RUNNING OF THE SWINE

Allegedly one million attended the funeral of an Iranian terrorist in his home city – big mistake. A stampede occurred during the procession leading to the “Mother of all” tramplings. As reported, this was no running of the bulls, but the running of fervent terrorists bent on revenge. “Allahu Akbar” have mercy on the ones who perished – as they enter the gates of hell. At last count 32 are dead and almost 200 seriously injured.

FROM FOX NEWS

32 dead, dozens injured after stampede erupts during Soleimani funeral procession: report

“WHACK HIM”

President Trump, did not pull his punches, when he gave the order to WHACK out an Iranian terrorist. This was no run of the mill peon, but a GENERAL, a BMOC (big man on campus). This General was the IRGC Quds Force commander, the paramilitary wing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ; a terrorist organization that spread its demonic ideology throughout the middle east and afar. You have to wonder why all the hub-bub? Of course the Democrat progressive will never be satisfied with anything Trump accomplishes.

Democrat plunderers have gone wild on social media, calling for Trump’s head. The likes of AOC and Maxine Waters (click her for evidence of a fool – she was pranked) we guarantee you will get a laugh. Both of them have gone berserk besides the usual list of suspects.

Time and time again Soleimani continued to send messages to the United States. A couple of weeks ago he was responsible for killing an American contractor in Iraq. Thursday we returned the favor by sending a message of our own.  In an overnight drone strike outside Baghdad International Airport done via special delivery.

Solemani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with at least 10 other people, were killed in an attack by US forces in Baghdad on Friday.”At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,” the Pentagon wrote in a statement.In a speech to the American people, US President Donald Trump called Soleimani the “number one terrorist anywhere in the world.” 

US attempts to portray Soleimani as a master terrorist leader, like say, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levants’s (ISIL, or ISIS) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is wrong and misses the big picture. Soleimani may have been controversial, even a bloody “shadow commander”, but he served at the pleasure of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, to protect and expand the regime’s interests in the Middle East. The killing of Soleimani is an attack on the Iranian state.

CLICK HERE FOR THE AL-JAZEERA OPINION OF Marwan Bishara

Since Jimmy Carter caved to Iranian mullahs back in 1979,  Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomein and subsequent Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei  have ruled Iran like an iron fist. Despite economic sanctions they still hang on. Protests have occurred but nothing short of a revolution. The kind needed to bring out the military who will provoke the common folk to overthrow the shia chains that have reduced their being to chattel.

CLICK HERE FOR “NIGHTMARE” Democrats will have in 2020.

DEMOCRATS – ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Miscreants rule the day. The latest from California, where else? Teachers can’t discipline an unruly student by suspension. Homeless can sleep wherever they want. Muslims wearing the hijab don’t have to take it off for a police photo. Christianity is not what the progressive aspire two. Jews have been sold out by the Democrats who support the BDS movement which is the root cause for violence against Jews. So where does it end?

This ends two ways, one is on November 3, 2020, the day President Trump is reelected. The 2nd is on the day when RBG no longer sits on the Supreme Court. From the words of Barack Hussein Obama, “after my election I have more flexibility.” President Trump will have more flexibility because the Republicans will rule the House and Senate contrary what the fake media promotes.

The 14th Amendment “gotta go.” Liberals Supreme Court justices have interpreted this amendment contrary to the original meaning.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.

Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to guarantee a wide array of rights against infringement by the states, including those enumerated in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to bear arms, etc.) as well as the right to privacy and other fundamental rights not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution.

Finally, the “equal protection clause” (“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) was clearly intended to stop state governments from discriminating against black Americans, and over the years would play a key role in many landmark civil rights cases.

14TH AMENDMENT

Previous post – see below

Two years after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into five military districts, where new state governments, based on universal manhood suffrage, were to be established. Thus began the period known as Radical Reconstruction, which saw the 14th Amendment, which had been passed by Congress in 1866, ratified in July 1868. The amendment resolved pre-Civil War questions of African American citizenship by stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.” The amendment then reaffirmed the privileges and rights of all citizens, and granted all these citizens the “equal protection of the laws.”

AN UN-GOING CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED – THE SUPREME COURT MUST ONCE AGAIN MUST STEP IN AND ADJUDICATE

the jurisdiction thereof.”

Overwhelming evidence against the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” or “not subject to any foreign power” as reaffirming the common law doctrine of citizenship by birth to aliens can be found following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1867 George Helm Yeaman, United States Minister to Denmark, in his well received treatise on allegiance and citizenship, which was presented to Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers).

Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

Perhaps because he was absolutely correct.

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS BLOG

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, it is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the US Supreme Court‘s interpretation.

During the Marshall Court era (1801 to 1835), Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade or any other form of restricted area (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).

The Commerce Clause is the source of federal drug prohibition laws under the Controlled Substances Act. In a recent medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce. The Court relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce.

A BIG MISTAKE WAS MADE IN 2008 & THEN REPEATED IN 2012

And the latest has come from Iraq. Our embassy has been attacked by ruthless terrorists sanctioned by Iran. They are protesting the recent series of airstrikes the U.S. conducted against the Iranian proxy in Iraq, Katib Al-Hizballah. That group had conducted multiple rocket attacks on U.S. installations in Iraq in the last two months, with the most recent killing a U.S. contractor. Our retaliatory strikes were labeled a violation of Iraqi sovereignty by the Iraqi government and key members of the Iraqi government have vowed to strike the U.S. again.

RedState

The proximate cause of this rioting was an attack last Friday on a military facility staffed by US and Iraqi forces in which one US civilian Defense contractor was killed. The attackers belonged to Kataib Hezbollah. Kataib Hezbollah are an Iranian sponsored terrorist group that has been attacking US forces since about 2007. 

The Washington Post reports today on the men leading the mob action directed against the US Embassy. This one stands out:

Also in attendance Tuesday was Hadi al-Amiri, a former transportation minister, who is considered Tehran’s man in Baghdad. Amiri heads the Badr Organization, which is one of the largest pro-Iran militias in Iraq and is part of the PMF. It was originally founded in the 1980s to fight for Iran against then-President Saddam Hussein as part of the Iran-Iraq war. This name has surfaced before. Back in 2011, al-Amiri was part of an Iraqi delegation that was received at the White House by Barack Obama.

Remember it wasn’t too long ago when Obama (please, please, please) invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House.

It is worth noting, yet again, how the Obama administration’s slavish obeisance to Iran destroyed American credibility and influence in the region. When the history of this is written we’ll see that Obama was following a foreign policy of gifting the region to Iran and setting Iran up to be a counterweight to, one has to believe, Israel. Iraq was given over to Iran by Obama, Iranian thugs were feted by the Obama administration, the Iran nuclear agreement was signed to curry their favor, when they pirated two US Navy vessels and ten sailors there were no consequence, and on the eve of leaving the White House we had the unsightly spectacle of US Air Force aircraft delivering pallets of currency to the Iranians.

This will not be another Benghazi because we have a president who is not so monomaniacally focused on appeasing Islamist and Iranian forces that he will sacrifice US lives. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that what is happening today in Baghdad has its roots in the former administration’s relentless fluffing for the mullahs.

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM THE NEW BOSTON TEA PARTY

Well we wrapped up our twelfth year. Started the NBTP on January 1, 2008 when there wasn’t a scant chance of convincing anyone that a revolution was “a’brewin.” Here we are a dozen years later blazing our wagons from East to West, from North to South.

2020 will be the culmination of our success when Americans, those with the sense of pride, patriotism and duty RE-ELECT Donald J. Trump to his second term. To quote Supreme Court Justice RBG, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.” Americans can imagine what this place would be without Donald J. Trump as president. We will leave it at that. Wishing “You’all” a VERY HAPPY AND HEALTHY NEW YEAR.

Interview July 8, 2016 with New York Times

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.

“REVOLUTION IS THE SOLUTION”