Investigative Report
A Rogue Ruling From Hawaii
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
“This
is an unprecedented judicial overreach.”
-
President Trump on Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling halting his second temporary
travel ban
It was a targeted, deviously calculated, and so
scolding rebuke of President Trump’s newly revised executive order on travel
and refugees...his second attempt at what was at first attempt a rightful and
legal order. And once again a liberal judge had our nation’s security taking a
back seat to both political correctness and the will of an ex-president and his
‘shadow government’ who will protect ‘the brethren’ at all costs.
And so after weeks spent reworking the original
order to the point where all the i’s were dotted and all the t’s were crossed,
it was thought that no further judicial halt would happen, but then enter
center stage Hawaiian Federal Court Judge Derrick K. Watson, a judicial
activist in the same mold as Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a community organizer, who
threw not just the proverbial wrench into the mix, but whose actions now cast
the word ‘impeachment’ into that very same mix.
And know Judge Watson should be impeached for there are too many questionable actions involved as to the hows and the whys of
his decision...including the fact that the complaint was brought by an Egyptian
immigrant now turned imam...one Ismail Elshikh... whose Honolulu mosque is connected to the
terrorist condoning and funding Muslim Brotherhood. But before I get into that
what must be addressed first is how and if a sitting federal judge be
impeached.
And know a federal judge can indeed be impeached but
there is a specific protocol that must be followed.
First, the House of Representatives
prepares the ‘articles of impeachment’ as per Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of
the Constitution which authorizes the "sole
Power of Impeachment” to the House. Then said articles are sent to the
Senate, which has the exclusive power to
"try all Impeachments" by virtue of Article I, Section 3, Clause
6. From there the actual impeachment is a mere two-step process. The first step
is taken by the House of Representatives who after ‘articles of impeachment’
have been officially filed...and know that the articles are quite similar to an
indictment issued in a normal criminal prosecution...who then by a simple
majority, cast their vote to impeach said official...which in this case would be
to specifically remove Judge Derrick Watson from his federal judgeship. Then
once the vote to impeach is passed, the Senate holds a trial to determine if
the judge should be convicted, and if two-thirds of the Senate vote to convict,
Watson would then be officially removed from office.
So while the actual removal from office is a simple
voting process, there are of course caveats that get thrown into the mix. For
example, Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and it must be
proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that in his ruling Judge Watson did indeed
violate the Constitution.
Also, a major caveat in trying to impeach Judge
Watson involves the Senate vote itself for while the Republicans control the
Senate it is not with a two-thirds majority.
And then there is Article lll, Section 1, which
states, “...The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold
their offices during good behavior...” with “good
behavior’ being both ambiguous and non-defined...kind of the same way “natural born citizen” was never
actually defined. And here is where but one problem lies regarding Judge Watson for
one can issue a ruling the other side might not like, but just because a ruling
is not liked does not mean it was not issued while exhibiting the Constitutionally required “good behavior.”
“Good
behavior”...and herein lies the crux of Judge Watson’s actions, both in his ruling and its aftermath, for “good behavior,” I believe, was breached
time and again not only regarding how the ruling was made but in the
actual process of making it as well.
Let me explain.
In order to reach the point this case did, a resident of
Hawaii had to file or be part of an official complaint regarding President Trump’s temporary travel ban and prove to the court that it caused 'hardship.' And here is where the
afore mentioned Iman Ismail Elshikh comes in. Living in Hawaii with his Syrian-born wife for just a bit over a decade and leader since 2013 of Honolulu’s and Oahu’s
only mosque, ‘The Muslim Association of Hawaii’...the mosque most of
Hawaii’s roughly 5000 muslim’s attend (who make up less than 0.1%
to 0.4% of Hawaii’s population)...this mosque has known ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood and adheres to the islamic principles that the sharia is supreme even over the Constitution.
And how do we know these ties...because as per the official court
records for Honolulu County, the mosque lists its
deed holder as
the ‘North American Islamic Trust’ (NAIT) which serves as the financial
holding
company for the Muslim Brotherhood in America...the very terrorist group
that President Trump has made no secret of that he wants to add to the
State
Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.
So now we know that it was a Muslim Brotherhood backed imam...a 39-year old Egyptian-born iman living in the U.S. on a green card...which makes him a legal permanent resident and one not affected by the
travel ban...whom Hawaii's
Attorney General Doug Chin brought in
as a fellow plaintiff on February 14th while the lawsuit was on hold, and who was able to have said hold temporarily lifted just so Imam Elshikh could be added to the
case...how convenient was that. And when he was added a new count was
added as well,
with Hawaii now claiming the travel ban also violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
A Muslim Brotherhood operative being added to the
case is no mere coincidence as the Muslim Brotherhood has
already infiltrated the halls of our government via Barack HUSSEIN Obama, and that
infiltration needed to be completed. And with his ruling Judge Watson let that
particular Muslim Brotherhood operative be part of that completion as he
basically allowed him to dictate America’s refugee and visa policy as to who can and cannot enter our country.
And he did so all because this one Muslim
Brotherhood operative claimed he suffered “irreparable
harm” because President Trump’s executive order would for 90-days prevent
his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting the family in Hawaii.
The actual lawsuit reads in part as follows:
“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.”
But pray tell how does a temporary travel ban cause any one person “irreparable harm” or deny anyone the right to associate with
family members overseas as all one has to be do is wait out the 90-days and no
more ban. And how does this ban deny Hawaii her sovereignty in
regards to the separation of church and state...it simply does not no matter
that the case argued claimed this ban was an unconstitutional burden for muslim-Americans because of their religion. But how does the ban do even that as
muslims are still free to practice their religion...even though we know or
should know by now that islam is not a religion but a political system hiding behind the guise of religion.
And tell me how does said ban affect “institutions”...in this case meaning Hawaii’s ability to recruit foreign students from the six
muslim-majority countries listed to its institutions of higher
learning...as in colleges and universities. But how many
students from those six countries named...countries that are well-known islamic strongholds where education is not
valued...have students educated enough or whose families have money enough to allow them to spend
years studying in one of America’s most expensive states to live...maybe but a handful at best.
And how does the temporary travel ban affect muslim
visitors in relation to Hawaii’s
economy...an economy dependent on tourism...and how many visitors from
muslim countries contribute to Hawaii’s economy...basically none as muslim
visitors are few and far between. In fact, as per the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Travel & Tourism Office (NTTO), 77.5
million international visitors traveled to the U.S. in 2015, and out
of the top 15 countries whose residents visited here there was not
one muslim country on that list. And while Hawaii is on the list of
states most visited, no muslim country’s visitors made that list as
the numbers were too small to register...so the argument of this ban hurting
Hawaii’s economy is a mute point.
Nor does this travel ban deny refugees the
right to settle in Hawaii for Hawaii has done that on her own.
How so...out of
the millions of refugees who have come to America in the past decade
Hawaii has taken in only 127 refugees and only one of those has been
from
a country, in this case Iran, on President Trump’s banned list, and that one person
was
believed to be a Christian and not a muslim.
In fact, Hawaii’s refugees were mostly from the Southeast
Asian countries of Burma and Viet Nam, with zero from Africa,
and with only the above mentioned person being from a muslim-majority country...in other
words basically not a muslim amongst them. And that has been documented by Refugee
Resettlement Watch, which has been tracking resettlements in the U.S. for the
past 10 years.
Hypocrite thy name is Hawaii...thus proving that this entire
judicial charade was not about who was banned or for how long, but was all about
discrediting and stopping President Trump’s agenda and the promises he made to ‘We
the People’ at all costs...especially when it regards keeping the flow of 'the
brethren' unhindered into our country.
Unhindered via a judge with direct connection to
Barack HUSSEIN Obama...personal connects in fact for District Court Judge
Derrick Kahala Watson was a Harvard Law School classmate of Obama’s with
both graduating in 1991. And while Harvard Law graduates around 500 students each
year, Judge Watson claims he never personally met Obama at Harvard, and that he
only knew him as head of the school’s law review. But knowing Obama as we do, I
find it hard to believe that he would not have sought out a fellow student from
Hawaii as I doubt there were more than a handful attending Harvard Law School
at the same time they both did.
And while Judge Derrick Watson’s biography and legal
qualifications can easily be found online...the fact is that there were more
qualified persons Obama could have appointed to the judgeship. But could Watson
have been Obama's pick for this little known reason and this reason alone...Watson did pro-bono ‘wage
and hour’ claims on behalf of ‘Mexican nationals’ in San Francisco. Mexican
nationals...illegals perhaps...a much needed part of the Democratic voting
base...making Watson someone Obama could use to his advantage if he needed a future ruling to
go his way...just something to think about.
"Enforcement
of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United
States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited,
pending further orders from this Court," Watson wrote in
his ruling.
And as to Judge Watson’s actual written opinion in
the case of the STATE
OF HAWAI”I and ISMAIL vs. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Watson states that President
Trump's travel ban showed religious discrimination, because 99% of
the population in the six countries banned were muslims. Writing , "It would therefore be no paradigmatic
leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam," Watson specifically referenced Imam Elshikh,
whose “American family” he said,
would be kept from reuniting with his Syrian mother-in-law because of religious
discrimination.
Now think about this...it has been firmly established
U.S. law that the rights of the Constitution belong only to American citizens so
how can Judge Watson cite Imam Elshikh’s family as an “American
family” as both he and his wife are green card holders alone and not American
citizens...naturalized or otherwise...nor are they now or have they ever been
in the process of becoming American citizens. So how can this judge cite a lie as a
reason to halt the sitting president’s executive order for while a green card
allows one permanent U.S. residency it does not in any way confer citizenship...and
the judge knows this but he obviously could care less.
And then there is The
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, passed by a Democrat majority
Congress over a presidential veto, which granted all visa issuing power to the
executive branch...meaning the president...as well as granting him control over visas. This
includes setting quotas for any number...including zero...and it can be for any
reason...including religion. And dare we forget that in 2015, the Supreme Court
ruled in Kerry
v. Kin that the president could deny a visa to anyone for no reason at all.
And while Judge Watson does write that it is “undisputed” that the order does not “facially discriminate for or against any
particular religion,” he does say that “Because
a reasonable, objective observer – enlightened by specific historical context,
contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to
its issuance – would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a
purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated,
religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs…are likely to
succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim”...yet he still wants us to believe that Trump’s
past words said create a basis for the mistrust of his current motives regarding muslims and islam.
Writing that the original travel ban called for
religious minorities (as in Christians) in muslim-majority countries to receive special treatment...no matter that this was removed in the second order...what Judge Watson actually did...as per what Hawaii's Attorney General Chin calls muslim ban 2.0...was basically rule on the already rescinded first executive order and not on the
second order which was the one he was supposed to rule on.
Allowing his personal opinion to guide his judgment,
Judge Watson also cited campaign rhetoric as a reason for his decision...in
other words this judge did not follow the rule of law requiring strict
impartiality concerning the law when interpreting the law.
Citing a Trump press release from December 2015
which reads, “Donald J. Trump is calling
for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States…” along with hearsay
from others, including half-quotes from Trump advisor Rudi Guiliani,
who in a January 2017 Fox News interview said that Trump asked him to
come up
with a way to legally ban muslims from the United States....Watson left
out Guiliani’s further comment that Trump called him and said, “Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally”...with
“legally" being the all-important word.
Also, Judge Watson cited a March 2016 CNN interview in which Trump said, “I think Islam hates
us,” and then went on to say that “there’s
tremendous hatred” and that “we have
to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful.” In other words, then candidate and still private
citizen Trump could not say what he believed, but it is okay for this liberal
judge to say what he believes and to do so while supposedly being an impartial interpreter
of the law...when supposedly showing the Constitutionally required “good behavior” which clearly he did
not.
“The
illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,”
Watson wrote in his opinion. “The notion
that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting
all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.” But the only thing flawed is
Watson’s opinion itself.
And why is it flawed...because it is based upon his
personal feelings as in what he thinks President Trump wants to do via his
using selective campaign rhetoric and not the actual words of the order as
written. Also, Judge Watson clearly does not understand that the ‘Establishment
Clause’...the First Amendment...states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and in no way has the Establishment Clause been held
by courts to apply to immigration policy. And lastly, as per the very words of
President Trump, this ruling itself is indeed a “judicial overreach.”
And how so...as per Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, a Senior
Editor at The Federalist, “the idea
that these courts are putting forth that restricting entry to a country with a
majority religion suggests bias against that entire religion would make any and
all immigration policy unconstitutional. Very few countries don’t have a
majority religion, after all.” And this simply means that this judge is
trying his best to stop President Trump from ever being able to set any
immigration policy regarding muslim-majority countries...an overreach for sure
as the Constitution itself affords the president and the executive branch the
very power to do so.
This also means that President Trump had every
right to issue the order he did, after all Obama himself did a similar
thing when he, in December 2015, signed into law the Visa Waiver
Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an
omnibus spending bill. And this was the very legislation that restricted access
to the Visa Waiver Program (a program allowing citizens of specific countries
to travel to the United States for tourism, business, or while in transit for
up to 90 days without having to obtain a visa) to the very same countries President
Trump has in his temporary travel ban. Guess that is something Judge Watson
forgot about too.
And speaking of Obama, know his hand is all over Judge
Watson’s decision as there are too many overlaps to be coincidental. Overlaps like he and Watson
graduating from the same school in the same year; like he being the one who appointed Derrick Watson to this judgeship; and that he suddenly
decided to visit Hawaii without his family in tow less than 48 hours before
Watson made the very ruling that blocked President Trump’s temporary
travel ban.
And dare we forget that Judge Watson had his 43-page
opinion ready for dissemination less than two hours after hearing arguments whether
to block the immigration ban or not. And this very timetable raises serious
concerns about Judge Watson possibly having made his decision before
even hearing the attorney's arguments and that he had already drafted his opinion
in full. And if his decision was made beforehand...due to interference by Obama
perhaps...this means he either had the written opinion already done or he had two
hours of help (Obama’s?) in doing so.
Also, let’s not overlook the fact that twice
Obama was physically within three to five minutes of Watson, both at the
courthouse and at the restaurant he later dined at.
And that brings us to this candid, phone-taken photo currently circulating over the internet. Believed by many to be an actual photo taken by the
restaurant owner of Obama, Judge Watson,
and (believed to be) his wife either the night before or soon after the
judge ruled ‘no-go’ on President Trump's temporary travel ban, others say
it is not Judge Watson but just someone who happens to look a bit like him.
But no matter which it actually is, the fact remains
there are way too many anything but coincidences involving Watson’s personal
and professional ties to Obama. And when that is coupled with the timing of
Obama’s sudden and unannounced solo trip to Hawaii, one has to wonder exactly
how much influence, if any, Obama had in the judge’s actual ruling and in his very ‘untimely’
release of his 43-page opinion, especially since Judge Watson remains adamant
that said ban is discriminatory against muslims and that the new order is not
any less unconstitutional than the old one.
And while we wait to see how this ultimately plays
out, including whether Judge Derrick Watson is officially called to task and reprimanded
for his biased decision or even if grounds are found to remove him from his judgeship,
only time will tell. But what remains the bottom line is that the
Constitution does indeed give the president the right to determine who can and
cannot enter our country for without that ability America’s sovereignty is
indeed lost, and that is something that must never be allowed to happen no
matter who is the president.
Investigative Reports...Copyright © 2017 Diane Sori and Craig Andresen / Right Side Patriots
*********************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!
Tonight, Tuesday, March 21st from 7 to 9 pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'A Rogue Ruling from Hawaii,' how to drain the swamp by employing the alligators, and other important news of the week.
Hope you can tune in at: http://tunein.com/radio/American-Political-Radio-s273246/
