Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:


SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

 

Here is a quote that rings true about Lower Federal Courts striking down President Trump’s Executive Order travel ban from Islamic terrorist ridden nations or areas:

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law”.

 

The quote comes from journalist author Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Press speculating with some positive certainty that SCOTUS will strike down the Lower Courts to President Trump’s favor.

 

Gibbs’ positivism comes from the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.

 

I pray Gibbs is correct. We are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth waiting to elect him as President.

 

There are roughly two trains of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.

 

President Trump’s EOs ran into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution interpretation.

 

The Activist Judges struck down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.

 

If a majority of SCOTUS Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S. Government.

 

WHY?

 

Because a Living Constitution Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:

 

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: August 18, 1821

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. (Thomas Jefferson – It has longQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. (The JudiciaryQuotes Database)

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge Spencer Roane

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: September 6, 1819

The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (The ConstitutionQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it ProvesQuotes Database)

 

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 47

Categories: Separation of Powers

Date: January 30, 1788

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (The Accumulation of all PowersQuotes Database)

 

These are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category Separation of Powers Quotations.

 

My concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.

 

The President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders. How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.

 

Here is some further reading:

 

Why Judicial Supremacy Isn’t Compatible with Constitutional Supremacy; By RAMESH PONNURU; National Review; 9/10/15 4:00 AM

 

Living Constitution, fancy words for judicial tyranny; Posted by Dstarr; News from the Northwoods; 2/15/16 3:22 PM

 

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny; By Tenth Amendment Center; 6/4/12

 

A ‘Living Constitution’ for a Dying Republic; By Mark Alexander; The Patriot Post; 9/16/05

 

JRH 6/4/17

 Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

June 4, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed.  Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.

 

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.

 

Based on the original intent of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law.

 

There is no authority granted to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.

 

If President Trump understood all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway.  The courts have no enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.

 

However, the president decided to let the courts decide, and the next stop within days will likely be the United States Supreme Court.  A ruling is expected soon that would, based on their “opinion” and the current misguided view of the Constitution, lift a temporary stay on President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue.  The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction.  It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited.  It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States.  As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.

 

The Democrats have somehow equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War II.  The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.

 

As Commander in Chief, among his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to accomplish.  Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed.  If Islam doesn’t want us fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own house (if that is even possible).  The problem is, like the Germans who were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point.  The violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are not in agreement with the violence.

 

We, as a nation, have the right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).

 

While there is no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again, I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . . aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the issue.  Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending.  Trump’s Justice Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.

 

According to Fox News:

 

“The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”

 

The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should.  Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the duties of the President as Commander in Chief.  His job to protect the United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is disgusting, and unconstitutional.

 

The executive order is the second one.  Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March 6.  The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also removed Iraq from the list of countries.

 

Officials say the new executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.

 

The appeals court said its decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning Muslims.”

 

Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

 

Intolerance?  The Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding.  What about Islamic intolerance?  How about we ban mosques in the United States until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues on their lands.  Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite?  What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority countries?  Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?

 

By the way, the law that started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to our national security.  It was passed during a time when we as a country were worried about communist infiltration.  Some Democrats weren’t too happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored law.  Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do you?

 

The court’s attacks against the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their bad constitutional behavior.  Congress should also pass law nullifying each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).

 

The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.

 

The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.  They are not supposed to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or existed) to take care of that.  The judicial branch’s job is clear.  Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear.  If they believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion so that Congress may reconsider the law.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law.  These leftist judges are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.

 

They all need to be thrown off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court – again, an authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.

________________

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:

SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

________________

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com

 

Intro to Greg Zotta Relating to Islam


John R. Houk

© May 11, 2017

 

I found a disturbing but not surprising article posted at WND by Leo Hohmann. The title: EX-OBAMA ADVISER ROOTS FOR MORE ISIS SLAUGHTERING OF CHRISTIANS. The ex-Obama adviser: Mohamed Elibiary.

 

Elibiary adviser job: He “served five years on President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council and was instrumental in the rollout of Obama’s countering violent extremism pilot program, which took the heat off of Islam as the inspiration for global terrorism.”

 

The theme of the article from Hohmann:

 

“On Sunday, he stepped back up to the plate and delivered a stinging tweet against the Middle East’s largest Christian community – the Coptic Christians of Egypt.

 

In its latest magazine, ISIS threatened more attacks on Egypt’s Christians.

 

So what was the reaction from Elibiary?

 

He says Egypt’s Copts have it coming”. (Bold text by Editor)

 

I shared the article on various Social Media sites. Here is the wording I used including the Facebook Group Islam the cold hard facts and truth:

 

Barack Obama’s former Homeland Security Adviser & Muslim Brotherhood agent praises Islamic terrorism against Christians.

 

Greg Zotta then gives his very insightful comment which is worth blogging for all to read.

 

JRH 5/11/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Greg Zotta Comment to ‘EX-OBAMA ADVISER ROOTS FOR MORE ISIS SLAUGHTERING OF CHRISTIANS

Comment posted 3/10/17 9:48pm

Facebook Group: Islam the cold hard facts and truth

 

The United States does not want nor need what has been happening to the various countries in Europe with the invasion of Muslims.

 

Muslims will not assimilate into the American culture and Sharia Law is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution. Islam is a political and military system masquerading as a religion.

 

Their prophet Mohammed was a pedophile rapist, slaver and mass murderer.

 

Muslims believe the infidels will have to convert to Islam, be enslaved or be killed.

 

Muslims can lie to the infidel to promote Islam called Taqiyya, so they cannot be trusted.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood calls for a **“Civilization-Jihadist Process,” in which they would destroy the Western civilization from within.

 

They said they would use the Constitution, such as the First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion against the U.S. to further their goal of World Islam.

 

They state, we do not want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy. That is what we want. “We Will Raise The Flag Of Allah In The White House.”

 

They will try to push Sharia law on this country if the American people do not wake up.

 

Again, Islam is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution and the American culture.

 

[Blog Editor: **Civilization-Jihadist Process —

 

What Is The Plan?

 

The memorandum spells out the plan in a few sentences:

 

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (“An Explanatory Memorandum” – The Brotherhood’s Plan; The Counter Jihad)]

 

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well as text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

Pro-Life Journalists Seek Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Free Speech, Baby Parts Case


I just finished posting about the extremely questionable prosecution, jailing and exorbitant bail against Sandra Merritt this morning. Then, I go to my email inbox. Lo and behold! I found an email from Operation Rescue reporting the Ninth Circuit of Appeals (located on the Left coast) ruled that the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) undercover obtained videos and recording cannot be turned over to the police EVEN if criminal conduct is reveal!!!!!!

 

“A three-member panel of the liberally activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that additional footage obtained through the CMP’s undercover investigations – even those recordings that contain evidence of criminal conduct committed by Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials – cannot be released to law enforcement personnel. A requested review by the full Ninth Circuit was denied.”

What is our nation coming to when even the Judicial Branch condones lawlessness in the name of protecting the Leftist transformative agenda that has hammered into American thought?

 

Here is the Operation Rescue article that was linked in my email alert.

 

JRH 5/9/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Pro-Life Journalists Seek Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Free Speech, Baby Parts Case

 

By DeAnn Flanagan

May 8, 2017

Operation Rescue

 

San Francisco, CA – The Center for Medical Progress and its founding members, including Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, are seeking to appeal a draconian Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect the First Amendment Rights of journalists to report to law enforcement evidence of crimes contained in undercover recordings.

 

A three-member panel of the liberally activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that additional footage obtained through the CMP’s undercover investigations – even those recordings that contain evidence of criminal conduct committed by Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials – cannot be released to law enforcement personnel. A requested review by the full Ninth Circuit was denied.

 

The ruling is related to a federal lawsuit, National Abortion Federation v. CMP, et al, that was filed in 2015 after the CMP released several videos showing Planned Parenthood executives haggling over top dollar to illegally sell aborted baby organs and tissue. The NAF sought to block the further release of possibly incriminating videos.

 

Attorneys for the American Center for Law and Justice are representing Newman in that case.

 

A joint motion filed May 5, 2017, is seeking a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate pending the filing of a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The motion states that the court wrongly upheld a “prior restraint” on CMP’s First Amendment speech, which had captured great public interest. The undercover videos were also the subject of investigations by House and Senate panels that later referred Planned Parenthood organizations to the U.S. Department of Justice and state Attorneys General for further criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

“Prior restraints are ‘the most serious and least tolerable infringement of First Amendment Rights,’” stated the motion to stay.

 

So radical was the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the pro-life leaders’ defense attorneys argued:

 

Outside the context of trade secrets and classified information, no federal court – other than now this Court – has upheld an order suppressing information of high public interest based simply on the agreement of the parties to do so. Other federal courts have declined to put the weight of their contempt power behind the enforcement of private agreements to defeat the public’s right to know.

 

“In a case of critical importance to free speech rights, the Ninth Circuit has wrongly barred pro-life citizen journalists from reporting crimes and submitting evidence to law enforcement. Instead, the Court has opted to protect the ability of the NAF and Planned Parenthood to conceal possible criminal activity,” said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President, Operation Rescue. “The rogue Ninth Circuit has showed their penchant for liberal, pro-abortion judicial activism once again, and we look forward to the U.S. Supreme Court once again overturning one of their grossly unconstitutional decisions.”

 

Order denying appeal to full Ninth Circuit.


Defense Motion to Stay Mandate pending SCOTUS filing.

 

_______________

Copyright © 2017 Operation Rescue, Inc. 

 

Who We Are

 

Operation Rescue® is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation. Operation Rescue® recently made headlines when it bought and closed an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas and has become perhaps the most visible voice of the pro-life activist movement in America. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the pre-born and stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates.

 

Click here to donate.


Click here to contact.

 

READ: Operation Rescue’s Non-Violent History is a Matter of Public Record

 

Troy Newman, President

 

Adopted at birth and raised in San Diego, Troy Newman has more than 27 years of experience and leadership in business and pro-life ministry with great success growing Christian organizations. Troy is an accomplished strategist with remarkable insight.

 

His vision, expertise, and leadership have  READ THE REST

 

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