 |
| Don't tell me what the Constitution really says, I'm the judge and I say it says whatever I say it says! |
By David Martin
District Court Judge James Robart
has jeopardized America's security by blocking President Trump's Executive Order
on immigration which temporarily bars travelers from seven predominantly Muslim
countries from entering the United States.
The State of Washington filed
action against the Executive Order on January 27, alleging that sections of the
order are contrary to the Constitution, and Robart ruled in favor of the action
by issuing a restraining order against the E.O. on the grounds that it does not
"comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution."
(Judge James Robart)
Robart has declared the
"unconstitutionality" of the President's ban on traveling Muslims on the grounds
that it discriminates against religion, however, his move is unfounded because
not every religion is protected by the Constitution.
For instance, if a religion
says that one can commit pedophilia, sacrifice children in satanic rituals, or
crash his jet into the local skyscraper, that religion is not protected by the
Constitution. Similarly, a religion that says, "Kill them [non-Muslims] wherever
you find them" (Quran 2:191), or "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and
lie in wait for them in every ambush" (Quran 9:5), is likewise not protected by
the Constitution.
When the founding fathers
of America defended religious liberty in the Constitution, they were speaking in
the context of Christian religion, i.e. Catholic, Baptist, Methodist,
and were not including barbaric religions like Islam or Satanism, which the
early fathers regarded as 'no religion.' And whereas members of non-Christian
religions are permitted to migrate to America, they have to be Christian
friendly by complying with the Christian laws of this country, e.g. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not
steal.
This good behavior is even
required of persons professing Christianity. If a professed "Christian" from
overseas has a record of violence or rape, he should be barred from America
unless ample proof of amendment and vindication is shown to immigration
officials. How much more should this apply to radical Muslims who live by a book
that commands that Christians be hunted down and killed?
The bottom line is that
"safety comes first," which should supersede everything else, even just rulings.
Anything that poses a threat to our national security, including the threats and
hostile religious convictions of a given group, should be barred from America.
Using this rationale, people like Madonna or George Soros who have vowed to stir
up civil violence in America should be deported with the understanding that such
incrimination is in perfect keeping with the Constitution.
Such action could even apply to
Judge Robart himself, since he apparently defends the violent "Black Lives
Matter" group that incited the shooting of American police officers in Dallas
and other places last year. In August 2016, Robart declared that "black lives
matter" during a court hearing on Seattle police reform. For months he had been
presiding over a consent decree requiring the city to adopt "reforms" that are
sympathetic to the allegations of anti-police protesters, and Robart upheld the
reforms. This in itself should send up red flags and warrant the nullification
of Robart's judicial order to block Trump's travel ban.
This is not to mention
Judge Robart's unveiled contempt for the Constitution this past November when he
issued a ruling protecting the identities of people involved with fetal
debauchery at the University of Washington and elsewhere. Using state public
records laws, pro-life activists were hoping to identify workers at clinics
associated with Planned Parenthood and UW Birth Defect Research Laboratory, but
Judge Robart halted the release of the clinic workers' information, arguing that
their grotesque work in "reproductive health" is protected by the U.S.
Constitution.
It suffices to say that when the
President acts in the best interests of the nation by issuing a necessary ruling
for the good of the people, it is not for some renegade judge to interfere just
because he has his own warped and subjective notions about justice. The worst of
it is that this could open the door to an influx of angry Muslims just at a time
when we need to lock down on our borders. This certainly does not show good
judgement. The President's E.O. was only intended as a temporary ban during this
transitional period, but because a dissatisfied judge has decided to play
president by interfering with the leadership of a country, he could be ruining
it for a lot of people.
Hopefully President Trump will find
a way to counteract this so that he can continue with less obstruction to his
plan to make America safe
again.
No comments:
Post a Comment