Op-ed:

A Constitutional Truth Ignored and A Dangerous Misconception 

By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio

The article posted here is the authors opinion alone, and does not necessarily represent the views of blogspot.com or Google 

 

The United States Constitution is the greatest testament to freedom ever constructed and codified, and yet it often finds its words being misinterpreted or simply ignored by those who deem it either irrelevant or outdated in these modern times. And then there's those who twist its words to meet a given political or religious agenda; while state courts tend to see conflicts between their and federal authority as it pertains to the actual applications of Constitutional law. But in today's volatile world the Constitution's actual intent has come into play both by the religious sorts who still see the Holy Bible as trumping Constitutional law even in secular matters; and by those who believe that they can throw its words aside in a game of what is false altruism, especially if it helps to garner their political party's now hoped for “grab of power.”

So here I will first focus on the wanted by some religious inclusion into what the Constitution deems to be our “secular” governance and law.

“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The “Treaty of Tripoli,” submitted to the Senate in 1805 by then President John Adams.

So as we're now less then a year away from America's 250th birthday...a day for both joyous celebration and reflection on who we are as a nation and as a people... it's also a day to acknowledge that while our nation was born not from religious conflict in the classic sense it still, nevertheless, bore the markings of a religious conflict in some ways. How so...because the original British colonists who came to the “New World” were, for the most part, seeking refuge from not just the autocratic rule of the kings of England, but from what was a theocratic style of government where thanks to power hungry Henry VlII and his 1534 “Act of Supremacy,” England not only broke away from the Catholic Church, but Henry deemed himself and all future British kings to be the head of what then became the “Church of England.”

And so, Henry VIII gave to himself unlimited power by mingling together both religion and governance seeing England becoming a theocracy in principal, the very thing our “Founders and Framers” abhorred. And thus they formed a “secular” government where freedom of religion was to be just as accepted as “freedom from religion” in regards to the roll religion played in our new government or their hoped for lack thereof.

We know our “Founders and Framers”...some of the Christian faith, some deists, and a few actually nonbelievers...designed the Constitution to be the “rule of law” as it pertained to their agreed upon founding principal of “separation of Church and State.” No one religion was deemed to be our new nation's “state religion,” while the “Establishment Clause” prevented the government from favoring one religion over another. In fact, no specific religion or even “God” himself was mentioned by any given name other than the ubiquitous word “Creator”...a word deliberately chosen to leave its meaning open to one's individual beliefs and/or personal interpretation.

A well thought out and applied concept that was driven by what was then deemed to be “enlightenment”...as in the European “intellectual movement” of the late 17th and 18th centuries that emphasized both “reason” and “individualism” rather than simple religious traditions and/or blind following. These ideas were embraced by many of not only our “Founders and Framers,” but by the general population as well.

And in their embracing of “enlightenment” our “Founders and Framers” actually did strive for a “pluralistic society” of sorts...a society where differences of both faith and ideologies would be accepted if they not only served the common good, but followed the actual rule of law that was intended to be “secular” in nature. Simply, our “Founders and Framers” wanted to put aside religious doctrines, tenets, dogma, and beliefs in all matters of actual governance while at the same time protecting the individual's right to believe as one chose to believe...or chose not to believe at all.

Simply, at the time of the Constitution's writing what was to become our new nation was tired of war in general, as well as being tired of all the oppressive orders, both religious and otherwise, being mandated from Britain's King James' autocratic based theocracy that lay “across the pond.” And in their wisdom and foresight these four main Constitution “Framers” openly advocated for “separation of Church and State.”

1. James Madison, a delegate to the Virginia Convention of 1776, was chosen to be the “Architect of the Constitution” and is now more commonly known as the “Father of the Constitution.” Madison was an advocate for a strong yet limited federal government, and was also the chief proponent of a “separation of Church and State” saying that“separation” would “keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries”

2. Thomas Jefferson, believed religion was a “personal matter” that should be kept “separate” from political affairs. Saying“separation” was“essential to protect both religion and government from corruption,” and thus “would protect both religious and non-religious citizens,” it was Jefferson's ideas on “individual rights” and “limited government” that helped to shape the first ten amendments of the “Bill of Rights.”

3. Benjamin Franklin not only promoted “deism” and criticized “organized religion,” but he believed that morality could exist “independently” from religion. Also believing that government should not interfere in religious matters, Franklin believed that a “secular government” could “better promote peace and unity among diverse faiths,” and thus was able to secure the needed consensus amongst the Constitutional Convention's delegates.

4. Alexander Hamilton, whose writings reflect a “commitment to pluralism and tolerance in society,” believed that religion could coexist with government but that it must be without any direct involvement. Hamilton also deemed“separation of Church and State” as essential in preventing religious conflict and tyranny, and publicly advocated for a “secular government framework.” while being seen as a driving force behind the Constitution’s final ratification.

Simply, what these wise men were proposing and what became Constitutional law was that religion must be kept out of government while government must be kept out of religion...a fair and equal trade indeed. But sadly, we now find some very vocal sorts wanting one specific religion and their interpretation of it to become an integral part of our government from the local to the state to the federal level, basically trying to put their religious views over Constitutional law. This is something “We the People” must never allow let alone be open to discussion, for if this were to happen our beloved America could well become just like the theocratic based governments our “Founders and Framers” sought refuge from.

So here let's now switch gears and now focus on the misconceptions regarding both illegal immigration and the now in effect deportations of the worst of the illegal criminal element type.

“I am going to create a new special deportation task force, focused on identifying and removing quickly the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America.” - President Donald J. Trump in 2016 during his first term in office.

And while the original Constitution did not address “immigration” in the same way as it addressed the aforementioned “separation of Church and State,” several key Constitutional provisions adopted years after its ratification does address the issue. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress not only the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization,” but allows Congress to set the “criteria and process” for one becoming a U.S. citizen. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees “equal protection” under the law to all including immigrants and non-citizens, while both the 5th and 14th Amendments provide “due process” rights to all persons, regardless of their immigration status. Simply, this is taken to mean that all immigrants are entitled to certain legal protections.

But in today's reality the fact does remain that what are true “immigrants” are few and far between for the vast majority of those having entered into our county during the four horrendous Biden years were what amounts to an “invading army” of persons “non-grata”...as in those sorts here only for their Biden promised “free stuff” in exchange for their vote...with a not so healthy dose of murder committing gang members and even terrorists embedded amongst them.

So what does the Constitution say about removing these vile sorts from our country? Unfortunately, at the time of the Constitution's writing immigration was not an issue that our “Founders and Framers” addressed. However, the still in effect“Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965” does outline the procedures for deportation. So while the Constitution itself does not explicitly address the deportation of illegals, it does allow for the “enforcement” of our on the books immigration laws whether they be based upon federal or state policies.

And to that affect President Trump is deporting these “persons non-grata”...specifically gang members... with some actually being convicted rapists and murderers... by his retroactively applying the on-the-books process known as “expedited removal,” with said removal being the legal process that allows immigration authorities... as in I.C.E agents...to arrest and “rapidly deport” these undocumented anything but lawful immigrants, and to do so without these folks having access to a full court hearing before a U.S. immigration judge.

Desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures.

So here the question now becomes, is President Trump legally allowed to order the deportation of these persons without “due process?” I believe the answer to be a resounding YES for these individuals not only pose a direct danger to the “health, safety, and welfare” of “We American citizens”...the very people Trump took an oath to protect...while also presenting a threat to our national security and overall public safety while at the same time undermining the very integrity of our U.S. immigration laws.

And here is where misconceptions abound for while bleeding heart liberal politicians and their media cohorts want you to believe that these what they call “undocumented migrants” are just poor misunderstood folks, the fact remains that since their unfettered arrival during the Biden years, over 527,459+ actual arrests of illegals, to date, have been made. And that does not include the 1,141,047 detentions of illegals with known criminal convictions or those with pending criminal charges, as well as those with no current convictions or pending charges but who have knowingly and willingly broken U.S. immigration laws. And whether the said illegals detentions are short or long term, the verified numbers I presented should scare every law abiding American citizen while the reality of the situation hopefully starts to sink in.

Simply, no matter what the liberal media reports to be truth, no matter what Democrat politicians claim to be truth, truth is not a concept either of them take to heart. And when it comes to illegals and their right...or their lack thereof ...to “due process” we cannot and must not accept at face value anything either of them have to say. And why so...because misconceptions by its very nature does tend to cater to public sentiment instead of to what is usually verifiable truth, for truth is as foreign to these sorts as is the art of deception to we American patriots.

And so we now, as a nation, stand on a dangerous precipice where Constitutional truth regarding the “separation of Church and State” fights with misconceptions regarding the deportation of criminal illegal aliens. And while those specific issues remain quite different in nature, it's important to remember the fact that what truly is important is that Constitutional law alone...whether it be its original text or amendments added after the fact...does remain the highest law of our land. Case closed. 

Copyright © 2025 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All rights reserved. 

************************************************************************************************** 
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, Texas Tragedy - Liberal Depravity.

*********************************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!                                                         Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 15th from 7 to 8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'A Constitutional Truth Ignored and A Dangerous Misconception'; 'Texas Tragedy - Liberal Depravity'; and important news of the day. Hope you can tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on https://rspradio1.com Click 'LISTEN LIVE' starting at 6:50pm EST, show begins at 7pm EST. 

 

Op-ed: 

An Executive Order That Might Not Be in the Best Interest of Our Country

By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio

‘Separation of church and state’ has once again come to the forefront of American politics with last Thursday’s signing by President Trump of a new executive order that expanded religious rights...a move that could very possibly redefine the role of religion in ‘We the People’s’ day-to-day life. And yet that order did not go far enough for some far right conservative who had expected even more...more as in measures leading up to a theocracy perhaps.

No one is ever happy it seems and everyone tries to push the envelope...as in give an inch, try to take a mile.

Now as for the Trump order itself...it must be understood that this executive order did not change any rules currently on the books as it simply instructed the IRS to stop investigating religious groups who preach politics from the pulpit...a move that obviously had Evangelicals loudly cheering. Saying it was a victory for religious freedom and for free speech, it now has leaders of more liberal-minded Christian and Jewish denominations fearing that worship services will soon become nothing but ‘worked into a frenzy’ political rallies.

So which side is right? 

To answer that question and understand exactly what President Trump’s executive order really intended, we first must look at what some believe is meant by ‘separation of church and state’ and the truth of what it does mean via the words of our Founders and Framers...words you an see President Reagan understood well.

First, know that the actual words ‘separation of church and state’ are not in the Constitution but the idea and intent of ‘separation’ is. Article VI provides that all state and federal officials "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause means that neither a specific church nor a specific religion can become the official faith of these United States. 

On the other hand, the Free Exercise Clause states that Congress shall not make laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. In other words, one can freely practice their chosen religion but one cannot try to force their chosen religion or its tenets and doctrines on government operations nor on the public at large.

And all this brouhaha over what role religion is to play or not to play in American political life is not the sole property of today’s politicians for the questioning of this issue started when our nation was young with Thomas Jefferson’s January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists and his three key words “walls of separation.” Written to assure their leaders that the Establishment Clause had been put in place to protect them and others of faith, the simple truth is that by 1802, ‘separation of church and state’ was already deeply rooted in both American religious and secular history.

 

In fact, James Madison had already written that government involvement with the church "implies either that the civil magistrate is a competent judge of religious truth; or that he may employ religion as an engine of civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." In other words, Madison felt that the use of religion by political leaders for their own ends was a danger both to the faithful and to what he called the “peace of society”...the very basis of the Constitution.

And let’s not forget the words of retired conservative Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who in 2005 wrote that, "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well (the Constitution) for one that has served others so poorly?"...as in religion has not always served those who believe or our country well. 

Remember, our Founders and Framers, with some being men of faith also saw others being deists, hence not all were followers of Christ for if all were, and if Christianity was intended to be the religion of this nation, why then were the words ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ not in the Constitution, and why is religion only referenced as something not to be a factor in government as in the afore mentioned "religion will not be a test for public office."

 

Why...that probably harks back to the words of the Declaration of Independence itself which states, “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation,” meaning that our Founders and Framers clearly did not put religion over science (ie, the "Laws of Nature") nor science over religion but treated them equally under the eyes of the law...with equally being of paramount importance.

And while they did include the word ‘Creator’ in the Declaration of Independence as in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”...it does not necessarily allude solely to the Christian God for the word 'God' and the word 'Creator' does mean different things to different people, as referenced by the Founders and Framers very words "their Creator" not 'the Creator.'

Simply, when all this is melded together into one cohesive whole, it should become obvious that the intent of our Founders and Framers was to allow everyone to believe as they wished in regards to religion, but that the government must not endorse or favor one religion over another nor must any religion dictate law to the government...and that, I believe, is the true meaning of ‘separation of church and state.’

And so our Founders and Framers intended that the Constitution alone be the law of the land and not the Holy Bible. And again why...because they knew the Bible was open then and would be open in the future to the interpretations of the individual while the Constitution was to be adjudicated as written with its intent, when questioned, left to the Supreme Court alone to decide. And let’s not forget that they intended for the ‘separation of church and state’ to be as much for the protection of the Church as it was to be for the protection of the state, because they knew that if the Church can dictate state matters, the state in turn could dictate to the religious how their religion is to be practiced....something the religious far right has not yet realized.

And I am not talking about things like ‘wedding cakes’ and ‘pizza parlors’...which are social issues and as such belong to the states alone...but in the actual way one practices their Christian faith as in when churches are to be open and how and when one prays. And know that nowhere in today’s America is any Christian prevented from going to Church, praying in Church, or praying in their homes. And while outwardly praying in public places remains a hot topic of debate, one is free to silently pray at the time or place of their choosing. 

So, how does all this relate to the executive order just signed by President Trump?

First, you need to understand that what President Trump signed was simply an easing of federal restrictions on some political activities by religious groups thus “promoting free speech and religious liberty.” The final version of the order addressed two key issues alone...it instructed the Internal Revenue Service “not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization” that endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit (and know that this applies only to advocating for or against a specific candidate...taking positions on issues has always been permitted)...and it instructs the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to "consider amending" regulations in the still in effect ObamaCare (the American Health Care Plan must still pass in the Senate before becoming law) that requires most employers to cover contraception in employee insurance plans. 

Now let me say that I wholeheartedly support the second part of this order...and I am happy that the Catholic nuns known as the Little Sisters of the Poor won their case against ObamaCare...as I believe the government has no business whatsoever in any part of our reproduction process from the forcing on us of contraception to the act of abortion, and that includes having our taxpayer dollars pay for said abortions...for I truly believe that if you want an abortion you must pay for it yourself and let your conscious and your God deal with the aftermath of what you have done.

Now as for the first part...while Trump’s executive order directs the government “to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom,” nowhere does it state exactly what protections for religious freedoms it alludes to. Therefore, does it mean muslims have the religious right, as per islamic/sharia law, to perform female genital mutilation...it very well could and also could see cases currently before the courts regarding this practice to be thrown out based upon religious grounds.

And know this executive order...an order less than some religious leaders had hoped for...was issued to be a first step toward fulfilling one of President Trump’s campaign promises made to social conservatives whose votes he needed to get elected but who still refuse to understand and accept as fact that the social issues belong solely to the states. But what is scary to me is that on Wednesday night at a small dinner party at the White House before Trump’s announcement was made, former Liberty University Vice President Johnnie Moore tweeted that "it truly is an amazing evening. Evangelicals feel right at home in the @WhiteHouse.”

A specific religion feels right at home in the very House that should show no preference for any religion...dangerous grounds being trod upon I would say.

And while Moore and his fellow Evangelicals relish in this new order, other far right conservatives say that it does little in actuality because while it overturns the prohibition on pastors endorsing or opposing political candidates from the pulpit it still requires an act of Congress relating to approval, and because the IRS still has flexibility in what it chooses to enforce. Citing the order’s words “exercise maximum enforcement discretion of the prohibition,” which alludes to the Johnson Amendment...the provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates...including Houses of Worship...these folks remain unhappy that the issues of gay marriage and gender were not touched upon.

And while more moderate conservatives believe this belly-aching is nothing but Evangelicals wanting a license to discriminate against any and all who do not agree with their beliefs...I must admit that I agree with the moderates on this as once again the Evangelicals refuse to understand that these gender and lifestyle issues are state’s issues and cannot be part of federal executive orders. And they willingly choose to forget that the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding gay marriage concerned legal matters only, and did not touch upon the religious aspect of this union.

So, how does this executive order breach the ‘separation of church and state’ issue?

With America being one of the most religiously tolerant countries in the world, and while President Trump did open the door to future policy shifts when he directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to "as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero questioned the order’s infringing upon the long-held ‘separation of church and state’ intent saying that, “The actions taken today are a broadside to our country’s long-standing commitment to the separation of church and state. Whether by executive order or through backroom deals, it’s clear that the Trump administration and Congressional leadership are using religion as a wedge to further divide the country and permit discrimination. We intend to file suit today.”

And it seems the majority of Americans if not outright agreeing with him do understand the intent and need for ‘separation of church and state’ and how it has kept our country from becoming a theocracy. In fact, as per a 2016 Pew Research Center survey few want the previously stated Johnson Amendment repealed. According to said survey 71% of Americans oppose allowing houses of worship to endorse political candidates while maintaining their tax-exempt status. In fact, only 36% of white Evangelicals support enabling churches to support candidate, mainline white Protestants hold at 23%, Catholics at 25%, and black Protestants at 19%.

And here’s a fact the religious hardliners do not want known...in an open letter to President Trump, 1,300 faith leaders opposed his executive order, including its possible weakening of the above stated Johnson Amendment.

So what does this all mean...it means that this executive order...no matter President Trump’s words that “We are giving churches their voices back”...knowingly or not puts the wishes of a small sector of the religious far right above the wishes of the many, thus actually compromising the true meaning of religious freedom as it allows a small but very vocal religious minority to play politics and doing so while hiding behind the guise of religion as they will continue to discriminate against those who do not live up to their religious tenets and dogma. 

And that indeed violates the intent of ‘separation of church and state’ and can lead us down a very dangerous path towards a theocracy...something our Founding Fathers never wanted or intended us to be.

Copyright © 2017 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor 

*********************************************************************************

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE! 

Today, Tuesday, May 9th from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss President Trump's executive order regarding religious freedoms; white privilege and racism: and important news of the week.

Hope you can tune in at:  https://americanpoliticalradio.com/archived-media/

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/