Gallery

LAWLESSNESS: 9th Circuit Ruling on Trump Travel ban is an Open Display of Lawlessness

I’ve been blogging for about seven years know, and the law has been one of my primary focal points.  However, since I am not a lawyer, and I do not hold any type of formal law degree, I am often challenged by those who believe the courts can do no wrong.  Well, one does not need to have any type of law degree to know that our courts are lawless.  One only need understand the basic theory of law and logic to see it, and this recent ruling by the 9th Court of Appeals is absolute proof that this court is beyond repair and needs to be dissolved.

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court rules against Trump’s travel ban

This court claimed that Trump’s ban violates the ‘due process’ clause.  Well, no!  You see, that clause applies to U.S. citizens, and the people Trump is trying to keep out of this country are not U.S. citizens.  How do we know this is true?  Because a U.S. citizen would not need to get a VISA, they would already have a U.S. passport.  And how do we know this clause does not apply to non-citizens?  Because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not in Iran telling the Mullahs that they cannot execute homosexuals without due process; or stone women accused of adultery without due process.  You see, if this clause applies to non-citizens still in another country simply because they want to enter the United States, then it applies to these people who are being killed by their governments.  And if you doubt that, just ask them as they are about to be executed if they would rather come to the U.S.  What do you think they would say?  So why isn’t the 9th Circuit Court going after the Mullahs, the Chinese, Putin and North Korea?  Because the Constitution does not apply to aliens — and the court knows it!

Then we have the little problem of the law Trump used to issue his ban.  The wording of this law specifically permits the President to take this action, and if it didn’t, the Constitution sure does.  You see, the Constitution strictly charges the President with protecting the security of the United States.  So Trump simply has to declare the people from this region of the world to be a threat to the security of this nation and he can ban them from entry.  This is pretty simple and straight forward, and it cannot be ‘unconstitutional’ for the simple fact that the Constitution cannot be construed as to contradict itself.  Besides, no one told Obama he was violating the Constitution when he did the exact same thing — because he wasn’t.  That’ because this recent ruling is about politics, not the law.

Now, let’s drive home my claim that the courts — especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — are lawless and rules according to their political agenda and not the law.  The ‘courts’ have pointed to wording that is not in the Constitution to create a ‘wall of separation’ out of whole cloth.  As construed and applied, this is actually unconstitutional.  We know this because the author of the First Amendment told us so!  This is in the Congressional and historic record, so it is a known fact, not speculation or ‘opinion.’  And that means the courts do not have a choice: they must apply the law according to original intent, or they act outside their authority (i.e. lawlessly).  Thus, we have shown that the courts are lawless.  Now let’s look at two cases that clearly illustrate just how lawless they have become.

According to our lawless courts, it is ‘unconstitutional’ for Christians to pray public prayers that reflect their own personal faith and beliefs. [Doe v Santa Fe I.S.D., 1995; Furley v Aledo I.S. D., 1999; Bacus v Plo Verde U.S.D., 2002; Rubin v City of Burbank, 2002; Wynne v Town of Great Falls, 2004; Hinrichs v Bosma, 2005; Doe v Tangipahoa Parish Sch Bd, 2006; Turner v City Council, 2006].

At the same time, the ‘courts’ in nine Western States have ruled that it is ‘constitutional’ to force — force — public school children to attend a mandatory, three-week indoctrination into Islam in which all junior-high students must pretend they are Muslims and offer prayers to Allah! [Eklund v Byron U.S.D., 2005 and Newdow v U.S. Congress, 2002].

Dear reader, these two rulings are direct contradictions of each other.  This is because they have nothing to do with the law or the U.S. Constitution.  These rulings were made by activists pushing their political agendas from the bench.  What;s more, they have shown a decided hostility toward Christianity — the very faith the author of the First Amendment said the Amendment was specifically written to protect — while protecting a subversive political ideology masquerading as a religion (Islam).  In fact, it is a known fact that the founders — and, therefore — original intention of the Constitution was to specifically deny atheists into public service and to allow Muslims to rule only if and when Christianity had been totally abandoned by the People.  Again, the courts know this, they simply do not care.  This is because they are lawless — period!  And I have just demonstrated this point very clearly, and in a way that cannot be logically countered without denying the reality of what the courts have done.

As a believer, we need to realize that this sort of lawlessness is of the same spirit as that of the Pharisees.  If you have spiritual doubts or questions on this matter, I strongly urge you to read and consider Matthew 23.

[NOTE: I have placed this blog in the Lord’s hands.  I am no longer cross-blogging to other sites.  I am not pushing this blog in any way.  If others are going to find it, and if it is going to grow, it will be up to the Lord to make it happen through you, the reader.  If you like this post, or find it to be of any value, then please share it with others.  Otherwise, I will simply continue to share the understandings I have been given and, as I said earlier, I will leave the fruit of my effort for the Lord to handle.]

11 responses to “LAWLESSNESS: 9th Circuit Ruling on Trump Travel ban is an Open Display of Lawlessness

  1. Joe,

    Good post.

    Verse 35: “As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time”

    As in the time of Noah, the lawlessness that people worship, shall cast them into the fires of eternal Hell. All have been warned but their desires do not include a relationship with Jesus Christ.

    Self condemnation of the majority of man. How sad!

  2. I am putting this link to an article called “The Last Crusade: RIP van Con”

    The author is an atheist but argues for a Return to Christian values and Christian basis to America and the West….that a concerted effort needs to be directed against what he calls “the fascistic cultural Marxism”. It is very worth reading. Found it on M Levin’s channel. Will link it also to one of Utah’s posts.

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/02/the-last-crusade-rip-van-con/

    • Thanks, Don,

      Yes, many in the West do not realize just how much of their moral value system comes from Christian influence. They attack Christianity, and tell themselves that Christians are the source of many of their woes, but they do not realize that Christianity is the driving force behind the notion of equality in rights and before the law, abolition, protection of children, women’s rights, their 5-day work week and much, much more. Before Christianity started to influence the Western world, slavery was considered the norm. So was pedophilia! And women were thought of as property. So it sounds as though the author to your story is not only well informed about history, but also intellectually honest. Both qualities are so rare as to be admirable — no matter where they are found. So, again, thanks for the link. I’ll make time to read it.

      B3A

      • Thanks. Was a hopeful and TRUE assessment:

        The last True sentences…..from an atheist no less ( at least M Levin said the author was ) :

        Look at the utter abandonment of any attempt of the Antichrist’s party to reason, or to settle differences of opinion peacefully.

        “Look at the war. Conservativism is too short a blade to reach the foe. A crusade, based on Christian faith, Christian metaphysics, and a sound and rational philosophy is needed. Sheathe your knives. Let the cannons roar.”

        The key here …..” based on Christian faith…”… !!!!!!! I have been sensing this sentiment a lot in many venues, from those not usually self professed Christians. Perhaps the Spirit is gathering allies…… ?????

        • Don,

          You have put this thought very well — especially the part about putting away the blade and waging war according to the teachings of the Christian faith. Two thoughts here — for those following along.

          1 — In my last reply, I did not mention the fact that reason and science were both brought into the modern understanding by Christians. This is because — as we understand them today — neither was possible before the Christian faith. With all their emphasis on logic, even the Greeks rejected the notion that the universe was governed according to fixed, knowable laws. The first time the world encounters this idea is in the Bible, and Christians took as an indication that we could come to know and understand more about God by learning more about His Natural Laws. Christians even perfected the work Cicero started (Cicero’s version of Natural Law was flawed in that he did not believe all men were necessarily equal under the law — just those in his class).

          2 — This one is most important for believers. The Book of Revelation talks of a two-horned beast that looks like a lamb but speaks like the dragon. For those who really know their Bible, the beast has an APPEARANCE of being Christian (or of God), but speaks (i.e. acts) like the dragon, which is Satan.

          Revelation and Daniel both speak of an end times beast (most people think its the antichrist, but Scripture never names a person as ‘antichrist’) and the mark/image of the beast. Well, in the prophetic language, a beast is a kingdom — not a person! And an image does not necessarily mean a statue, as so many today believe. Man was made in God’s image. Are we statues? No! I have come to believe that the image of the beast means the church will become just as war-like as the beast of Revelation. Before the Crusades, Christians were pacifists. After the Crusades, Christianity has been war-like: it has made an image of the beast. Christ told us those who live by the sword will die by it. Clearly, He did not mean for his disciples to be violent. So, as you said, there must be an awakening among the TRUE believers, and it starts by returning to the original principles of Christ’s Gospel. Chief among them is to put away the sword and start showing an AGAPE love toward others. Another, equally important part is to speak the Truth and never budge one inch from that hill (but speak with that agape love).

          • That’s not what the author is saying.

            I couldn’t disagee more with your comment about the Crusades and the image of the beast. Let’s just leave it at that.

          • I know this is not what the author is saying, but, as a non-Christian, he does not understand the Christian message as well as those who follow Christ’s Gospel. So, while he may have to correct solution, he may not be able to “show his work” correctly (so to speak).

            As for the rest: I understand. Most believers will disagree with me. My fault is that I am learning Biblical Hebrew and applying proper hermeneutics and logic to my understanding of the Scriptures. Once I did that, I quickly realized that the Church has been miss-interpreting Scripture, and thus, teaching it incorrectly, as well. But I respect your position and am happy to leave it alone. 🙂

          • OK, Don,

            I finally had time to read the article. As I suspected from your comments: he finds the right answer, but he gets there by mistake. For example: he is using many words according to a modern understanding of what they mean, but our modern understanding of those words has been destroyed by the Progressives. He does explain this, but sideways (which makes me wonder if he knows he explained it at all?). It would have been a MUCH stronger essay had he used the terms correctly. You and I have been at odds over this for a while now, but “Conservative” does not mean “Christian” any more than ‘libertarian,’ ‘neoconservative’ or ‘Whig’ does. He equivocates — A LOT! And that undermines his argument because, although his conclusion is correct, his method is flawed. This means his argument is invalid. I know I’m using the language of technical logic, but it applies (besides, I know you understand it 🙂 ).

            HOWEVER, what I find most appealing about this essay is that the author is — as I suspected — intellectually honest. As he admits, he did not WANT to arrive at the beliefs he now holds, but logic FORCED him there. To that, all I can say is “I know the feeling.” 🙂

            Thanks for the link. VERY good piece — considering it was written by an Atheist.

  3. It is the work of devils that hid their agendas behind good sentiments. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *