You Won’t Believe What A Federal Judge Just Gave Muslims The Disturbing Right To Do In America

Barack Hussein Obama promised during his campaign that he would fundamentally change America. Of course, that sent shivers up all of our spines, but we did not realize how much he would change. During his eight administration, Obama systematically changed the course of this country and we are still reeling from those decisions. Instead of Obama upholding the laws of our land and constitution he began to usurp them. And, because of that, he essentially opened the door for every other sleazy politician and judge to the same. Now, liberal judges are running rampant throughout this country and what they just decided for Muslims shows how bad things really are.

During the last campaign, President Trump spoke about how he would protect our country from Muslim extremists. That once he was elected he enact policies that would ensure that Muslim terrorists could not harm another American. So, when President Trump wrote an executive order that would limit travel from countries with ties to terrorism we all celebrated. But, of course, the progressives and Muslims began to cry that this was unconstitutional and sued. They took their case to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and ten liberal judges made a stunning decision. These judges decided that Muslims can ask judges to change the nation’s national security

These liberal judges seemed to have forgotten the Muslim terrorist that have claimed so many innocent Americans lives.

They took their case to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit where ten liberal judges made a stunning decision. They decided that Muslims could demand that judges change the nation’s national security and immigration policies whenever prior campaign statements in democratic political elections can be described as unfair to Muslims living in America.

Here is more from Breitbart:

However, a dissent approved by three judges highlighted the political ambitions and risks hiding behind the court’s declaration of support for the Islamic plaintiffs. “The danger of the majority’s new rule is that it will enable any court to justify its decision to strike down any executive action with which it disagrees,” says three three-judge dissent, which concluded:

Unless corrected by the Supreme Court, the majority’s new approach, which is unsupported by any Supreme Court case, will become a sword for plaintiffs to challenge facially neutral government actions, particularly those affecting regions dominated by a single religion. Government officials will avoid speaking about religion, even privately, lest a court discover statements that could be used to ascribe a religious motivation to their future actions. And, in the more immediate future, our courts will be faced with the unworkable task of determining when this President’s supposed religious motive [in the 2016 election] has sufficiently dissipated so as to allow executive action toward these or other majority Muslim countries.

This ruling is absolutely disgusting and it should never have even been looked at. It seems that every day we are falling further away from what our founding fathers intended. Instead of being the land of the free we are now the land of political correctness. Our only hope at this point for this ruling to be overturned is for the Supreme Court to step in.

Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer authored a dissent that you can read here:

 need only find one [campaign] statement that contradicts the stated reasons for a subsequent executive action and thereby pronounce that reasons for the executive action are a pretext …

Moreover, the unbounded nature of the majority’s new rule will leave the President and his Administration in a clearly untenable position for future action. It is undeniable that President Trump will need to engage in foreign policy regarding majority-Muslim nations, including those designated by the Order. And yet the majority now suggests that at least some of those future actions might also be subject to the same challenges upheld today. Presumably, the majority does not intend entirely to stop the President from creating policies that address these nations, but it gives the President no guidelines for “cleansing” himself of the “taint” they have purportedly identified…

Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer

Finally, the new rule would by itself chill political speech directed at voters seeking to make their election decision. It is hard to imagine a greater or more direct chill on campaign speech than the knowledge that any statement made may be used later to support the inference of some nefarious intent when official actions are inevitably subjected to legal challenges. Indeed, the majority does not even deny that it employs an approach that will limit communication to voters. Instead, it simply opines remarkable that such chilling is “a welcome restraint.”

The Supreme Court surely will shudder at the majority’s adoption of this new rule that has no limits or bounds — one that transforms the [10-judge] majority’s criticisms of a candidate’s various campaign statements into a constitutional violation…

It engages in its own review of the national security justifications supporting the Order and concludes that protecting national security could not be the President’s “primary purpose.” As evidence, the majority points to the President’s level of consultation with national security agencies before issuing the Order; the content of internal Department of Homeland Security reports; the comments of former national security officials made in an amicus brief; and its own assessment of the national security threats described in the Order … The majority’s intense factual inquiry is particularly inappropriate where the government’s secular purpose is related to national security — a subject, as the majority recognizes, on which we owe the executive significant deference…

Read the entire court decision here.

I can only hope that the Supreme Court will hear this case and overturn this decision quickly. There is no reason that hurt feelings should EVER take precedent over national security. It is the time that we push back even harder patriots. This is our time now and it will not stop until we make our voices even louder.


H/T  [ Breitbart ]

Liberty Belle is a libertarian and provocateur who believes in freedom and liberty for all Americans. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington, while exposing politicians and individuals who wish to do us harm. Liberty’s legendary ability to piss off liberals and get to the bottom of corruption makes her an extremely dangerous foe to all the easily-triggered snowflakes out there.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.