Marxism, and other utopian replacements.)”

This quote is from this article.

What Bill of Rights?

The President said he wants us to trust him/NSA, that there are safeguards. Really? We do have safeguards--the Bill of Rights. They've been systematically stomped on, shredded, ridiculed, parsed for loop holes, and laughed at by the left. Why should we trust anything in this administration after what we've learned since September 11, 2012?

What does the 4th amendment say? "“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Our Bill of Rights, cafeteria style

All the scandals are linked to the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

All the scandals—the HHS Mandate, Benghazi, IRS targeting conservatives, Department of Justice snooping on the press--swirling around the President right now involve the First Amendment. Even Benghazi--he tried to lie about it for weeks and blame it on one person's 1st amendment right to make a derogatory film--which wasn't even true, but he cast aspersions on that right, never the less. He has no respect for us or our founding documents.

Gitmo closing was so yesterday; today it is drones

The Constitution guarantees due process for American citizens. The drone program used against Americans is illegal. Where are all those pro-bono, hot-shot lawyers who rushed to Gitmo to protect the rights of non-Americans who were captured in combat? (Whom the president has left in limbo, by the way.)

I ticked off 17 problems with his first year, and remember, in those days he was still against gay marriage.

The Obama Doctrine: Kill don’t capture

The right to keep and bear arms

It’s not about hunting deer; it’s not about a national guard.  Read your history of the Bill of Rights. Our founders feared the very power Obama is grabbing.

It looks like the president is planning to override the Constitution and our representative form of government (Congress makes the laws). Democrats should be very worried to be associated with this. You'd have to be from another planet without a course in American history, or a statist intent on taking away all personal freedoms, to think the 2nd amendment applies only to a National guard.

"When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people... to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. " In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.: " In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense". "

1982, Preface, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REPORT of the 97th Congress.

Religious tolerance? Think again.

Back when Hillary Clinton was still blaming the internet for the Benghazi terrorist attack, she made this odd statement, "Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation." There was no religious tolerance at the beginning of our nation when we were English, French and Spanish colonies, nor is it a Biblical value or ethic. True, Catholics and Protestants weren't slaughtering each other like they did in Europe, but those who came here for religious freedom really didn't want other groups, or the STATE, telling them how to worship or act.

One of the geniuses of our Bill of Rights is that our Founders were able to get all these disparate groups to actually agree that religious freedom was primary to all other freedoms. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) preceded the Bill of Rights, and also enshrined the idea the state couldn't decide your religious beliefs and behavior.

And now with 70% of the world without religious freedom, and even outright religious oppression and terrorism, our current President wants to diminish what centuries of Christians and Jews died for--not tolerance, not non-judgementalism, not political correctness--but religious freedom. The HHS Mandate is the camel's nose in the tent.

Allowing the arrest and detention indefinitely of American citizens

I was not in favor of foreign terrorists captured in middle east war zones being given the rights of Americans to our civilian trial process within the U.S., however, I believe U.S. citizens should have them. I'm very concerned about the new Defense Authorization bill just signed--especially since we've recently heard Tea Party groups called terrorists by the other team. That word is just being used too frequently. There's a lot to think about in this article (long).

Glen Greenwald on the new military authorization bill

In hindsight, the Bush administration went too far, and in watching the Obama flip flops and broken promises, I think we've started down a very dangerous road of eroded rights and pot-holed guarantees.

December 15 is Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day, when the American people tweaked the Constitution to include some precious protections the signers didn't include. This is from CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, and in my opinion, they should have included what the Supreme Court has done to not just speech, but prohibiting the exercise of religion.

Northwest Ordinance--Happy Anniversary

July 13, 1787 is probably as important as July 4, 1776, and the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, and the later addition of the Bill of Rights (which appear in part in the NW Ordinance).  The Northwest Ordinance passed the Continental Congress on July 13, 1787 and with the Constitution which was ratified in 1788 was critical to the infant United States' form of government. By 1783, the colonies had achieved independence, but Continental Congress was broke and couldn't pay the soldiers--and it had no power to levy taxes. Land west of Pennsylvania had been promised to soldiers. Several ordinances and plans were floated and private investors (like the Ohio company) formed companies to buy and sell the land and bailed out the new federal government.

Interestingly, the Northwest Ordinance which was passed, contains much of what later became our Bill of Rights, and guaranteed the individual freedom of religion, right to a trial by jury, no cruel punishment, and claimed religion was necessary for good government and that slavery was not be a part of the territory or states to be formed.

Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Article 6: There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. . .

Five states were formed by the Ordinance--Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. Ohio's entry into the Union was a bit bumpy, but after that things went pretty smoothly, and most states that followed used the same procedures outlined in this important document.

Both liberals and conservatives can take pot shots at the NW Ordinance--it shows the federal government has a role in local education and also in providing land and homesteads for its citizens. They also argue over the separation of church and state and what the religion article meant. And for that, you can argue forever.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Read that paragraph 3 or 4 times, and think about how precious it is, how few countries have this. Then think about what has happened since September 2008, and specifically in the last 100+ days. Our government has done more to encroach on this important amendment, than at any period during my life time, and that includes the McCarthy era, that little blip the Communist Party of the USA looks back on as their shining moment of martyrdom and glorious myth. But they are very clever. Now, no law has to be made. Only a regulatory commission or agency is needed to silence political speech on the radio or marriage sermons from the pulpit; only a charge of hate speech to silence a preacher or synod or priest; the press can be silenced by destroying advertising (no market, no competition, why advertise?) so what’s left is a mouthpiece of the government; only comedic goons such as Garafalo or Hilton on TV threatening with impunity those who peaceably assemble to redress grievances of taxation or voice their sincere beliefs about what is in God‘s Word.