~ Featuring ~  
SCOTUS: First Amendment Contradictions?
Nate Jackson
No Peace as Long as Iran's Mullahs Enjoy Power
by Majid Rafizadeh } ~ It is astonishing that while the fundamentalist government of Iran continues to enjoy unchallenged power, and engages in whatever violent behavior it wishes... its apologists proclaim that peace and stability can still exist within the Middle East. An honest analysis of acts of terrorism in the Middle East, and throughout the world, reveals that nearly every conflict, war, and tension in the Middle East, can be traced back to the Iranian government. Despite the illusion that those who would like to appease the Iranian leaders attempt to create, it is clear that the Iran, still racing toward nuclear-breakout capability, has no interest in peace. In Yemen, Iranian authorities have empowered a militia group known as the Houthis. Tehran is actively supplying the militia with ammunition and  continues to smuggle illicit weapons and technology into Yemen. According to a report by Reuters, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a key supporter and sponsor of the Houthis. The IRGC is also currently using a new route across the Gulf covertly to deliver arms shipments to the Houthis. In Iraq, Iran's Quds Force exerts significant direct or indirect influence through a conglomerate of more than 40 militia groups, which operate under the banner of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). The Quds Force has also apparently found new sources of funding to evade current US sanctions. The Quds Force is in charge of Iran's extraterritorial operations, which include organizing, supporting, training, arming and financing Iran's predominantly Shiite militia groups in foreign countries; launching wars directly or indirectly via these proxies; fomenting unrest in other nations to advance Iran's ideological and hegemonic interests;  attacking and invading cities and countries; and assassinating  foreign political figures and prominent Iranian dissidents worldwide...    
Burning Bridge: The Iranian Land 
Corridor to the Mediterranean
by David Adesnik, LTG (Ret.) H.R. McMaster and Behnam Ben Taleblu } ~ President Trump’s closest advisers have repeatedly warned of Tehran’s determination to carve out a land bridge, or ground corridor, across the Middle East... “The regime continues to seek a corridor stretching from Iran’s borders to the shores of the Mediterranean,” explained Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, “Iran wants this corridor to transport fighters and an advanced weapons system to Israel’s doorsteps.” Shortly before his appointment as national security adviser, Ambassador John Bolton wrote, “Iran has established an arc of control from Iran through Iraq to Assad’s regime in Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.” This “invaluable geo-strategic position” enhances Tehran’s ability to threaten Israel, Jordan, and U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf. The president himself noted, “We don’t want to give Iran open season to the Mediterranean.” The concept of a land bridge has become integral to Washington’s assessment of Tehran’s strategic objectives. Lawmakers, scholars, and foreign correspondents emphasize its importance, yet have rarely examined the concept systematically. More importantly, it remains unclear how Iranian leaders think about the land bridge, a phrase they do not employ. Instead, Tehran speaks of an “Axis of Resistance” that unites Iran with Lebanese Hezbollah, the Bashar al-Assad regime, and other like-minded actors. This report traces the evolution of the land bridge concept and places it in proper strategic context. Iran has already unblocked one route to the Mediterranean and would derive real strategic advantages from consolidating control over this route and the others that link Tehran to Baghdad, Damascus, and Beirut. Yet building a land bridge is just one element of Tehran’s strategy to establish itself as the dominant power in the Middle East. Logistical routes are necessary, but political and ideological similarities serve as the bedrock for the Axis of Resistance. Furthermore, Iranian ambitions include dominance in the Gulf, not just those countries along the route of the land bridge. A myopic focus on the land bridge would prevent the U.S. from addressing this broader threat. Still, disrupting the land bridge should be one important objective within a comprehensive strategy to reverse the gains Iran has made across the region, measured both in geographic terms and in its ability to intimidate or co-opt regional governments. The U.S. military presence in the region, especially in Iraq and Syria, serves the dual purpose of blocking certain land bridge routes and amplifying Washington’s diplomatic leverage. Rushed withdrawals, whether from Iraq in 2011, or the partial withdrawal now under way in Syria, have reinforced perceptions of the United States as less than dedicated to this fight...  
Hope Hicks arrives for 
closed-door House testimony
by Olivia Beavers and Morga } ~ Hope Hicks arrived Wednesday morning for closed door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee... the panel’s first major witness to testify as part of the committee’s sprawling investigation into President Trump. Hicks arrived shortly before 9 a.m. flanked by her attorney Bob Trout and others. She did not respond to questions yelled by reporters as she walked in, and Judiciary members remained tight-lipped as they entered the committee room. Judiciary Committee Chairman scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) followed closely behind Hicks and also did not speak as he entered the closed-door space. Drama is likely to explode after the White House signaled on the eve of the interview that it would block Hicks, the president’s former communications director, from answering questions about her time in the White House, arguing she is immune from compelled congressional testimony. White House counsel Pat Cipollone in a Tuesday letter to scumbag liar-Nadler said Trump instructed Hicks not to answer questions about her time in the administration, which stretched until February of last year. “Ms. Hicks is absolutely immune from being compelled to testify before Congress with respect to matters occurring during her service as a senior adviser to the President,” Cipollone wrote Tuesday. “Because of this constitutional immunity, and in order to protect the prerogatives of the Office of the President, the President has directed Ms. Hicks not to answer questions before the Committee relating to the time of her service as a senior adviser to the President,” he continued. Cipollone also indicated the White House, which sent at least one lawyer to accompany Hicks on Wednesday, would prevent the former aide from discussing some of her work on the presidential transition. Democrats, who are eager to question the former administration and Trump campaign aide, are likely to be furious by the move as they accuse the White House of going to unprecedented lengths to stonewall their investigations...
Republicans Ask DOJ Why Qatar-Owned 
Al Jazeera Isn’t Registered As Foreign Agent  
by Chuck Ross } ~ A group of Republican lawmakers is asking the Justice Department whether Al Jazeera Media Network should be required to register as foreign agent of Qatar... Republicans said Al Jazeera appears to promote the goals of the Qatari government by “influencing public opinion in the United States” in a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday. “One can reasonably infer that Al Jazeera is a messaging tool for the Qatari government, and, on its behalf, has engaged in inherently political activities and sought to influence public opinion in the United States,” reads the letter, which six senators and two members of Congress signed. That assessment matches what a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar wrote about Al Jazeera in a diplomatic cable in 2009. Al Jazeera “is heavily subsidized by the Qatari government and has proved itself a useful tool for the station’s political masters,” Joseph LeBaron, who served as ambassador to Qatar in the Bush and scumbag/liar-nObama administrations, wrote in a July 1, 2009, diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks. “The station’s coverage of events in the Middle East is relatively free and open, though it refrains from criticizing Qatar and its government. Al Jazeera’s ability to influence public opinion throughout the region is a substantial source of leverage for Qatar, one which it is unlikely to relinquish,” added LeBaron...
scumbag liar-Nadler Again Jumps in to Defend Controversial Holocaust Remarks by Democrats
by Rusty
{} ~ Rep. scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is becoming a reliably staunch supporter of his colleagues whenever they make controversial remarks about the Holocaust... scumbag liar-Nadler, who is Jewish, defended comments by commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) likening holding centers at the southern border to “concentration camps.” “The fact that concentrations camps are now an institutionalized practice in the Home of the Free is extraordinarily disturbing and we need to do something about it,” the freshman Democrat said in an ill-advised rant. scumbag liar-Nadler jumped in by retweeting a message by commie-Ocasio-Cortez that doubled or tripled down who’s counting on her reprehensible lie, adding that failure to call out the Trump administration’s “inhumanity” is akin to failing to learn the lessons of “never again.” The phrase “Never Again” is linked directly to the Holocaust, used by Jews all over the world to ensure that the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany are never repeated. Comparing an event in which 6 million Jews were murdered to illegal immigrants being held in detention centers – after they came here of their own volition – simply because their quarters might be a little cramped or the climate control might be set too high, is an abomination. Last month, scumbag liar-Nadler also rushed to the defense of Rep. worthless-Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) who had expressed her own outrageous Holocaust remarks...
SCOTUS: First Amendment Contradictions?
Nate Jackson:  These aren’t your grandfather’s liberals. That’s the 75,000-foot view of the modern Left, which has declared its primary mission to suppress disfavored free speech. Two seemingly unrelated Supreme Court cases illustrate what has become the great battle of the early 21st century.

First, The Washington Free Beacon reports, “The basic details of Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck are mundane. New York City designated Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), a private nonprofit corporation, operator of a public access channel. Respondents DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced a film critical of MNN, which MNN agreed to air. The corporation subsequently removed their film and suspended the pair, claiming that they had made threats against MNN employees. Halleck and Melendez sued, claiming that MNN had violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment.”

The broader implications are interesting. Does this provide a test case for how social media is governed under the First Amendment? In other words, can Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al. silence speech because they’re private companies not subject to the First Amendment?

Without answering those questions just yet, let’s turn to the more attention-getting Supreme Court case. The justices declined to hear the case of the Oregon bakers fined and put out of business for refusing to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. The Court did, however, give Melissa and Aaron Klein some help, vacating a lower-court ruling and the $135,000 fine against them while sending the case back for a rehearing in light of the SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS ruled fairly narrowly in that case — that Colorado officials were the ones unlawfully discriminating against the baker — leaving unanswered the fundamental question of whether a Christian baker or florist can be compelled to create works of art (speech) for weddings that violate their religious beliefs. Whether the lower court will read between the lines and reach the right conclusion on its second try is up for speculation.

On the one hand, we have private companies suppressing speech, while on the other we have private businesses compelled to make certain speech. In both, the authoritarian and totalitarian coercion is coming from one side: the Left. The specific First Amendment applications to private companies are not always clear, but what is plain as day is that the Left aims to constrain certain speech and compel other speech. In a nation built on the ideal of free speech, that’s a dangerous trend.  

~The Patriot Post  

Views: 18


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


Florida Sheriff — “I Will Not Enforce Assault Weapons Ban, Neither Will Most Sheriffs”

Dennis Lemma, who is the Sheriff in Central Florida’s Seminole County, told a group of 2nd Amendment activists recently that he would not enforce an assault weapons ban that could soon become Florida law if the “Ban Assault Weapons Now” amendment passes in the Sunshine State.

According to News965, the ban has the following specifications.

The amendment proposed in the state legislature would ban possession of assault weapons, which are defined as “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.”

Lemma, an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a first term sheriff who is running for re-election, said this about whether or not he would enforce such a law.

“It’s not only that I wouldn’t, the majority of sheriffs across the state would not do it,” Lemma said in the video. It’s up to the sheriffs what they are willing to enforce.”

Trump Holds Rally in Milwaukee, WI 1-14-20

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service