Friday, March 17, 2017

Judge Rules Against Trump In Favor Of Imam--Did Judge Meet With Obama?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

A federal judge in Hawaii issued a ruling late Wednesday that prevents President Trump from enforcing his executive order to protect our nation from migrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries.

Some are saying Barack Obama met with Judge Derrick Watson, an Obama appointee and former Harvard classmate, the day before the judge issued his ruling.


Today is St. Patrick's Day, often a day associated with beer parties. However, there is an inspiring story associated with St. Patrick. 31Daily.com has published that story of enslavement, transformation and calling. Make your day. Read it.

Judge Derrick Watson, by virtue of his ruling, has prevented every other judge and every other state from following the president's order, thus the judge has made himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute president.

Robert Barnes, a highly successful trial lawyer, has written an excellent article revealing just how completely lawless this ruling is, and how it mirrors Obama's "deep state allies in his shadow government's attempt to sabotage the Trump presidency."

There are a few reports circulating that Barack Obama met with Judge Derrick Watson the day before Watson ruled on this case.

If this is true, we will likely know more about it later today and over the weekend.

Judge Derrick Watson is an Obama appointee, and a Harvard classmate.

Barack Obama flew to French Polynesia on Wednesday the 15th to spend a month vacation at Marlon Brando's private resort.

There are those who are claiming Obama met with Watson, in Hawaii, the day before the judge issued his ruling.

This has not yet been fully verified, but some in Hawaii are saying the meeting happened.

If this is true, I suspect the meeting would be much like Bill Clinton's meeting with Obama's Attorney General Lynch in her plane on the backside of the airport in Phoenix---while Hillary was being investigated.

When caught by a reporter, Bill Clinton and the Attorney General said the meeting was coincidental, and they were merely discussing their grandchildren.

Barnes writes, "Admission into America is a privilege, not a right. Congress gave the president broad statutory authority to exclude any aliens he saw fit to---then Barnes cites the statute "8 U.S.C. 1182 (F)

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president
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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


Barnes says this judge, like the 9th Circuit Appeals Court before, is hiding from this statute, pretending it doesn't exist.

He says, "Just as we have a right to decide which strangers enter our home and who sleeps next to our daughters' bedroom or eats our family's food, we as a country enjoy the democratic right to decide who enters our country, who lives next to us as a neighbor, and who enjoys the fruits of our ancestral inheritance."

He says, "The Hawaii judge went much further in the opposite direction: he claimed an immigrant here has a right to bring in whatever other immigrants he wants, even citizens from terror-riddled, Sharia-law-supporting, failed, corrupted states that cannot vet or screen would-be-aliens entering America. Ask San Bernardino how that worked out?"

Barnes says, "Put simply, the Hawaii judge ruled that because the imam was Muslim-- and his would-be migrant visas wish-list came from Muslim-dominant nations, the First Amendment gave him a special right to bring whomever he wanted into this country."

"The First Amendment has never applied to a right of immigration of foreign aliens, nor does it compel religious favoritism toward Muslims," he says.

"And," Barnes says, "the Hawaii judge never interpreted the Constitution, "he re-wrote it, usurping to himself the sole power to control borders, then delegated the exercise of that power to a Muslim imam---the judge dishonored the rule of law in his order and disrespected our legal traditions...declaring himself king and executioner."

In conclusion, Barnes says, "Meet the new left's America: foreigners first, Muslims preferred, law last, elections irrelevant."

Some thoughts on "law last."

Laws are necessary in a sinful world (I Timothy 1:9). According to the Bible, the root of all lawlessness is rebellion.

Our Founders recognized the absolute importance of the law, and because of its importance drew from the ultimate authority of God's law in creating the founding documents of the United States of America.

John Quincy Adams, son of Founding Father John Adams, recognized what his father and others had done in the founding documents of this country when he said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

He said, "From the day of the Declaration...they [the American Founders and people] were bound by the laws of God..."

America prospered to become the most free and the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

In recent years, there has been an erosion of the bond between our nation and the laws of God, with secular progressives demanding any expression of those very laws be removed in all public places.

Progressivism has sought to break that indissoluble bond between this nation and the law of God. Secular Progressivism has given us the notion that truth is relative---and it is what I believe it to be. And "I" alone will decide what is right and wrong for me, thus becoming a law unto myself---casting away the established laws.

This is seen in the rulings of activists judges in Washington State and now, Hawaii.

When a society ignores the law, lawlessness is the result and chaos follows. The time of the judges after Joshua's death was marked by upheaval, oppression and general disorder. Biblical history puts a finger on the reason for the chaos: "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

In fact, the riot in Ephesus is an example of lawlessness in action (Acts 19). The rioters were confused and unsure even in why they were rioting (verse 32); in their lawlessness, they were ignoring proper legal channels (verse 39) and breaking the law (verse 40).

Lawlessness is condemned in Scripture (Romans 13:2).

It was Founder Patrick Henry who reminded his colleagues: "When people forget God, tyrants forge their chains."

He would remind us of that truth as well. Too many in America have "forgotten God" and the chains are being forged in activist courts across our land---punishing those who believe differently than the state regarding abortion and natural marriage---and even attempting to ignore the law, and punish a duly elected President of the United States because they personally disagree.

Be Informed. Be Alert. Be Aware. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.


6 comments:

  1. Judicial tyranny, which is why congress must impeach.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If we already have laws on the books and if the previous president did the exact same thing....why is there an issue? Can't an attorney general say whoa....here is the law...? This country does not operate by its own laws and that is the fault of whom?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The damage and harm to the American people that Activist judges have done in recent decades is immeasurable. If they cannot be removed for incompetency or direct violations of sworn duty, it may be worth considering and discussing that Congress form and pass a law to explicitly ban any Federal Judge to rule in direct opposition to any standing law or to the Constitution, unless he/she can document a standing law or reference in the Constitution which is clearly in direct conflict.

    Activist judges should not be tolerated, as they violate the very solemn pledge the took (often on the Bible to God) that they would uphold the Constitution and all standing laws.

    G>T>

    ReplyDelete
  4. Imam is member of Muslim Brotherhood.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Funny thing, the state of Hawaii has 0 immigrants in the state!! Well, well!! Perhaps we should aim them all to Hawaii, preferably close to this wonderful judge!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The funny thing is 0, yes ZERO, immigrants have been placed in Hawaii so it really is wrong!! Perhaps we could be sure to place them all in Hawaii, preferably near this bad judge!
    He is sworn to be imparcial! His job is to uphold our laws not do what he wants. Many of these imparcial judges should be dismissed!!

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.