Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Derrick Watson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Derrick Watson. Show all posts

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Muslim Brotherhood Associates Sues To Stop Trump Immigration Ban


Plaintiff Behind Trump Travel Ban Runs Muslim Brotherhood Mosque


(WND.com) The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Plaintiff Behind Trump Travel Ban Runs Muslim Brotherhood Mosque
Imam Ismail Elshikh/WND.com
The irony is hard to miss: Trump has talked about declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and now it is a Brotherhood-backed imam who is playing a key role in blocking his executive order on immigration.
Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.
One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.
Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.
According to the lawsuit:
“Plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order subjects portions of the State’s population, including Dr. Elshikh and his family, to discrimination in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right, among other things, to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin. The State purports that the Executive Order has injured its institutions, economy, and sovereign interest in maintaining the separation between church and state.”
The vast majority of Hawaii’s roughly 5,000 Muslims attend Elshikh’s mosque, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, which is located in a residential area of Manoa, Honolulu. The mosque, despite its ties to what many believe is an extremist and subversive organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, may now hold the key to whether the Trump travel ban passes muster in the federal court system.
Elshikh was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah law throughout the world.
Elshikh is living in the U.S. on a green card, which gives him permanent legal status.
The proof that his mosque is affiliated with the Brotherhood is found in the court records for Honolulu County, which lists the deed holder as the North American Islamic Trust.
John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist and now private consultant to law enforcement at Understanding the Threat, said all mosques under the “Muslim Association of” moniker are typically affiliated with the Brotherhood.
But the clincher in this case is that the mosque property is traced to NAIT, “confirming it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo told WND in an email.
The Trump administration has said it is considering banning the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. by including it on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.
NAIT is one of more than 200 unindicted co-conspirators named in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial of 2007-08 in Dallas, Texas. The organization has direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, as documented by the FBI in evidence presented at the trial. (See Sec. VII, Page 8 of court document.)
NAIT is a financial subsidiary of the Islamic Society of North America and holds the deed to more than 325 mosques in 42 U.S. states that are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Discover the Networks.
“Because NAIT controls the purse strings of these many properties, it can exercise ultimate authority over what they teach and what activities they conduct. Specifically, the Trust seeks to ensure that the institutions under its financial influence promote the principles of Sharia law and Wahhabism,” according to Discover the Networks.
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 in Cairo, Egypt, by Hassan al-Banna. It has been banned by Egypt’s current regime, as well as in Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.
A bill in Congress, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015-16, has been languishing in committee since November 2015. House Speaker Paul Ryan has not advanced the bill or done anything to promote it.
Several members of the Trump administration have said they favor declaring the Brotherhood a terrorism organization, but so far that has not happened. One high-level Trump adviser, Mike Flynn, said he was in favor of banning the Brotherhood before he was forced to resign for misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other top White House officials about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States.
Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, described the Brotherhood as “an agent of radical Islam” during his Senate confirmation hearing.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton told Breitbart News last month that the U.S. should declare the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.
“The fact is, the Brotherhood is a front for terrorism,” he said. “A number of Arab majority-Muslim countries, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have already designated it as a terrorist organization. I’ve had Muslim leaders from the Middle East say to me, ‘Are you people blind to what’s going on right in front of you and the role that the Brotherhood performs, really on an international basis?’”
But instead of banning the Brotherhood, the U.S. is letting a Brotherhood-backed imam dictate U.S. refugee and visa policy, Guandolo said.
Judge Watson, who was a Harvard law classmate of Barack Obama’s, issued an injunction halting Trump’s executive order from going into effect, agreeing with Hawaii’s claim that the temporary ban, 90 days on visa travelers and 120 days for refugees, would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.
As for refugees, Hawaii takes very few. Of the 49 states participating in the federal refugee resettlement program, only Mississippi has taken in fewer refugees than Hawaii since 2002. Only 127 refugees have been sent to Hawaii since 2002, and nearly zero have been Muslims from the six nations on Trump’s list. The vast majority sent to Hawaii have been from Burma and Vietnam.
The six nations on Trump’s list for a 90-day moratorium on visas and a 120-day pause on refugee resettlement are Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia.
Of the 127 refugees Hawaii has taken since the State Department started keeping online records in 2002, only one refugee has been from a country on Trump’s list, Iran, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center database.
“There was one refugee from Iran who went to Hawaii and that probably was a Christian. That is the majority of what we are taking from Iran are Christians,” said Ann Corcoran, editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch, which has been tracking resettlements in the U.S. for the past 10 years. “The biggest group were from Burma and Vietnam, and there were none from Africa, so what we have in Hawaii are a bunch of hypocrites whining about ‘irreparable harm’ from pausing refugee resettlement when, in fact, they take hardly any refugees and almost no Muslim refugees.”
Republished with permission from WND.com via iCopyright license.

Friday, March 17, 2017

Judge Rules Against Trump Because Of What Trump Said, Not What The Travel Ban Document Says. Purely A Political Decision


5 Problems With The Hawaii Judge Halting Trump’s Travel Ban


2

This is an excellent summary not only of what’s wrong with the latest judicial ruling stopping President Trump from defending America, but of what’s wrong with the leftist activist judiciary in general. This is a massive problem that the Supreme Court needs to address, and address fairly. The judiciary is supposed to be above partisan politics. That is far from the case nowadays.
“5 Problems With The Hawaii Judge Halting Trump’s Travel Ban,” by Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist, March 16, 2017:
Hours before it was to take effect, a federal judge in Hawaii put President Donald Trump’s latest Middle East travel ban on hold. The executive order, which was a loosened version of a previous version struck down by another court, suspends entry to the United States for 90 days from nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.
“This is an unprecedented judicial overreach,” Trump said of Judge Derrick Watson’s order, during a rally in Nashville.
Whether you agree or disagree with the executive order — and there are plenty of people on both sides of that debate, for many different reasons — the judge’s ruling has some serious problems. Here are a few of them.
1. Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings
Trump said the temporary travel restriction was needed for national security. In issuing his temporary restraining order, Watson said Trump’s order was a result of nothing more than religious animus against Muslims. The judge’s order is predicated on what he thinks Trump wants to do, not the order itself.
Throughout the ruling, Judge Watson concedes there’s nothing about the executive order that would be problematic if not for his interpretation of Trump’s statements made in the months and years prior to issuing it. He repeatedly states his feeling that Trump had a bad motive in issuing the order.
Judges using campaign rhetoric to infer intent instead of plainly evaluating the law as written is a dangerous development. Also because the public can witness the selective use of this trick, it undermines confidence in the judiciary at a time when the judiciary can’t afford too much erosion of trust.
Imagine, for instance, if judges ruled that the Obama-era Health and Human Services mandate forcing nuns to pay for birth control and abortifacients against their religious will was motivated by President Barack Obama’s religious animus, since he had made derogatory comments during his campaign about people bitterly clinging to God. Judges have ruled against powerful mandates such as that one for much better reasons than a parsing of Obama’s campaign rhetoric or political speeches.
Or remember when the Supreme Court saved Obamacare by ruling it constitutional because the individual mandate — the penalty people had to pay for not buying health insurance — could be considered a tax? They ruled that way despite the fact that President Obama repeatedly maintained that the mandate was not a tax. Or as one attorney on Twitter joked:
Throughout his ruling, Watson shifts from discussing Trump’s campaign rhetoric to the executive order itself. In this sense, Watson’s decision looks to be largely a rewrite of a February decision issued by Judge Leonie Brinkema in Aziz v. Trump.
The restraining order is a commentary on Trump rather than the executive order he promulgated. Law professor Josh Blackman wrote of the earlier Brinkema ruling that the judge had “applied a ‘forever taint’ not to the executive order, but to Donald Trump himself.” In defending the earlier executive order that limited travel from seven countries, the government pointed out the naming of those countries as requiring “special scrutiny” by the Obama administration.
Brinkema wrote, “Absent the direct evidence of animus presented by the Commonwealth, singling out these countries for additional scrutiny might not raise Establishment Clause concerns; however, with that direct evidence, a different picture emerges.” In other words, if Obama selected those countries for extreme vetting, she would find it lawful but because Trump had, it was unlawful.
As Blackman notes, “No matter that Trump excluded forty-three other Muslim-majority nations that account for 90 percent of the global Muslim population. Even though three of the included nations are state-sponsors of terrorism! It will always a ‘Muslim ban’ because of comments he made on the O’Reilly Factor in 2011, a policy he adopted in 2015, and abandoned after his lawyers told him it was illegal. She admits as much. ‘A person,’ she writes, ‘is not made brand new simply by taking the oath of office.’ Not the policy. The person. Trump.”
Watson essentially makes the same point in his restraining order. Even though his own ruling notes the evolution in Trump’s rhetoric from a “Muslim” ban to a restriction on certain “territories,” in his view the original motivation of the man remains and forever taints the immigration policy of the executive branch for all time, no matter the words of the policy itself.
2. Selective Quotations
Watson’s temporary restraining order focuses exclusively on campaign rhetoric from Trump and his advisors. He dismisses the government’s desire to “focus on the Executive Order’s text, rather than its context” by waving it away and discussing Trump’s press releases and cable news talking points. But those statements are selectively quoted.
For instance, Watson quotes Rudolph Giuliani as saying, “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”
Well, yes. Giuliani further explains how he put together a commission featuring judge and former attorney general Michael Mukasey, Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul, and other expert lawyers. He says they focused on “instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible.” He reiterated that the ban was “not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
If you’re going to quote the man, quote the man. Yet if he’d done that, he would not have been able to write that “These plainly-worded statements… betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose.”
3. Unforced Errors
Watson favorably cites the plaintiffs’ condemnation of Trump for saying the following about his earlier executive order that gave priority to persecuted religious minorities such as Christians and Yazidis:
In a January 27, 2017 interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, President Trump said that persecuted Christians would be given priority under the first Executive Order. He said (once again, falsely): ‘Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.’
Once again, falsely? Once again, falsely? It’s mildly disconcerting the judge would know so little about persecuted religious minorities in the region relevant to the travel ban. Here’s a report from September of last year:
The Obama administration hit its goal this week of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees — yet only a fraction of a percent are Christians, stoking criticism that officials are not doing enough to address their plight in the Middle East.
Of the 10,801 refugees accepted in fiscal 2016 from the war-torn country, 56 are Christians, or .5 percent.
A total of 10,722 were Muslims, and 17 were Yazidis.
The numbers are disproportionate to the Christian population in Syria, estimated last year by the U.S. government to make up roughly 10 percent of the population. Since the outbreak of civil war in 2011, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 1 million Christians have fled the country, while many have been targeted and slaughtered by the Islamic State.
In March, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. had determined that ISIS has committed genocide against minority religious groups, including Christians and Yazidis.
Once again, falsely? What’s false about what Trump said in that interview from which we’re supposed to deduce so much intent and motivation?
For more, read Nina Shea’s Wall Street Journal piece “The U.S. and U.N. Have Abandoned Christian Refugees.”…
5. Judicial Overreach…What’s more, 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….
Read the rest here.

Judge Rewards Obama With A Victory. Talk About Corruption!

Judge Who Ruled Against Trump Travel Ban Is Former Obama Classmate



Posted Thursday, March 16th 2017 @ 3pm  by Hannity.com Staff

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Kahala Watson
It turns out that Judge Derrick Watson, the U.S. District Court Judge who on Wednesday ruled against President Trump's temporary travel restriction, has an interesting connection to President Obama: both he and the 44th president were classmates at Harvard Law School.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson, who halted President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban Wednesday, is a 1984 graduate of Kamehameha Schools who was in President Barack Obama’s class at Harvard Law School.
Watson, 50, was appointed by Obama in November 2012 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in April 2013. Watson said in a June 2013 interview with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that he never met Obama at Harvard and knew him only as head of the school’s law review.
President Obama made a surprise visit to his home state of Hawaii on Monday, the Honolulu Star Advertiser reported earlier this week.

Thursday, March 16, 2017


Federal Judge Who Blocked Trump Order Was Obama’s Classmate


 Print

Ever since a federal judge in Hawaii issued a sweeping freeze of President Donald Trump’s new immigration moratorium Wednesday, conspiracy theories have abounded across social media.
The leading theory suggested that former President Barack Obama played a role in the ruling. As noted by Hawaii News Now, the former president arrived in the islands Monday for an unexpected visit.
He reportedly dined Tuesday evening at Noi Thai Cuisine, an upscale restaurant, less than 24 hours before U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson, a law school classmate of Obama, ruled against Trump’s immigration order.

What concerned conspiracy theorists, according to the Infowars, was that the restaurant was “just minutes away from the courthouse” and that “Obama was likely within five minutes of the judge’s house at one point on the drive over.”
Plus, according to an old White House transcript, it was in fact Obama who had appointed Watson to the court three years ago.

And while Obama’s trip to Hawaii was ostensibly a vacation, PopSugar has reported that “he’s still making time to take care of business.”
“Given that Obama appointed the judge, graduated in the same year as him and visited Honolulu and was within minutes of the judge less than 48 hours before Judge Watson made a major ruling that blocked Trump’s travel ban, it doesn’t take a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist to insinuate that the two could have met,” Infowars concluded.

Obama travels to Hawaii 48 hours prior to judge's anti-travel ban ruling, a judge he graduated Law School with. Just a coincidence, right?

Was it a conspiracy or a coincidence? Most Americans would likely assume it was just a coincidence, but the existence of a confirmed Obama-operated “deep state” does make one wonder just how far he would be willing to go to thwart Trump.

In fact, according to Breitbart contributor Aaron Klein, Obama may very well “be seeking no less than Trump’s impeachment.”

► Hawaii judge blocks Travel Ban

►  sighted in Hawaii on Monday

coincidence?

I think not!

someone alert Alex Jones

It could all be nothing, of course, but it does look curious, at least — and there’s very little we’d put past the former president.
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about the conspiracy theories surrounding Obama’s sudden trip to Hawaii during the same week a judge in Hawaii ruled against Trump’s immigration order.
What do you think about these connections between Obama and the judge in Hawaii?