The very heart of being a sovereign nation is providing security of one’s borders, of one’s internal situation, and security against anyone attacking one’s nation. That is the very heart of what I believe is sovereignty. —Senator John Warner
I have to laugh because even the incorrigible Howard Stern has made some strong statements against Democrats, albeit this was back in 2008. Stern claims to be a libertarian, and he said, “I have vowed, I will never vote for a Democrat again. No matter who they are. I don’t care if God becomes a Democrat. These Democrats are communists. This is communism. This is gangsterism. This is crazy.”
Robart is No Laughing Matter
As Senator John Warner stated, protecting our borders is at the heart of sovereignty, and Democrat Judge James Robart’s actions are no laughing matter. He has put the kibosh on Trump’s executive order to check refugees coming in from seven different terrorist-promoting Islamic nations to make sure they do not wish to do harm to American citizens. Why would any sane person want to stop the President from protecting us? As my retired attorney friend, Joe, said to me, “That’s really it Kelleigh, they’re insane.”
What really blows my mind is the fact that not one Federal Judge in America tried to stop even one of Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders, but President Trump’s EO to protect America is stopped by a leftist Democrat judge. God help us! But then, in reality, they have no right to do so. This belongs to the executive branch alone.
Robart’s Nomination
On December 9, 2003, Robart was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Robart was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 17, 2004. George W. Bush also nominated Gorsuch to federal court and he too was confirmed unanimously. The Senate, knowing Bush was left of center, and really pro-choice, easily confirmed this democratic lawyer to the high court, just as they confirmed Neil Gorsuch in 2006.
Robart’s Ruling
This Democratic Liberal Judge is a full-fledged socialist. His ruling didn’t consider any opinions on the law. He believed, without legal authority, that the president wasn’t making a smart move, and he stayed it. This decision on the immigrant ban from terrorist promoting countries went to the Ninth Circuit court, the most liberal court in the nation and of course, they stayed it. Protecting America from Islamic terrorists was one of Trump’s promises, and who is delaying our safety? None other than the Democratic Socialists…again! This time of the judiciary!
But hey, Judge Robart has even praised the Black Lives Matter anarchists in a lawsuit against Seattle police!
And Judge Michelle Friedland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who ruled on the Trump travel order won the ACLU’s “LGBT Award.” [Link]
The Ninth Circuit has continued the stay, and now the higher court’s denial of an immediate stay means the legal battles over the ban will continue for days at least. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco asked challengers of the ban to respond to the appeal, and for the Justice Department to file a counter-response by Monday afternoon.
It could go to the Supreme Court. But what if the Senate holds up Trump’s confirmation of Judge Gorsuch? A four to four vote by the Supremes could leave us high and dry with the last decision holding. We may be overrun with terrorists from Islamic terrorist states, all because of one socialist judge.
It is NOT a “Muslim ban.” You will search the Executive Order in vain for mentions of Islam, or any other religion. Trump reminded reporters that ISIS specifically said that they would use the migration system to infiltrate the United States and other countries. The order is based on security reviews conducted by President Barack Obama’s deputies. The moratorium is temporary, and the executive order is absolutely legal, and is a security measure. [Link]
Vetting Foreigners from Terrorist States
President Trump wanted to vet foreigners arriving from Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yemen. Trump’s order bars citizens of the seven countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria. Pretty simple and straightforward.
Chuck Schumer recently stated, “There are tears running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight.” He said this in response to Trump’s EO on immigrants from these pro-terrorist states, but that is quite a change from the tweet Schumer sent out in 2015 when he said, “We must tighten loopholes in the Visa Waiver program, ensure passports can’t be faked, and stop terrorists who want to exploit the system.”
Many other presidents have implemented travel bans in the past. Jimmy Carter implemented a travel ban on citizens from Iran after the Shah was deposed and students seized the U.S. Embassy in 1979.
And will wonders never cease, even Obama implemented a ban against refugees from Iraq in 2011. It was two Iraqi Muslims living in Kentucky who were sending weapons and cash to al-Qaida in Iraq. They were arrested, tried, convicted, and are in prison. Apparently, the Judge was unable to access this information.
Ann Coulter’s recent article reminded us of Elian Gonzalez. The Clinton administration used the executive branch’s broad power over immigration to send a 6-year-old boy back to a communist dictatorship. The courts were completely powerless to stop him.
State Department Whistle Blower
Mary Doetsch, a retired U.S. State Department veteran has blown the whistleon the entire refugee program by sending a letter to the Chicago Tribune. She wrote, “As a recently retired 25-year veteran of the U.S. Department of State who served almost eight years as a refugee coordinator throughout the Middle East, Africa, Russia and Cuba, I have seen first-hand the abuses and fraud that permeate the refugee program and know about the entrenched interests that fight every effort to implement much-needed reform. Despite claims of enhanced vetting, the reality is that it is virtually impossible to vet an individual who has no type of an official record, particularly in countries compromised by terrorism. U.S. immigration officials simply rely on the person’s often rehearsed and fabricated ‘testimony.’ I have personally seen this on hundreds of occasions.”
Mary goes on to say that she is in complete agreement with President Trump’s EO, and that she doesn’t believe it goes far enough!
Robarts Inaccuracy on Arrests
Judge Robart asked DOJ attorney Michelle Bennett how many arrests of foreign nationals had come from the states in Trump’s EO.
She said she didn’t have that information, and then Robart claimed that there were none, but Breitbart reported that according to a database built by the Senate’s immigration subcommittee, the federal government has arrested and convicted at least 73 people from the seven countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen. That fact alone tells us the huge inaccuracy of this judge’s rationale for imposing a “Temporary Restraining Order” ban on the president’s popular reform of the expensive refugee and immigration programs allowing untold numbers of terrorists into our nation without the vetting that has always been customary.
Several sites have verified that these countries and even others not listed, are hotbeds of terrorism training and activities with plans against the United States. Here is a list of some of the terrorists who have committed crimes from these very countries, and here are the countries with a large terrorism presence. Somali refugees who have come to this country have even been involved in terror plots, including more than 40 of which left the country to join ISIS, al-Shabab and al-Qaida, according to the FBI.
Somalis seem to be a big problem as they are ripe for recruitment by ISIS. Minnesota’s Attorney General said, “We have a terror recruitment problem in Minnesota” involving the Somali refugee community in the state.” Obama actually had to approve grants to teach Somali youth how to avoid being recruited. But there’s more, these same refugees have carried out knife attacks in malls and on college campuses injuring a number of people. We know this judge doesn’t live in a cave, his entire stay on President Trump’s order is purely political.
Pamela Geller, editor in chief of the Geller Report and president of American Freedom Defense Initiative, said Robart’s decision, if upheld, smacks directly at the sovereignty of the United States and strips the president of his constitutional authority to protect the nation.
Companies Suing Trump Over Ban
Can you believe there are 97 companies suing President Trump over his temporary refugee ban? Gateway Pundit reports that these companies use refugees as cheap labor in their manufacturing; of course, it’s all about money…not safety.
Apple, Google, Facebook, Spotify, Airbnb, Citrix, eBay, Etsy, Intel, Microsoft, Netflix, Snap, Twitter and Uber are just some of the high-profile companies that participated in filing the brief, the goal of which is to make clear that the technology industry and American businesses in general oppose Trump’s ban. Here is the entire list from the website.
I would urge folks not to buy Chobani yogurt inasmuch as Chobani announced the hiring of Syrian Muslims. The owner of Chobani was tied to the Clinton campaign and Clinton Global Initiative. The same now goes for Starbucks Coffee regarding their hiring. What about jobs for the American citizens?
Judge Napolitano Weighs In
Martha MacCallum interviewed Judge Andrew Napolitano on Judge Robart’s stay, and he stated clearly and unequivocally that President Trump has the power to do exactly what he’s doing. Here’s what he said in this interview with MacCallum.
“We have a federal district court judge in Seattle who basically second-guessed the President on the wisdom and propriety of the President’s executive order. And that is absolutely not the job of federal judges in our society.”
“The law on which President Trump relied is crystal clear. A 1952 statute which says, just as John Roberts read from the government’s brief, that the president of the United States has the authority to suspend any immigration of an individual or a group or a class of people, for public health, public safety or national security. It’s not the President and the courts, it’s not the President and the Congress. It’s the President alone.”
Judicial Tyranny
Black robed tyrants are legislating from the bench. Our President is right, should someone arrive on these flights who is a terrorist and acts to kill Americans, the blame will land directly on these judicial tyrants. That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is subversive.
When politicians don black robes, and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are – usurpers and petty tyrants. It is our elected representatives who make the laws and rule the nation, not judges or justices!
Selwyn Duke made it clear in his recent article.
Does our current status quo make our Constitution a suicide pact? Thomas Jefferson certainly said as much, warning that accepting judicial supremacy would make our founding document just that, a “felo de se,” (suicide) as he put it in Latin.
Acceptance of judicial supremacy, by the way, is precisely why President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations is on hold. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78 that the judiciary is the “least dangerous” branch of government because it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse,” yet it’s trumping the man with the sword, the president. But does it have to be this way?
No, Trump could simply ignore the court ruling suspending his ban.
Outrageous!? Unconstitutional!? Actually, it’s wholly constitutional.
Jefferson explained why in 1820, writing that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” This is where we are now, and have long been – suicide-pact territory. The will of a nation 320-million strong is expressed through its duly elected representatives and laws are passed….And then that will is thwarted by five black-robed lawyers in a central-government tribunal.
Does this sound like a government of, by and for the people to you?
The Bottom Line
American citizens have seen terrorist activities on our own soil for years now. Here is a full list, starting in April of 1972. We have welcomed immigrants with open arms since the nation’s inception, but with caution to protect our people. There are many reasons most citizens want immigrants vetted, not only for the harm they might intend, but for assimilation, and disease…diseases we have not seen in decades. We do not want “no-go” zones throughout our country. And yes, I’ve seen women in full burkas in my local grocery.
I have two British friends, one who is an American citizen and one who is still in UK, who would so love to come to America and become a naturalized citizen. The UK today is overrun with so many Islamists that British citizens, women especially, are afraid to be in certain parts of the country.
My friend Stan, who has been here for decades, told me that it took him many steps to become an American citizen and all told, it was about two years. He is an absolutely wonderful addition to our citizenry. My friend Shirley should also come to the USA, she loves our country.
However, today, plane and shiploads of refugees from countries known to breed terrorists are being dumped in cities all over America. Without the vetting, it has become a breeding ground for terrorist training and terrorist activity.
Trump Senior Advisor, Steven Miller said, “The U.S. has an absolute sovereign right to determine who can and cannot enter our country.”
Laura Ingraham says our President should address the nation to make his case for the executive order, and I agree. The reality is, his action is absolutely legal, and it is being done for the safety of all Americans.
Our President needs to tell these judges to go pound sand!
