Once again, Trumps immigration pause to improve vetting of those who may wish to do us harm was shut down by an Obama justice in Hawaii. U.S. District judge Derrik Kahala Watson, a fellow law graduate of Harvard law school with the former President, the judge went one step further, and proclaimed his injunction covered the entire United States. This was based on the judges interpretation giving those who want to come to our country who are not U.S. citizens the right to travel and freedom of association, rights singularly for U.S. Citizens. Using the claim that the temporary pause of immigration from six countries violates the establishment clause on the basis of religion is absurd as 44 countries that are predominantly Muslim are not on the list.

These rights have been solely given to the citizens of this country for the past two hundred years alone. Obama made appoint to ensure that he met with and had dinner with Obama the night before his ruling. A ruling that was 48 pages long and highly detailed. This judge must have worked all night to get it written, typed and proofread. Obamas shadow government must have had to work overtime to get it done.

This rights were extended to an imam by the justice strictly for the purpose of bringing his family over  because he was Muslim. It was a blatant abuse of judicial power, in effect claiming that if someone who is in our country and an immigrant has family he wants to bring over, and if he Islamic, that there must be a special right granted to bring them here, effectively ending any control over the security of the country and the ri9ght of the people. There would be no limitations on who could come here and would end any control over the borders of the country.

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of association does not include bringing non vetted immigrants to the country. The President had been given specific power over immigration as far as giving the President the right to ban any alien for any reason for any reason whatsoever. The judge in Hawaii never even mentioned this statute. Nor did he mention any prior decision made by any court that gave him this right to circumvent the Constitution or the rule of law.

It was such a misapplication of the law that five judges dissented from reviewing the original decision that has since been rescinded, and have stated about the Hawaii judges decision that it was in fact

 “filled with many, obvious and fundamental errors and went against all precedent”. No matter how we as individuals may feel about the President or the executive order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the Presidency.”

These same five judges recognize that the President has both constitutional (Article 1 Section 8) and statutory authority (the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act) to control immigration as applied to national security.8USC182 states in part:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.”

 A Ninth Circuit  former chief Justice Alex Kozinsky stated

“ There was no basis for the prior Ninth Circuit decision. This Hawaii decision goes further that any court has gone before. Hopefully it will be reviewed, but in the interim, the country’s safety is put into jeopardy because one federal judge decided to anoint himself as the one Supreme Court of the country”.

Law professors from Jonathon Turley to Jeffrey Toobin, liberal law professors have also condemned the original decision and the Hawaii overreach.  There have been countless articles written about the courts  losing credibility, and these injunctions, both the original one and the one that Hawaii and Maryland  have delayed have no precedent, and both injunctions have no historical basis in fact.

Calling it a Muslim ban has been thrown around for the past few weeks, but what if Obamas Christian ban. 95% of all immigrants over the past few years have been Muslim, only 5% Christian were allowed to flee the genocide taking place in the Middle East.

There are many areas that this judge got wrong. Used in the injunction was remarks made by President Trump during his campaign, and ignored the language of the executive order. The justification that the Executive Order in the interest of national security and were applied to these six countries  that are state sponsors of terrorism as designated by Obama with no government to assist in the vetting process.

The judiciary aggressiveness towards this President is based on the premise that the President can not be trusted. Judges must be impartial and pay continual respect to the Constitution, legislation and Supreme Court decisions. The interests of the judicial branch as irrelevant, as the competing interests and intent of the other two branches and the decision must be made about the decisions in our republic.

There is no inherent “right” to immigrate to our country. And how far can the entire argument be taken. Will we allow a rogue federal judge to stop any conflict in the future because it may harm Muslims more than others?  And as in a footnote in Hawaii, will the judiciary now being setting refugee limits contrary to established law? Will the activism of the judiciary turn us into a third world country where everyone must be let in.

This must be fought in the halls of Congress and in the courts that continue to follow the Constitution.

 

Views: 22

Comment

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Ronald A. Nelson Col.USA (Ret) on March 20, 2017 at 3:54pm

They have taken over the country... and have been in charge for the last 4 or 5 decades... the Judiciary have become arrogant and abusive... usurping powers they never had.

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service