Guest Post: Unwarranted Federal Judge Ruling Jeopardizes National Security

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.