Plaintiff in Trump travel ban runs Muslim Brotherhood mosque
March 17, 2017 — bunkerville
The plot thickens on this one. First we have Obama in Hawaii, then we learn that the judge who ruled happens to be a classmate of his from Harvard, and last?
Judge Watson, managed to produce a 43-page decision within two hours of the case being filed in Hawaii. (Let’s make Hawaii the new Gitmo.)
The judge issued his 43-page ruling less than two hours after hearing Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order to stop the ban from being put into practice.
Speedy guy, huh! More at Gateway Pundit and we learn this:
The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The irony is hard to miss: Trump has talked about declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and now it is a Brotherhood-backed imam who is playing a key role in blocking his executive order on immigration.
Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.
One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.
According to the lawsuit:
“Plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order subjects portions of the State’s population, including Dr. Elshikh and his family, to discrimination in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right, among other things, to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin. The State purports that the Executive Order has injured its institutions, economy, and sovereign interest in maintaining the separation between church and state.”
Read more at WND
Well well well. Look who the Hawaii judge met with before ruling against Trump’s executive order
Sean Hannity: Alt-left judges put American lives at risk by blocking travel ban
Mar 17, 2017 By Sean Hannity
It was not hard to see this coming. Two President Obama-appointed federal U.S. district judges have blocked President Trump’s revised travel ban executive order from taking effect.
True to form, President Trump is fighting back, and reminding his supporters why they voted for him. You’ve got to love it.
“Hundreds of refugees are under federal investigation for terrorism and related reasons,” Trump said at a rally in Nashville this week. “We have entire regions of the world destabilized by terrorism and ISIS. For this reason, I issued an executive order to temporarily suspend immigration from places where it cannot safely occur.
“A judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain countries,” he added incredulously.
I’ve been saying for quite a while that this is all part of the radical alt-left’s strategy to undermine and delegitimize the president. In this case, they are cherry picking liberal judges to rule against what are very legal, constitutional executive orders.
But these activist judges aren’t just slowing down the president’s agenda. They’re putting the lives of Americans in jeopardy. It is clear the alt-left would rather score cheap political points than listen to the repeated warnings about the risks of letting unvetted foreigners into this country. And it’s important for the left to hear this because these warnings that ISIS would infiltrate the refugee flow initially came from Obama-era top U.S. national security and intelligence officials.
One by one, Obama administration officials acknowledged the possibility to lawmakers over the last few years. They included former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; ex-CIA Director John Brennan; Nicholas Rasmussen, Obama’s National Counterterrorism Center director; Assistant FBI Director Michael Steinbach; and State Department spokesman and former Navy Admiral John Kirby.
But FBI Director James Comey said it best, on Oct. 21, 2015.
“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said. “And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but we’re not going to — there’ll be nothing show up because we have no record on that person.”
It is an outright dereliction of duty to ignore these warnings. I urge the alt-left critics of the ban to take a look at Fox News’ reporting from last week, in a story headlined, “Iraqi insurgent fighter allegedly lied about identify, got through ‘extreme vetting.’”
America needs to make a very profound, yet very simple choice. Do we want to sacrifice our safety over the fears of slightly inconveniencing a few people? And is there really something wrong with finding out if people who want to come to this country agree with our values, constitutional rights and principles?
It’s time to put protecting lives over political correctness. We cannot allow the alt-left to drag us back into the pre-9/11 mindset. Since that dark day, when 2,996 Americans died and more than 6,000 more were injured, we’ve had plenty of reminders to stay vigilant.
We saw what happened at the finish line in the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. Terrorists took the lives of four people, including two policemen, and injured 264 innocent people.
In 2015 in San Bernardino, Calif., a jihadist couple slaughtered 14 and wounded 22 at a holiday party.
And just last June, at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., a radical Islamist gunned down 49 and wounded 53 more.
These are just a few of the many terror attacks and plots that have occurred on American soil in the last two decades.
If the radical alt-left wants to continue to undermine the president’s ability to keep Americans safe, and a single person dies because Trump’s extreme vetting policy is being blocked, they will have blood on their hands. They will own it.
Adapted from Sean Hannity’s monologue on “Hannity,” March 16, 2017
A federal District Court judge in Maryland is considering whether he should order President Donald Trump to double the annual inflow of refugees up to 100,000 per year.
Any demand by the judge that the federal government airbus an extra 50,000 migrants — including many adherents of Islam’s sharia legal system — into American neighborhoods would be an unusual intervention into government roles normally left to the elected President and Congress.
If actually implemented, the judge’s plan also would be extremely expensive for Americans, because state and local communities subsidize each new immigrant with roughly $1,600 each per year for decades.
The judge revealed his proposal in a footnote in his March 15 decision where he denounced Trump’s reformist Executive Orders, which sharply curbs the inflow of refugees from war-torn Islamic countries. The judge’s footnote declared:
On February 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction of S 5(d) of the Executive Order, ECF No. 64, requesting that the Court enjoin a specific provision of the First Executive Order. With the agreement of the parties, the Court set a briefing and hearing schedule extending to March 28, 2017. The Court will resolve that Motion, which the parties have agreed should be construed to apply to the successor provision of the Second Executive Order, in accordance with the previously established schedule.
The language targeted by the judge is in Trump’s first version of the Executive Order, the Jan. 27 E.O. 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” The language announced the government’s intention to halve the annual inflow of refugees from the 100,000 level sought by former President Barack Obama, who frequently derided Americans for getting “attached to our particular tribe.”
According to Section 5 of Trump’s January E.O.:
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
Similar language appears in Section 6(b) of the upgraded March 6 E.O. 13780, also titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”
(b) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any entries in excess of that number until such time as I determine that additional entries would be in the national interest.
The plaintiffs’ request for 100,000 refugees each year was made by lawyers for the International Refugee Assistance Protect, HIAS Inc., a so-called “VOLAG” which is paid by federal agencies to import refugees, and by members of the Middle East Studies Association.
“Judge Chuang’s ruling … leaves the door open for further discussion of our challenges to the refugee ban, an opening we intend to pursue,” said a March 15 statement from HIAS. “So stay tuned for more news as our lawsuit continues.” HIAS received at least $19.5 million in government grants in 2014, according to its federal 990 form.
HIAS employees did not answer calls and emailed questions from Breitbart.
Trump’s decision to reduce the annual inflow of refugees was promised and debated during the 2016 campaign. Based on his promise to the voters, Trump won, much to the distress of progressives. Multiple polls show Trump’s immigration reforms are popular.
The law cited by Trump, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, gives the President near-complete power over who gets into the United States, according to a January 2017 report by Congress’ Congressional Research Service. The critical language declares, at 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (f) that:
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
Section 214(a)(1) of the same law says that the “admission of any alien to the United States as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such conditions as [the Executive] may by regulations prescribe.”
The President’s authority over immigration is bolstered by Supreme Court decisions. For example, the court declared in its 1950 judgment lawsuit, titled Knauff v. Shaughnessy, that “It is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by [congressional] law, to review the determination of the political branch of Government to exclude a given alien.”
In 2015, the Court reasserted that judgment, saying in Kerry v. Din, that:
Din attempts to bring suit on [her Afghan husband’s] behalf, alleging that the Government’s denial of her husband’s visa application violated her constitutional rights… In particular, she claims that the Government denied her due process of law when, without adequate explanation of the reason for the visa denial, it deprived her of her constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse. There is no such constitutional right.
Already, the law and the Supreme Court’s rulings prompted a judge in Boston, Mass., to reject another lawsuit the Massachusetts’ government against Trump’s E.O. “Therefore, in light of the“plenary congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens,” … which pursuant to8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), has been delegated to the President, the Court concludes that the [federal] government’s reasons, as provided in the EO, are facially legitimate and bona fide,” the judge declared Feb. 3.
Follow Neil Munro on Twitter @NeilMunroDC
Corrupt Hawaii Judge who ignored the law was classmate of Obama
AWESOME!! JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO SLAMS HAWAII JUDGE ‘HE IS A HATER’
Congressman: Hawaiian judge could be impeached. Congress can take action on activist judges
BEST FIGHT EVER!! TUCKER CARLSON TAKES ON KAREN TUMLIN
LIVE STREAM: President Donald Trump Joint Press Conference with Angela Merkel 3/17/17 LIVE
Related previous posts on this blog