Time to get rid of these judges once & for all!

A travel ban that had the distinct purpose of keeping Americans safe, was one of the first executive orders that President Trump signed after taking office in January of this year. He signed the order just hours saying his sacred oath, but 12 months later, because of the activist judges in this country, that order is still seeing opposition.

The ban saw a huge victory just days ago when it was finally upheld and put into effect, after several revisions and much debate. That means that while we will never be 100% safe anywhere at any time, the President is at least patching the dam that was allowing our nation to be flooded with those who believe it’s their divine calling to kill us.

While his order might seem to fall completely under the heading of common sense to many, it’s completely unacceptable to others. The in denial, politically correct who don’t believe that Muslims will actually do what Muhammad told them to do when he ordered them to kill the infidels (that’s you and I) just can’t have anyone turned away from America.

The travel ban taking effect now has put the heat on another case being heard before the Ninth U.S. Circut Court as they hear arguments about Hawaii’s challenge leveled at the ban. It seems that almost everyone in the nation has an idea of what should be done to keep America safe, and they’re not willing to let President Trump take the problem on. Q13Fox reports that these same judges haven’t been favorable toward the President in the past, and the case should turn out a lot of media attention:

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing President Donald Trump’s third travel ban to take effect — at least for now — has intensified the attention on a legal showdown Wednesday afternoon before three judges in Seattle who have previously been cool to the administration’s efforts.

Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Hawkins are scheduled to hear arguments in Hawaii’s challenge to the ban, which restricts travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries and has been reviled by critics as discriminatory.

The same panel unanimously ruled against Trump’s second travel ban, saying the president had not made a showing that allowing travelers from the listed nations would harm American interests.”

These judges seem to think that the majority of Americas are interested in something other than staying alive. The problem is that the out of touch bleeding hearts are either uninformed about the actual facts at hand or just don’t believe it will ever affect them. Either way, the masses electing President Trump should have been a good indicator that he’s the one we wanted making the decisions about our safety.

“Citing national security concerns, President Donald Trump announced his initial travel ban on citizens of certain Muslim-majority nations in late January, bringing havoc and protests to airports around the country. A federal judge in Seattle soon blocked it, and since then, courts have wrestled with the restrictions anew as the administration has rewritten them.

The latest version, announced in September, targets about 150 million potential travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, though it allows for some admissions on a case-by-case basis. It also blocks travel by North Koreans along with some Venezuelan government officials and their families, although those parts of the restrictions are not at issue.”

The reason those parts aren’t considered an issue is that the current state of affairs makes it clear that North Korea is ready to kill us because their leader said that he would. Compare that to the fact that Muslims have it written down in their holy unchangeable words from their prophet that they should kill us and, oh yeah, they already have killed a bunch of us. But nevermind that if the social justice warriors say that they’re OK, apparently the President’s opinion is to be completely ignored.

The lower court rulings ‘threaten the ability of this and future Presidents to address national-security threats and advance foreign policy interests,’ the Justice Department wrote in its 9th Circuit appeal. Further, the government says, courts don’t have the authority to review the president’s decision to exclude foreigners abroad unless Congress authorizes them to, and Congress has provided no such authorization.

Critics of Trump’s travel restrictions insist that they make up the Muslim ban he promised during his campaign, and judges have seized on the president’s public statements on Twitter and elsewhere in finding them unconstitutionally discriminatory.

Despite the Supreme Court’s action Monday, Matt Adams, the legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights project, which has also fought Trump’s travel restrictions in court, said he’s hopeful it will be struck down.

‘I’m still optimistic the courts are going to say yes, this is version 3.0, and they might have painted it a little fancier, but it’s still the Muslim ban,’ Adams said.”

The fact is that this decision is going to have to come down to a person getting to decide what is best for the country. We can listen to the President we elected, or we can listen to lobbyists who have a worldview not inclusive of all the information that the President is privy to, and the judges will have to decide which of those is correct.

[H/T: Q13Fox]