Hawaii Judge Blocks Extreme Vetting; Joins Rebel States, CAIR to Fight Trump



The Trump Admin’s plans for Extreme Vetting

Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal carried a story titled, “U.S. Demands Vetting Help,” which gives details about the Trump Admin’s planned “extreme vetting”:

“The administration is looking to compel countries around the world to cooperate on a range of issues, including sharing their citizens’ criminal histories, lost passports and other info … to evaluate visa applications. If other countries don’t comply…, their citizens may be denied entry to the U.S.”

In addition to a 90-day travel ban to six nations, the revised EO orders the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State, along with the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a worldwide review to identify what kind of info will be needed from each country to evaluate applications for a visa or other type of admission.

Under consideration are: “checks on applicants’ social-media accounts and financial records, as well as contacts and other information,” said the WSJ. “They are also considering questions aimed at assessing the applicants’ ideology.”

Section 6 of the executive order orders a 120-day suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), to allow government staff to review screening processes “to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”


Hawaii’s judge Watson blocks president from protecting the American people

Unfortunately, the federal district judge in Hawaii, Derrick Watson, not only blocked the travel ban in Section 2(c) of the EO, he blocked the entire section, including the order for a worldwide review.

Same thing with the USRAP review; the judge blocked not only the 120-day suspension in Section 6, but the entire section, including:

  1. the president’s order for a review of screening processes,
  2. his order for a reduction in the number of refugees admitted this fiscal year to 50,000 and
  3. his order allowing state and local jurisdictions a role in determining the settlement of refugees in their jurisdictions.


Curious facts about the Hawaii case

Under Watson’s decision, Hawaii claims the right to subject all of America to the risk of receiving refugees before enhanced screening is enabled. Except Hawaii doesn’t share that risk.

The state falsely asserts on page 20 of the complaint that Hawaii is a haven for refugees from many lands:

“The new Executive Order … hinders the efforts of the State and its residents to resettle and assist refugees. Refugees from numerous countries have resettled in Hawaii in recent years.” Actually, refugees came from only three nations, in 2015.

Hawaii has hosted only a miniscule number of refugees going back at least to 2012. According to Newsline.com, “In Fiscal year 2015, Hawaii accepted seven refugees as per records from the Office of Refugee Resettlement.” Of the seven, “one came from Ukraine, one from China and five from Burma.”

“Past records of refugee resettlement … also show a dismal figure with two refugees being accepted in 2014, six in 2013 and only one refugee in 2012.” Only four came from the Middle East, during the four years.

There’s another mystery: the Associated Press reported Judge Watson’s decision as its “Big Story.” Buried in the story is this: “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.” Legal decisions must be carefully researched, written and proofread, which takes time. So, it seems pretty obvious the decision was made and written up in advance of the hearing.


Two judges’ decisions were based in part on a manifestly fake document

Hawaii Free Press reported on March 28th that the judges in Hawaii and Maryland based their decisions in part on a leaked document, which had neither date nor signature and was not on official stationery. They used this to discredit the president’s stated national security motive for issuing the executive orders. Hawaii’s Judge Watson said, on page 13 of his decision:

Plaintiffs describe a draft report from the DHS, which they contend undermines the purported national security rationale for the Executive Order.
The February 24, 2017 draft report states that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats against the United States and that very few individuals from the seven countries included in Executive Order No. 13,769 had carried out or attempted to carry out terrorism activities in the United States.
According to Plaintiffs, this and other evidence demonstrates the Administration’s pretextual justification for the Executive Order.

Judge Chuang of the U.S. District Court in Maryland also cited the same leaked document, in his decision against the revised executive order:

Plaintiffs argue that the stated national security rationale is limited and flawed. They also note that a report from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, concluded that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.”

The Free Press writes that no one at DHS admits to putting the report out and it “was never approved or finalized by DHS.”

It appears to have been drafted specifically to refute the president’s stated reason for issuing the orders, and so it could be used as “evidence” in lawsuits. The image appears distorted, as if it was hastily leaked via fax. Check it out here. No wonder neither judge says the plaintiffs actually submitted the document.

The February 24th date was actually the date of an AP article that spins the report as an official DHS document, which it’s not. “The three-page report challenges Trump’s core claims,” the AP said. It claimed only a few terror attacks were committed by nationals from Trump’s listed nations.

DHS spokesperson Gillian Christensen told the AP in February the document was “incomplete,” and told the Wall Street Journal: “It is clear on its face that it is an incomplete product that fails to find evidence of terrorism by simply refusing to look at all the available evidence.”

On Marcy 27th, Breitbart published a piece on the “draft document” that reveals a far higher percentage of terror acts committed by immigrants from Trump’s list of nations, according to a document published by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest: DOJ Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Convictions 9/11/01-12/31/14, and a second document titled, “Individuals Implicated in Terrorism Since March 2014.


Curious facts about plaintiffs in the EO cases

We discussed here the absurdity of the standing the Hawaii judge granted to plaintiff, Imam Dr. Elshikh, based upon his supposed pain, having to live in a country that had established a “disfavored religion.” We also noted that the deed on his Mosque is held by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). You can see the search result, from the Honolulu County Tax Service, here.

According to DiscoverTheNetworks, NAIT: “Has had close ties to … the Muslim Brotherhood and is a “financial subsidiary” and “constituent organization” of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). DTN says this, of ISNA: “Enforces extremist Wahhabi theological writ in America’s mosques.”

DTN says NAIT and ISNA both appear in the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America”—as being among the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded allies dedicated to waging a “grand Jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” You can read the list here.

Discover the Networks also says of the two organizations:

At the [Holy Land] trial, …. Prosecutors presented copious evidence that ISNA had used NAIT to divert funds to leading Hamas officials …, and to a number of Hamas-run institutions.”

Virginia’s attorney general, Mark Herring, who brought a lawsuit against the first EO has a disconcerting partnership with a familiar Muslim group. On March 17th, Townhall.com reported that:

“CAIR has announced the terrorism linked group will host a town hall meeting Friday night with Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring. The town hall will center around opposing President Trump’s executive order. Discover the Networks said: “Terrorism expert Steven Emerson,… characterizes CAIR as ‘a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.’”

In the suit Trump won, in the Eastern District of Virginia, CAIR’s lawyers represented and plaintiffs included Palestinian activist, Israel hater and shariah-advocate Linda Sarsour; along with CAIR’s National Executive Director and founder, Nihad Awad and eleven other CAIR directors in various states. See page 4 of the complaint.

CAIR has also organized “a series of protests across the country” related to the executive orders.

In the Maryland complaint, the Middle East Studies Association of North America is a plaintiff. Discover the Networks says: “its membership is dominated by anti-America, anti-Israel leftists who are apologists for Islamic terrorism.

Why does immigration of Muslims mean so much to the Left? The Left also pushes Muslim immigration in Europe, which is now awash with Muslim migrants who’ve made life a nightmare for the Europeans. Eventual doom awaits European culture, because of Muslims’ high birth rates.

This indicates a likely mission to eradicate Western culture, on both sides of the pond. Intentional or not, that will be the result if we don’t gain control over who comes into our country. Clearly, the Left has weaponized some of the federal courts to keep unlimited access to America for illegal immigrants and Muslims.

Virginia’s AG, Mark Herring and attorneys general of fifteen other states, in apparent insurrection against established law, vowed to fight the president’s first executive order.  By interfering with the elected president carrying out his promises, these people are in effect committing sedition.

This is constitutional chaos, and must be stopped.

As we wrote in an earlier piece, Congress has plenary power over immigration and the federal courts. (Congress delegates near complete power over immigration to the president, through statute.) The federal courts can be stripped of jurisdiction over immigration by an act of Congress.

Why doesn’t Congress do it? One man stands in the way of passing such a bill: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his adoration of the clearly obsolete filibuster.

Let’s face it: the filibuster helps Democrats thwart the American people getting what they voted for: undoing the changes Obama made in America. As Rep. Trent Franks told PJ Media, Republicans can’t even bring a bill up for debate without Democrats’ permission.

The result is what we’ve seen for over two years: Republicans haven’t enacted a single game-changing bill that the people would want. And this will continue for the next four years. We have a president who wants change, but he’s not going to get it. That’s fine with McConnell; he’ll just say, “It wasn’t enough to give us the House, the Senate and the White House. Now you have to give us more seats in the Senate.” He just will not stand up to the Democrats.

The filibuster simply must go. Then Congress can remodel the courts and end this tyranny of Leftist judges.

Rep. Trent Franks told PJ Media, if Senate rules aren’t changed “the Trump Agenda is dead.” Only We the People can change that.

Call Senate GOP leaders:

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541.

Asst. Majority Leader John Cornyn: (202) 224-2934 <3> to reach staff.

Republican Conference Chmn. John Thune: (202) 224-2321

*Tell them to immediately dump the Senate filibuster and pass legislation to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments