Against the National Will


Justin Smith rightfully excoriates Leftist activist Judges ignoring the U.S. Constitution by unconstitutionally thwarting President Trump putting a lid on illegal aliens and Muslim terrorists from entering the USA.

 

JRH 4/2/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Against the National Will

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/1/2017 11:17 PM

 

America is made less safe through Leftist immigration policy, as evidenced over the last eight years. Illegal aliens rob, rape and murder millions of Americans each year, because Leftist activist judges have said these illegals have “a right” to simply appear in our country, and Leftist mayors of U.S. cities refuse to enforce sound and logical U.S. immigration law already in existence, creating “sanctuary cities”. Their combined anti-American actions are directly responsible for so much misery, loss and heartache for American citizens they have sworn an oath to protect, and they have placed our U.S. national sovereignty in jeopardy.

 

Too many Americans blindly accept the fallacies and outright lies from the Left, that illegal aliens have “a right” to self-immigrate and a “birthright” to U.S. citizenship for any of their children born in America. These are weapons that Leftist judges use in their rulings to undermine our U.S. Constitution and move closer to an open border policy intent on fundamentally transforming our culture and society and ending American traditions, based on equality under the law, that preserve freedom and liberty for all Americans.

 

Whenever anyone witnesses Leftist protests from Sacramento to Seattle and New York to Atlanta, or points in between, LARAZA [FrontPageMag, DTN & Human Events] and Red Communist flags, the Hammer and Sickle, are readily seen everywhere, along with the black flag of the Islamic State. These people — all of them — in one form or fashion seek the fall of America and the eradication of our current U.S. Constitution, and as such, they indicate that they are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., that their allegiances lie elsewhere rather than with the United States of America.

 

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, defined who fell within the jurisdiction of the United States: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to [the states’] jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the [U.S.] who are foreigners [and] aliens …”. Pointing to natural law indicates the republican basis for citizenship is consent of the country.

 

On May 30th, 1866, Senator Lyman Trumbull stated that the jurisdiction clause includes those “not owing allegiance to anybody else … It’s only those persons … that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be made citizens.

 

Read deeper in the Congressional Record of the day [NationalPublicLibrary.com & Justia.com (note 1268)], and one finds that most Congressmen intended “jurisdiction” to be viewed in the context of “in extent and quality as it applies to every citizen of the United States now” and “in every respect”. They also agreed that high crimes and treason could be used as grounds to revoke one’s citizenship.

 

Approximately 118 jurisdictions in the United States currently serve as sanctuaries for dangerous illegal aliens. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that 279 counties and cities refused to detain and deport illegal aliens last year, even though a high percentage of them were Unaccompanied Alien Children who were violent gang members of MS-13.

 

Recently, a 14 year old girl was raped and sodomized repeatedly by two Unaccompanied Alien “Children”, who pulled her into a bathroom at Rockville High School in Montgomery County, Maryland, a sanctuary area for illegal aliens. One of her attackers, Henry Sanchez, an 18 year old Guatemalan, has a pending deportation case against him; both he and 17 year old Jose Montano, from El Salvador, were charged with first degree rape.

 

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet came to America on a tourist visa and immediately applied for asylum due to persecution in Egypt. They were “persecuting” him, because he was a member of Gama’a Islamiyya, an Islamic terrorist group. But thanks to Barney Frank’s 1989 amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, he couldn’t be blocked from coming to America.

 

In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged they had lost track of millions of people overstaying their visas. Two years later, they lost track of 266 dangerous foreigners that posed “national security or public safety concerns”, according to the Director of Homeland Security.

 

Are these the type of people Americans really wish to give U.S. citizenship? Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as some Leftist judges assert.

 

In a statement on March 27th, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions warned sanctuary cities across America to enforce U.S. immigration law and cooperate with federal authorities or lose federal funding. He made it clear that any failure to correct violations of 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 could result in the termination of all future Office of Justice grants. Sessions added that Kate Steinle’s murder in San Francisco two years ago, by an illegal alien, was a direct result of San Francisco’s policy of refusing to honor federal detainer warrants.

 

Denying anyone entry into the country, especially for security concerns, is the sovereign right of our nation. The rulings from U.S. District judges such as James Robart, Leonie Brinkema and Dolly Gee, [GOPTheDailyDose.com & AFA.net] as well as upcoming ACLU lawsuits aimed at Jeff Sessions announcement, that suggest otherwise have absolutely no basis in the Constitution or the U.S. legal code; an affirmative legal right for any foreigner to immigrate to America does not exist, but the legal system is being manipulated to create a default “right” to immigrate, damaging our sovereignty and infringing upon our right to self-government, in the name of open borders.

 

Detailed in government statistics, twenty-five people are killed each day in America by illegal aliens. What is the affirmative case for such an insane policy? How does it make America better?

 

The current federal court systems have taken the very same laws used by every other president, and they have made them seem anomalous, unConstitutional, even illegal, when President Trump attempts to use them. These courts are overreaching their powers and abrogating the Constitution, when they allow illegal aliens and Muslims, outside the bounds of accurate security assessments, to remain in the country against the national will.

 

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, but Commie Progressive Democrats seem to be more concerned with protecting the rights of illegal aliens from Central America and the Middle East more than they care to protect the person, rights and life of any U.S. citizen. They would rather protect the privileges of well-connected elitists and LARAZA, ACLU commies and Muslim Brotherhood [CAIR] terrorists. But what about the right of a teenage girl to be protected from being raped by illegal aliens — the rights of millions of Americans to be protected from being maimed and murdered by the Sons of Mohammed?

 

No American who loves his country can allow this total disregard for our Constitution to stand. The President and Congress must forcefully and definitively squash the Courts’ power over this issue and remove their inordinate power. Otherwise, America will become unrecognizable, a mere shadow of Her former glory.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Judge Watson’s TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and PREJUDGEMENT!


Paul Sutliff cites from Judge Watson’s TRO to demonstrate the injunction does not even come close to Constitutional mustard and thus should be disqualified immediately by SCOTUS. Sutliff goes further and demands that Judge Watson’s blatant politicization above the Constitution is grounds for impeachment from his Judiciary Office. For that matter, it should be grounds for impeachment of any Judge or Justice that cites non-constitutional circumstances above the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/17/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

Judge Watson’s TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and PREJUDGEMENT!

 

By Paul Sutliff

March 16, 2017 3:38 PM

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Judge Derrick Watson TRO against Trump EO Travel Ban

 

As I read the Order Granting the Temporary Retraining Order (TRO) in STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH vs. Donald J. Trump, et. al., I began to wonder how this document was written with any assemblance of juris prudence professionalism. I say this knowing it is practically impossible for a judge to write a 42 page document excluding the title page which makes 43 in a matter of two hours. I took an extra step to verify this by talking to lawyers who had seen judges using their clerk’s assistance to complete maybe 12 pages in two hours due to needed discussion and citation verification not to mention proof reading.

 

I suggest every American read this ruling to discover what I did. Namely, that US District Court Judge Derrick Watson who awarded the TRO had the majority of the decision pre-written prior to entering the court! This TRO then becomes an example of unethical conduct of a judge.

 

The State of Hawaii presented a case claiming economic hardship should these six countries be banned. Among the claims of economic hardship was a statement that tourism declined by 100 persons from the Middle East. Notably absent is whether there was an increase or decrease in tourism for the month in question as compared to last year.

 

Yet, even Judge Derrick Watson admits in a FOOTNOTE:

 

Footnote 8: This data relates to the prior Executive Order No. 13,769. At this preliminary stage, the Court looks to the earlier order’s effect on tourism in order to gauge the economic impact of the new Executive Order, while understanding that the provisions of the two differ. Because the new Executive Order has yet to take effect, its precise economic impact cannot presently be determined.” (pgs. 20-21)

 

The State of Hawaii made the outlandish claim that the University of Hawai’i would suffer economical hardship. Absent is a statement of how many students from these six countries currently are enrolled and how many are generally recruited a year. Somewhat humorously, the state claimed:

 

… that any prospective recruits who are without visas as of March 16, 2017 will not be able to travel to Hawaii to attend the University. As a result, the University will not be able to collect the tuition that those students would have paid.

 

Oh, the insanity! The college can NOT collect from students who can NOT legally enter the United States is a hardship??? Well just how many students are we talking about? Better yet, are these foreign students being given state or federal grants that enable them to attend the University of Hawai’i?

 

The State of Hawaii went on and stated that if the ban goes into effect it will likely cause the closing of the Persian Language and Culture program. Oh the insanity in deleting a program that requires TWO instructors!!! Below is a screenshot pulled from their site listing their academic instructors! ALL TWO OF THEM!!!

 

Persian Language & Culture Profs screen shot

 

Dr. Ismail Elshikh is listed as the co-litigant. Interestingly this name is misspelled possibly purposefully because his name is listed in news articles as “Ismail El Sheikh.” While it is not uncommon for Arabs to use various transliterations of English for their name, it is not acceptable for someone who has lived in America for some time to do this. I want to have this issue resolved and to understand the meaning behind the misspelling.

 

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh claims that his children are suffering hardship because his mother-in-law is not able to come to America, though it was established that she is in the process of being able to come due to family being here.

 

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh is quoted in the TRO as having stated:

 

  • … that the effects of the Executive Order are “devastating to me, my wife and children.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 66-1.

 

  • “deeply saddened by the message that [both Executive Orders] convey—that a broad travel-ban is ‘needed’ to prevent people from certain Muslim countries from entering the United States.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 1

 

  • “Because of my allegiance to America, and my deep belief in the American ideals of democracy and equality, I am deeply saddened by the passage of the Executive Order barring nationals from now-six Muslim majority countries from entering the United States.”; id. ¶ 3

 

  • [“My children] are deeply affected by the knowledge that the United States—their own country—would discriminate against individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them, including members of their own family, and who 25 hold the same religious beliefs. They do not fully understand why this is happening, but they feel hurt, confused, and sad.”

 

I am further at a loss when I read on page 23-24:

 

Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 2007)  (“The concept of a ‘concrete’ injury is particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause     context.”). “The standing question, in plain English, is whether adherents to a religion have standing to challenge an official condemnation by their government of their religious views[.] Their ‘personal stake’ assures the ‘concrete adverseness’ 24 required.” Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1048–49.

 

The TRO was awarded with the claim that it violates Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh’s First Amendment rights! Yet his rights have never been in violation! At no time, and in no place in the TRO does it state that his rights were in question!! Rather the statement is that NON-Citizens First Amendment rights are being violated!!!

 

The bill makes no illusions to religion at all. Even though they do quote an adviser to the president they do not provide proof that there is a ban on a religion. Which of course can be easily disproved by naming off Muslim countries that have no ban!

 

On Page 27 the ruling states:

 

(“Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is not based on speculation about a particular future prosecution or the defeat of a particular ballot question. . . . Here, the issue presented requires no further factual development, is largely a legal question, and chills allegedly protected First Amendment expression.”); see also     Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the threatened enforcement effort implicates First Amendment [free speech] rights, the inquiry tilts dramatically toward a finding of standing.”). The Court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO.

 

The mentioning of freedom of speech makes no sense here! Is this evidence that Judge Derrick Watson could not find judicial reasoning to support his conclusion?? Can anyone see logic in this ruling?

 

The TRO decision states:

 

“Indeed, the Government defends the Executive Order principally because of its religiously neutral text —“[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. [The Executive Order] applies to all individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion.” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 40. The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population . . . [T]he suspension covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim individuals[.]” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 42.

 

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment 31 Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,” because “the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not. (p. 30-31)

 

Interestingly, this statement quotes the last judge who ruled against President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration restrictions but tries to hide doing so in not revealing the citation:

 

the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution.

 

Worse still is the lack in understanding that they are using math to justify their reasoning while stating that math should not be used for this purpose. This also demonstrates that the judgement was given prejudicially be not applying statistical analysis in math to examine why those six countries were deemed to be terrorist supporter countries. This provides a one-sided view. Something judges are not supposed to do.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This TRO’s standing is based on a belief that people who are not American citizens are under the US Constitution! This is highly misleading, unethical and teem of nothing but judicial activism!

 

Where is the outrage? Why are the major media outlets not asking these questions? Because it would not fit their narrative? If Judge Derrick Watson is not removed for unethical and unConstitutional activism, all of America will suffer! Call your Senator ask for Judge Derrick Watson to be impeached today! The evidence is all in the TRO.

__________________

Edited by John R.  Houk

 

About Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jiihad

 

The 9th Court Usurps Power!


Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

 

Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.

 

JRH 2/14/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

The 9th Court Usurps Power!

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/13/2017 7:19 AM

 

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

 

It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality  of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.

 

There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.

 

And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]

 

In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4-  Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.

 

No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.

 

People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

 

Why weren’t all of these anti-American leftist judges evoking Emma Lazarus and Lady Liberty lifting her lamp “beside the golden door” when President Clinton sent little 6 year old Elian Gonzalez back to a communist dictatorship in Cuba, under the executive branch’s broad power? Or when President Obama turned away real refugees fleeing Castro’s oppression “yearning to breathe free“? [Blog Editor: See Also Breitbart & 100% Fed Up]

 

America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.

 

Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.

 

Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.

 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.

 

Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”

 

How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.

 

Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

 

President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans


e-pluribus-unum-vs-multiculturalist-left

When the 9th Circuit Appeals Court upheld a Lower Court stay on President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning citizens, refugees, and immigrants from seven nations that are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism, it demonstrated how Leftist Activist Judges ignore the Constitution in favor of Leftist utopianism. The American Left might as rip up the Constitution and burn the scraps of paper.

 

Paul Sutliff demonstrates how the 9th circuit is torching the U.S. Constitution with misinformation to justify Multiculturalist utopian goals.

 

JRH 2/11/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans

u-s-9th-circuit-deceives-american 

By Paul Sutliff 

February 9, 2017

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

The New York Post wrote an article on February 9th that clearly shows the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, carefully choosing words for the purpose of creating misinformation for the media to share with their readers and viewers regarding their actions against President Trump’s Executive Order. According to that article the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that an alien of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the three-member panel wrote.”

 

The terminology “perpetrated a terrorist attack” explicitly excludes all actions prevented or attempted that did not result in a terror attack. Why is this important? There are at least 38 terrorists who were killed or arrested as they worked to be supportive of the Islamic State AND who were also classified as immigrants/refugees at one time. In addition, there are at least 6 persons who were killed or arrested for attempting an act of terror who were second generation Americans refugees. I filed this information in a federally filed affidavit in September 2016 as an Expert Witness. You will notice people from countries other than the seven countries listed in Trump’s ban.

All the information in the graphs below originated in the Threat Knowledge Group last accessed in September 2016, whose site was disabled recently with President Trump’s appointment of Sebastian Gorka, with the exception of the information in the last column which I found. Actual sources for the information cited in the last column is provided in my Affidavit.

 

APPENDIX C 1

 is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees

 

APPENDIX C 2

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-2 

 

APPENDIX C 3

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-3 

 

APPENDIX C 4

 is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-4

 

APPENDIX C 5

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-5

 

____________________

Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jiihad! https://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-68237-562-4

 

One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom


in-memory-of-lavoy-finicum-american-patriot

It was about a year ago that LaVoy Finicum was shot to death by Federal and Oregon State law enforcement UNJUSTLY. Justin reminds us that government tyranny is very possible in America – especially in an America that has a Dem Party Administration that has consistently lied to Americans for EIGHT YEARS.

 

JRH 1/24/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/23/2017 7:38 AM

 

Destroyers are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state … ” — Nietzsche

 

Americans should pause and take some time to recall and celebrate the life of Robert LaVoy Finicum, an American patriot, who loved his family, God and country. He placed his life on the line in defense of all Americans’ right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, joining the ranks of thousands of other ranchers who have been fighting the overreaches of the federal government and the tyranny of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the past forty years. Robert LaVoy Finicum died on January 26th, 2016, one day before his 55th birthday, defending the U.S. Constitution and this America he loved so well.

 

By all accounts, LaVoy Finicum was “a quiet man who worked his to-do list from sun-up to sundown” (The Oregonian) and had a “light reading” list that included many history books, the U.S. Constitution and Alexis de Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’. He also thoroughly enjoyed his big family – his wife and eleven children – and their evening discussions on the Scriptures, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ ideas on freedom.

 

Although Finicum had generally viewed his interaction with the BLM to be “very good” over the years, he became active in opposing them in 2014, after the BLM fined him $12,000 and claimed his cattle had grazed on federal lands past his allotted permit time. He was also heavily influenced by his own research into the BLM and the high-handed tactics he witnessed the BLM employ against the Bundy family in 2014.

 

Finicum rode with Cliven and Ammon Bundy on their Nevada Ranch in April of 2014, along with hundreds of other supporters, in order to reinforce the fact that Bundy’s grazing and water rights, documented in an 1878 title, predated any BLM claims and had to be honored by the BLM. And when the BLM moved along Interstate 15 to confiscate Bundy’s cattle on April 5th, Finicum, the Bundy family members and well-armed supporters stopped them cold where they stood; this would become a sore-point for the FBI that carried over to the Malheur Wildlife Reserve occupation in 2016 and the stand-off near Burns, Oregon.

 

After the Bundy Ranch Stand-Off, LaVoy Finicum said: “I had to do a lot of soul searching. I realized that Cliven Bundy was standing on a very strong constitutional principle, and yet, here I was continuing to pay a grazing fee to the BLM.”

 

Finicum and the Bundy clan understood that the Enclave Clause [Thoughts from 2014 & 2016] (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution) did not allow government bureaucrats to act like kings and ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments, and it did not authorize the BLM to arbitrarily seize the water rights, cattle and property of ranchers and arrogantly nullify 200 years of constitutional history. They understood, much like the U.S. Supreme Court (New York v. U.S.), that the Constitution is not a tool to protect the sovereignty of the State or for the benefit of government officials, but rather, the Constitution secures all Americans’ liberties through the diffusion of sovereign power.

 

However, the BLM sees things differently. Many cases spanning the years can be found, that are similar to Raymond Yowell’s experience. The BLM garnished the $200 Social Security check of this former chief of the Shoshone Indian Tribe and seized 132 head of his cattle in 2002, for grazing “unlawfully” on government lands. The BLM sold Yowell’s cattle at auction and pocketed the money.

 

Between 2006 and 2012, the BLM had intimidated and finally charged Steven and Dwight Hammond with nine federal counts of arson for setting backfires on their own lands that supposedly spread to federal land. The Hammonds were subsequently imprisoned, released and then sent back to prison, even though the facts illuminated that some of those out-of-control backfires actually originated with BLM employees, in an attempt to stop several lightning strike fires such as the Granddad fire that burned 46,000 acres.

 

Politics played heavily in the cases regarding Steven and Dwight Hammond, because the BLM wanted the Hammond ranch. Gold mining companies like Calico Resource USA out of Vancouver, Canada and uranium mining concerns like Australian owned Oregon Energy LLC had their eyes on the area, and the BLM was hoping to profit and grow more powerful through the General Mining Law of 1872.

 

All the great ideas and principles that shaped America went with LaVoy Finicum, as he and many other American Patriots occupied Oregon’s Malheur (French for “misfortune” or “tragedy”) National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles from Burns, Oregon, in order to force the return of 188,000 acres to local control and the release of the Hammond brothers from prison. They acted through peaceful, political protest, even though they were armed to ensure the security of their protest, and they advocated for property and states’ rights, as they took a hard stand against federal ownership of 250 million acres in America and years of oppression by the BLM and several other government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Twenty-five days into the protest, Robert LaVoy Finicum, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Ryan Payne and Victoria Sharp headed to John Day, Oregon for a “singing” and a meeting with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer to discuss their demands, explain their views to local people and seek a peaceful end to the stand-off. But they were ambushed along the way by the Oregon State Patrol and the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, which used combat-grade operation protocols rather than “civilian” deadly force standards, firing once without warning at the initial stop, according to many witnesses, and numerous times at the second roadblock using concussion and live rounds.

 

Does this remind anyone else of Ruby Ridge and the murders of Randy Weaver’s wife and son by the FBI?

 

If the federal authorities had been serious about desiring a peaceful resolution to this conflict, they could have coordinated with Sheriff Palmer to arrest Finicum, if just cause existed for an arrest (they knew Finicum’s destination). Instead they chose to shoot him numerous times and refuse him medical attention from Victoria Sharp, a trained EMT and his friend, as he lay on the snowy ground dying. They murdered LaVoy on a lonely, desolate stretch of Highway 395.

 

If the FBI had negotiated LaVoy Finicum’s peaceful surrender, as they certainly could have, he would simply have been taken into custody and released after his acquittal by a jury, just in the same manner that a jury acquitted his so-called “co-conspirators” in October 2016, including Ammon Bundy and a friend and activist, Shawna Cox. And, it should alarm everyone that the HRT agents initially concealed the fact they had fired their weapons during the stop.

 

Upon her release, Shawna Cox made a plea before a mass of TV cameras and supporters, imploring: “We have to be vigilant people. Wake up America, and help us restore the Constitution. Don’t sleep with your head in the sand.

 

Isn’t it odd that FBI agents, who are sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution — lawyers all — regularly side with government imposed tyranny against U.S. citizens?

 

Arianna Finicum Brown, LaVoy’s 27 year old daughter, stated shortly after his death: “My Dad was such a good man, through and through. He would never want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved.

 

During LaVoy’s funeral, his brother, Guy Finicum remarked on LaVoy’s deep faith in God, adding: “He has absolute confidence that he will be with his family again. He believes that as much as he believes the sun will rise. And that’s what gave him the ability to do what he did. He always looked at a higher goal.”

 

When any government, including ours, puts forth its strength on the side of injustice and murders fine men like LaVoy Finicum, it reveals itself as a mere brute force, and it becomes apparent more than ever that tyranny rules. And other patriots are served warning to desist their opposition or meet the same fate.

 

And what are Americans to think of a government to which all the truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between it and those whom it oppresses?

 

Robert LaVoy Finicum did not recognize unjust human laws, and he persistently stood for the dignity of human nature, knowing himself for a man, the equal of any government. He regularly fought against established injustices and the hypocrites of bureaucracies who seemed to ask, “Why do you assault us”. And LaVoy’s death — the death of an American hero — was like the planting of a good seed, and it is giving rise to a new crop of American heroes.

 

By Justin O. Smith

+++

Youtube video added by Blog Editor:

 

VIDEO: Video shows two camera angles of LaVoy Finicum shooting

 

Posted by The Oregonian

Published on Mar 8, 2016

 

In a video shown at a Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office press conference today, the aerial FBI video of the LaVoy Finicum shooting has been synced with a cellphone video Shawna Cox recorded from within Finicum’s truck.

 

The rest is The Oregonian subscription & social media information

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links are by the Editor and all text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST


constitution-convention

Intro to ‘THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

Edited by John R. Houk

By J.B. Williams

Posted December 30, 2016

 

I am a great believer in the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. And by foundation, I mean the rough Original Intent (more detail of Originalism) of America’s Founding Fathers that were invested in framing our Republic’s Founding Document.

 

That being said, I am hardly a Constitutional expert. Academically I proceeded only to a Bachelor of Arts in History from a small college in the central part of Washington State (the more Conservative side of the Leftist State and in a day and time when Profs were fairly equal in Liberal and Conservative viewpoints).

 

BUT, I can read the Constitution and The Federalist Papers (the selling point of the Constitution). THIS MEANS lame duck President Barack Hussein Obama – a self-described Constitutional expert – has gone to great lengths to promote the concept of a Living Constitution which essentially tosses out the Original Intent to be replaced with a make-it-up as you go along rule of law to fit whatever Elitist concept of man-law is valid for the day.

 

J.B. Williams has some thoughts on Original Intent that most will agree with and some – including myself – thoughts Originalists might have to think twice about.

 

JRH 12/30/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

 

By J.B. Williams

December 29, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

 

After many years of abusive and tyrannical federal intrusions into state, local and private personal affairs, protected freedoms and liberties, well beyond the constitutional authority granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, it has become necessary to return to our founding principles and values, to restate and enforce the Rule of Constitutional Law in preservation of our once free republic.

 

It has also become socially popular to proclaim the name of constitutionalist, an indication of both knowledge of and reverence for our Charters of Freedom. Yet too many constitutionalists are not even vaguely familiar with the Charters of Freedom, often calling for alterations to our form of self-governance in the name of constitutional conscience, but at odds with constitutional text, wisdom and intent.

 

The Obama Administration has indeed been historic in many ways, first and foremost, the failed but extreme effort to “fundamentally transform” our sovereign Constitutional Republic into a secular socialist member of a criminal global commune. No previous President has ever done so much to destroy the republic or their own political party, Obama having lost the Democratic Party more than 1000 political seats in less than eight years.

 

The 2016 revolt of the people that resulted in the historic election of political outsider Donald J. Trump also resulted in Republicans gaining control of both chambers of Congress, 2/3 of the state governorships and all but 13 of the 50 state legislatures. In short, the Obama era has been disastrous for both the country and his party.

 

Still, even Barack Hussein Obama claims constitutional expertise and reverence, as he works day in and day out to destroy everything the Founders created some 240 years ago. Like many modern lawyers trained in Common Law [noun: common law is the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes;] instead of Constitutional Law based in Natural Law, experts with a left-leaning agenda may be experts, but use that expertise to undermine and subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law rather than uphold and preserve it. Three great examples of this is demonstrated by the open assault on States’ Rights, the call for congressional term limits and the end of the Electoral College.

 

Because the vast majority of Americans stopped being forever vigilant in self-governance long ago, many now seek what they believe to be shortcut solutions to solve the natural consequences of a society no longer informed or engaged in self-governance. These notions are at odds with both constitutional text and intent.

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

 

People have referred to the U.S.A. as a “democracy” for far too long. The Founders took great pains to avoid establishing a pure “popular vote” only form of democracy, referred to by our Founders as nothing more than “mob rule.”

 

To assure that the U.S.A. would never be a pure democracy ruled by popular referendum alone, the Electoral College was created to prevent an entire nation from falling under the rule of “the mob” huddled in a handful of high population centers which always lean left politically due to the inherent challenges of inner city life.

 

The 2016 election provides a perfect example of exactly what the Founders had in mind when they established the Electoral College. Of our 50 states in the union, Trump won 30, or 60%. Of our 3142 counties across the country, Trump won 2523 (80.3%) to Clinton 490 (15.6%). Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would have (allegedly) won the 2016 election by popular vote (pure democracy), despite 80.3% of the counties and 60% of the states voting against her.

 

I say “allegedly” because the actual popular vote numbers are horribly tainted by vote fraud and illegal alien votes in places like California. We actually don’t know (and never will know) the real outcome of the legitimate popular vote, which is again, why the Electoral College exists.

 

To eliminate the Electoral College would be to destroy the Founders constitutional guarantee to every state of the union under Section 4 of Article IV, a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy.

 

So, why do many modern self-proclaimed constitutionalists demand an end to the Electoral College?

 

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 

Many constitutionalists seek a quick fix for a general lack of public oversight of congress by arguing in favor of congressional term limits. Once again, this concept is wholly at odds with constitutional text and intent.

 

To be certain, past alterations in constitutional intent for congress, such as the 17th Amendment which ended states representation in the U.S. Senate by using popular vote instead of state legislatures to elect senators, along with the power of incumbency, has made the concept of term limits look attractive to many.

 

But as is the case with all alterations to the original design and intent, those alterations come at a high price. Some even seek term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court, at risk of great peril. Members of that court or any other can be removed from the court in an instant for anything deemed to be “bad behavior,” which should certainly include failing to uphold and enforce the Supreme Law of this land.

 

The House of Representatives (by congressional district) was originally intended to be the most powerful branch of the federal government, as it was designed to be the branch closest to the people with only two-year terms. Members are term limited to two years of service, unless the people re-elect.

 

The U.S. Senate was originally designed to represent States’ interests only, which is why senators were to be elected by State Legislatures (not popular vote) and each state assigned the same number of senators regardless of population, two per state. The passage of the 17th Amendment eliminated the U.S. Senate as a body representing State interests and essentially eliminate states’ rights in the process. Senators are term limited to six years of service unless reelected.

 

The problem is the people are not forever vigilant. Incumbency has become so powerful not just because of the money available to incumbent’s vs challengers, but because the people tend to reelect repeatedly unless a senator is such a bad actor that they simply must replace them.

 

The downside to additional term limits is that it is not the incumbents being tossed out, but rather the voters. The will of the people is overruled by the clock. No matter how good a member of congress might perform, they are forced to leave when the clock runs out. There are no guarantees that the seat will be filled with someone better suited to the position, just because the clock ran out. In fact, more often than not, we would end up with someone worse, as most decent and honorable people do not seek public office at all.

 

Had the Founders seen a need and benefit to additional term limits, they would have placed them in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They didn’t… So, why do many constitutionalists seek to alter the Founders design when it comes to term limits?

 

STATES’ RIGHTS

 

The primary rights of every state of the union is to be secure in their independent sovereignty and they are guaranteed a republican form of government, not a democracy.

 

So, when the federal government becomes abusive or destructive of state sovereignty and rights, it is the power of each state to check the federal government and force it back into constitutional boundaries, alter or abolish it altogether.

 

For the past eight years of the Obama regime, many states have sought to check the federal government abuses by numerous means, from State Level 10th Amendment bills like The Balance of Powers Act to individual issue nullification efforts, or even chatter about State Conventions and secession, all of it thwarted by left-leaning politicians and courts seeking to expand federal authority beyond constitutional boundaries via broad interpretations of federal supremacy.

 

Now that Trump will be taking the reins of the federal government on January 21, 2017, even many democrat politicians are suddenly supportive of 10th Amendment protections against federal abuses of power – something they entirely opposed while their dictator-in-chief was in power.

 

But once again, many constitutionalists overlook the power of the 10th Amendment and the states to force the federal government back into constitutional compliance in their efforts to find a quick cure-all for federal tyranny. They know that the federal government was created by and exists at the pleasure of the member states, but fail to look to those states to solve federal abuses and expansions of power.

 

The truth of the matter is that no matter which political party or person is in power at the federal level at any given time, none of them will operate within constitutional boundaries unless forced to do so by the states and the people.

 

The Constitution vs. The Constitutionalists

 

Not everyone who claims the title of constitutionalist is one. Many have never even red the document much less the underpinning for everything in it, Natural Law. Thus, many find themselves working for “unconstitutional” solutions to problems easily remedied within the original constitutional text and intent.

 

Political points of view and related agendas drive the dialogue. People with progressive-leanings interpret constitutional text entirely different than those with libertarian-leanings. Those who think we are a democracy will interpret text entirely different than those who know why we are a republic. The agenda drives the interpretation, instead of the original text and intent driving the agenda.

 

No true constitutionalist believes that the original document can be improved upon with additional alterations. Every real constitutionalist knows that the document has been altered far too much already. The solution is not to alter it further, but rather to unwind some of the past alterations that have served only to undermine the original text and intent.

 

When considering which “constitutionalist” to follow in your political activism, look at who is seeking to further amend the original document vs who is looking to restore and enforce the original text and intent.

 

Despite the human tendency to see ourselves as the smartest person in any room these days, the reality is there is no one alive today who is wiser than the original Founders. There is no one alive today who can improve upon the divinely inspired work of our Founding Fathers.

 

Only someone who understands this is a true constitutionalist!

 

______________

© 2016 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

 

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He is co-author of the just released book – TRUMPED – The New American Revolution – with co-author Timothy Harrington, published by COFBooks.com. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, author and writer as well as a small business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization focused upon constitutionally protected Natural Rights under Natural Law. Williams also co-hosts TNALC Radio every Sunday evening at 5:00 PM ET with TNALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon and he receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com

 

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

Web site 3: www.COFBooks.com

Web site 4: www.TNALC.org

Web site 5: www.patriotvoice.net/TNALC

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com

 

The Continuing Relevance of the Constitution


constitution-we-the-people

Most Conservatives (me included) voted for Trump primarily of the disaster a Crooked Hillary would present to the further depreciation of the U.S. Constitution corrupted incredibly by President Barack Hussein Obama. President-Elect Trump made a number of promises that I enjoyed hearing but kind of would like to see the proof of the promised pudding.

 

The Heritage Foundation is launching a back to the Constitution agenda which points to an article at the Daily Signal (a Heritage Foundation apparatus).

 

JRH 11/30/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

The Continuing Relevance of the Constitution

 

By Larry Arnn

November 28, 2016

The Daily Signal

 

Public policy is often exciting and urgent. When a war begins or ends, when votes are counted in an election, or when a major bill is passed, everyone senses the magnitude of the event.

 

Some struggles end and new struggles begin. Consequences carry far into the future. Compared to this, and especially given the way we think today, the Constitution seems like a boring subject.

 

But how do we know whether the public policies we adopt are good? How do we know whether the results of the election will be happy? How even do we know if the war we have fought was worth it?

 

Those questions cannot be answered except by reference to things that are outside the immediate excitement and even our immediate needs.

 

These larger and more enduring things cannot be understood without understanding what we are, how we should live, how best over the long term we can achieve a good life and be free. Somehow, urgent things have to be judged in light of ultimate things.

 

The profoundest example of this is in our famous Declaration of Independence. The people of America decided to form their own country. It was an act of rebellion. It would carry a death sentence for many if the revolution failed, and it did carry that sentence for many in the subsequent war.

 

How remarkable that in this urgent moment, they would base what they did upon the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” They were looking upward toward the eternal as they began their battle. That is one of the essential reasons why they succeeded.

 

How can we remember to do this kind of thinking, when so many urgent things press upon us and when hundreds of millions of us participate?

 

The answer is given best of all in history by the Constitution of the United States, the partner of the declaration, prefigured in its middle passages.

 

The purpose of the Constitution is to ground the government in the people’s authority. It is also to make both we and our government thoughtful. “It is our reason alone,” writes James Madison, “that must be placed in control of the government. Our passions must be controlled by it.”

 

Under the Constitution, it takes time to do big things: We must think before we act. The Constitution divides power across the land and between levels and branches of government; the people and the parts of the government must cooperate if anything is to be done.

 

To get a majority, they must give reasons—out loud and in front of millions. This encourages candor and discourages the rankest forms of partisanship.

 

Yes, it is still partisan, but at our best moments we are better than anywhere else. Moreover, the Constitution limits what we can do to each other, teaching us self-restraint and independence.

 

In recent decades, our country has suffered public policy disasters. We have fought many wars without decisive victory. We have spent many trillions without removing the problems they were designed to remove. We have become a great debtor nation with fewer reserves, even if our reserves are still great.

 

These facts are connected to the compromising of our constitutional practices. We have changed the way we make laws. The government is less accountable, and the laws are more numerous and impossible to understand.

 

We have made government more centralized, and so its proper central functions—especially defense—are starved for resources.

 

As the government gets bigger, the people get smaller. They are regulated in their private lives, obstructed when they strive, subsidized in many cases into failure. This is just what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

 

No institution has done more to describe and promote public policy from the conservative point of view than The Heritage Foundation. It was born decades ago for specifically this purpose. It has always had an interest in the Constitution.

 

Now, it is bringing together all of its efforts relating to that great document into the Institute for Constitutional Government, launching Nov. 29, to achieve better focus. As a friend of the Constitution and of Heritage, I am proud of this.

 

It can only be good. Our freedom is at stake. We will not save it without restoring our Constitution.

 

___________________

Larry Arnn is the president of Hillsdale College and a professor of politics and history, teaching courses on Aristotle, on Winston Churchill, and on the American Constitution. He is also a trustee at The Heritage Foundation.

 

Your donation will support The Daily Signal’s investigative journalism, groundbreaking reporting, and conservative policy analysis on today’s most critical issues. Donate to support us today.

 

About The Daily Signal

 

The Daily Signal delivers investigative and feature reporting and the most important political news and commentary. The team is committed to truth and unmatched in knowledge of Washington’s politics and policy debates. We tell these stories in formats that respect your time and intelligence.

 

 

The Daily Signal provides policy and political news as well as conservative commentary and policy analysis—in a fresh, visually rich, readable format for your desktop, tablet or phone.

 

 

We are committed to news coverage that is accurate, fair and trustworthy. As we surveyed the media landscape, it became clear to us that the need for honest, thorough, responsible reporting has never been more critical. That’s a challenge in today’s fast-moving world. And it’s a READ ENTIRETY