The Ninth Circuit’s stolen sovereignty should serve as final wakeup call

Africa Studio | Shutterstock

Africa Studio | Shutterstock

“What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation” ~ Justice Samuel Alito, (Obergefell v. Hodges, dissenting)

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, February 10, 2017:

Last night, we saw the logical outcome of over a half century of political agreement on the Right and Left that the opinions of the courts are the sole and final arbiter of every public policy issue, no matter how divorced from the Constitution and inimical to national interests those decisions may be.

The Ninth Circuit, although not “officially” deciding the merits of the immigration case, indicated that there is a constitutional right for anyone to immigrate, even during a time of war, even from countries we were so careful never to take immigrants from until recently. It concluded the president must show the courts sufficient evidence that each person will be a terrorist and anything short of that creates a due process right to be here.

It’s very important to remember that this is not about the executive action. President Trump’s executive order is following a statute, really a series of statutes, which grant any president ABSOLLUTE at-will power to shut off all or any immigration. According to the perverted rationale of the courts, even Congress couldn’t cut off immigration, even from part of the Middle East because it poses issues to the Left’s social justice agenda, which has been retroactively enshrined into the Constitution.

The outcome of this case is that even if Congress was to merely bar visas from countries that support terror (which is current law for state-sponsors of terror), that law would be open to lawsuits and would be enjoined nationwide by one district within one liberal circuit — and there’s not a darn thing we can do about it. It means any Islamic supremacist sitting in a shack in Somalia has due process rights to immigrate here and liberal states can sue on his behalf.  It means any Muslim in Syria can sue us if they believe a Christian was admitted as a refugee in front of them. After all, we already know that four of the justices on the Supreme Court will never defy any political agenda of the Left, and that Anthony Kennedy is terrible on immigration.

Those radicals breaking windows and beating people up in the streets? Those views are not only represented in Congress but are now codified into law and the Constitution by the misconceived supremacy of the judicial branch of government. As I predicted in my book, within a few years (perhaps less), there will be wholesale judicial amnesty for all of the illegal immigrants in this country under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It’s already happening in the lower courts. Last night, it was codified into law by the Ninth Circuit when it said illegals have due process rights (to remain in the country).

So where does it say in the Constitution that there is a right for foreign nationals to immigrate, especially when courts have said the opposite for 200 years? It’s in the same clause as “separation of church and state,” gay marriage, sex change operations, and the right to 30 days of early voting.

It’s not worth re-litigating what is so obvious to a sane person and frankly what is obvious to these judges themselves. We’ve covered every aspect of this case in the following articles:

What I would like to focus on is the solution. In the coming days I plan to focus on the strategy of wholesale judicial reform as well as the need to continue the push for an Article V Convention of the States. But the first step is understanding the severity of the problem and to stop legitimizing the false premise that courts have the final say on political questions.  Let’s say this together: The federal judiciary is IRREMEDIABLY broken, and as witnessed by these cases, half the GOP judges are just as bad.

We must also stop legitimizing the notion that Congress doesn’t have full authority over the jurisdiction and structure of the courts.

Let me leave you with the following twisted irony.

Samuel Chase was one of first Supreme Court justices and one of the earliest supporters of judicial review (which is not synonymous with judicial exclusivity/supremacy). Chase was impeached, at the behest of President Jefferson, for using the court to advance his political agenda. Yet, even this judicial strongman of his day, when defending the original rationale for the power of judicial review against laws passed by legislatures, declared, “an act of the Legislature contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority.” Chase believed the Court could strike down laws passed by Congress that violated the essence of the social compact and fundamental natural rights.

Fast-forward two centuries and we have unelected judges, not the legislature, violating the essence of the social compact by redefining marriage and gender itself (the ultimate natural law). Courts have violated the popular and jurisdictional sovereignty of our states and federal union in hamstringing the elected representatives from protecting us against those who come here without our consent and harm our society. The fact that any liberal state official can sue to bring in people who don’t share our values and might do us harm violates the very essence of the consent-based national sovereignty at the core of the social compact and at the foundation of why the Constitution gave national sovereignty questions to the national government. As Justice Scalia warned, we are suffering from social transformation without representation.

Until and unless we reclaim our sovereignty from the courts, we are no longer a sovereign nation.

Keith Ellison’s Disinformation Campaign

ipt2by Steven Emerson
IPT News
December 2, 2016

Confronted by his own words and facing a direct threat to his bid to become the next Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison flagrantly lied Thursday. We are releasing the full audio and transcript to prove this.

Two days earlier, the Investigative Project on Terrorism released audio of Ellison during a 2010 political fundraiser, criticizing what he saw as the inappropriate and disproportionate influence Israel carries over American foreign policy.

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million,” said Ellison, D-Minn. “Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

In a statement Thursday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said it found Ellison’s comments “deeply disturbing and disqualifying.” That’s because, “whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives.”

In an open letter to the ADL, Ellison falsely claimed that “the audio released was selectively edited and taken out of context.” He also claimed that he was merely “responding to a question about how Americans with roots in the Middle East could engage in the political process in a more effective way.” And then he chose to attack the messenger.

None of Ellison’s comments are true.

We have released the full audio of his remarks (click here to hear them and to read a complete transcript) to show no edits were made and to show the full context. Let him also explain this other clearly anti-Semitic comment he made: “But it makes all the sense in the world when you see that that country has mobilized its diaspora in America to do its bidding in America.”

Ellison and Context

As we reported, Ellison’s 2010 comments came during a fundraiser for Esam Omeish’s state assembly campaign. Omeish is a former president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. In 2007, Omeish was forced to resign from a Virginia immigration panel after the IPT produced video of him praising Palestinians in 2000 for learning that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” A second video, shot two months earlier, shows Omeish congratulating “our brothers and sisters in [Palestine] for their bravery, for their giving up their lives for the sake of Allah.”

Just this week, Omeish posted a paean to the Muslim Brotherhood on Facebook.

Nihad Awad, the only executive director the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has ever had, also attended the Omeish fundraiser. Court records show Awad was a member of a Muslim Brotherhood created Hamas support network in the United States called the Palestine Committee. So was CAIR, the organization he leads.

Awad attended a pivotal 1993 gathering of committee members in Philadelphia, convened to discuss ways to “derail” the U.S. brokered Oslo Accords.

Palestine Committee members opposed it because it included recognition of Israel’s right to exist and because it empowered the secular Fatah movement over the Islamists in Hamas. We know this because the FBI secretly recorded the meeting.

He has never explained why he joined the otherspresent in referring to Hamas in the agreed-upon, yet crude code of reversing the spelling and speaking about “Samah.”

Six months later, Awad appeared in Miami, where he publicly stated that, after some research, “I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO.”

When Keith Ellison stands before Omeish and Awad and asks whether it makes sense that America’s Middle East policy “is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” or when he says “that country [Israel] has mobilized its diaspora in America to do its bidding in America,” the context seems pretty clear.

Democrats should choose the candidate they think can best lead their party to success in the future. They might decide Ellison fits that description.

They do so armed with greater understanding of Ellison’s true feelings toward an issue pivotal for a lot of voters of all political persuasions.