ACTION

Once again, Trumps immigration pause to improve vetting of those who may wish to do us harm was shut down by an Obama justice in Hawaii. U.S. District judge Derrik Kahala Watson, a fellow law graduate of Harvard law school with the former President, the judge went one step further, and proclaimed his injunction covered the entire United States. This was based on the judges interpretation giving those who want to come to our country who are not U.S. citizens the right to travel and freedom of association, rights singularly for U.S. Citizens. Using the claim that the temporary pause of immigration from six countries violates the establishment clause on the basis of religion is absurd as 44 countries that are predominantly Muslim are not on the list.

These rights have been solely given to the citizens of this country for the past two hundred years alone. Obama made appoint to ensure that he met with and had dinner with Obama the night before his ruling. A ruling that was 48 pages long and highly detailed. This judge must have worked all night to get it written, typed and proofread. Obamas shadow government must have had to work overtime to get it done.

This rights were extended to an imam by the justice strictly for the purpose of bringing his family over  because he was Muslim. It was a blatant abuse of judicial power, in effect claiming that if someone who is in our country and an immigrant has family he wants to bring over, and if he Islamic, that there must be a special right granted to bring them here, effectively ending any control over the security of the country and the ri9ght of the people. There would be no limitations on who could come here and would end any control over the borders of the country.

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of association does not include bringing non vetted immigrants to the country. The President had been given specific power over immigration as far as giving the President the right to ban any alien for any reason for any reason whatsoever. The judge in Hawaii never even mentioned this statute. Nor did he mention any prior decision made by any court that gave him this right to circumvent the Constitution or the rule of law.

It was such a misapplication of the law that five judges dissented from reviewing the original decision that has since been rescinded, and have stated about the Hawaii judges decision that it was in fact

 “filled with many, obvious and fundamental errors and went against all precedent”. No matter how we as individuals may feel about the President or the executive order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the Presidency.”

These same five judges recognize that the President has both constitutional (Article 1 Section 8) and statutory authority (the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act) to control immigration as applied to national security.8USC182 states in part:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.”

 A Ninth Circuit  former chief Justice Alex Kozinsky stated

“ There was no basis for the prior Ninth Circuit decision. This Hawaii decision goes further that any court has gone before. Hopefully it will be reviewed, but in the interim, the country’s safety is put into jeopardy because one federal judge decided to anoint himself as the one Supreme Court of the country”.

Law professors from Jonathon Turley to Jeffrey Toobin, liberal law professors have also condemned the original decision and the Hawaii overreach.  There have been countless articles written about the courts  losing credibility, and these injunctions, both the original one and the one that Hawaii and Maryland  have delayed have no precedent, and both injunctions have no historical basis in fact.

Calling it a Muslim ban has been thrown around for the past few weeks, but what if Obamas Christian ban. 95% of all immigrants over the past few years have been Muslim, only 5% Christian were allowed to flee the genocide taking place in the Middle East.

There are many areas that this judge got wrong. Used in the injunction was remarks made by President Trump during his campaign, and ignored the language of the executive order. The justification that the Executive Order in the interest of national security and were applied to these six countries  that are state sponsors of terrorism as designated by Obama with no government to assist in the vetting process.

The judiciary aggressiveness towards this President is based on the premise that the President can not be trusted. Judges must be impartial and pay continual respect to the Constitution, legislation and Supreme Court decisions. The interests of the judicial branch as irrelevant, as the competing interests and intent of the other two branches and the decision must be made about the decisions in our republic.

There is no inherent “right” to immigrate to our country. And how far can the entire argument be taken. Will we allow a rogue federal judge to stop any conflict in the future because it may harm Muslims more than others?  And as in a footnote in Hawaii, will the judiciary now being setting refugee limits contrary to established law? Will the activism of the judiciary turn us into a third world country where everyone must be let in.

This must be fought in the halls of Congress and in the courts that continue to follow the Constitution.

Just in case there was any lingering doubt that Planned Parenthood doesn’t give a hoot about “women’s health”—or anyone’s health, for that matter—the abortion giant is now on record favoring the “right” of HIV-positive people not to disclose their status to sex partners.

From their pamphlet, the ironically titled “Happy, Healthy, and Hot”: “Your decision about whether to disclose may change with different people and situations. You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.”

Surely the pamphlet only means friends and co-workers though, right? Actually, no. The pamphlet continues: “Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.” The pamphlet then encourages the reader to get involved to change such laws “that violate your rights.”

So basically Planned Parenthood is encouraging people to pull a Charlie Sheen; or at least condoning it. The renowned actor revealed in November that he had known for about four years that he is HIV positive, though he claimed that he always informed his sex partners of his status, with “no exceptions.” This came as something of a surprise to Bree Olson, Sheen’s former live-in girlfriend, who thankfully tested negative. She claims that they had sex almost daily for about a year using lambskin condoms, at his insistence, which are not effective protection against HIV.

“He doesn’t even value my life,” said Olson about Sheen’s revelation. No kidding, cupcake.

Her only purpose was to serve his pleasure. If she had to die so that he could get his rocks off, that was, in Sheen’s calculation, a price worth paying. The fact that Olson has been in almost three hundred pornographic films indicates that she may not care that much about her own health and safety though Olson left the business in 2010 and has advised other women not to get involved. Perhaps she was just naïve when she got started in porn and has since had an epiphany.

It’s hard to believe that such selfish people as Charlie Sheen really exist but they do and they’re actually a lot more common than you might imagine. The fact that Planned Parenthood, which masquerades as a reputable medical organization, endorses the “right” not to inform sex partners of HIV status tells us that the camel has already gotten its nose under the tent. Though the attitude may not yet be mainstream, that doesn’t mean it could never be.

The author and journalist Randy Shilts, who died of AIDS in 1994, shed light on the homosexual community’s culture of denial in his 1987 book “And the Band Played On”. Among Shilts’s premises is that homosexual political leaders talked a great game when it came to combatting AIDS but their action was lacking. They refused to consider any countermeasure to the AIDS “epidemic” that might hamper their sex lives. The most they would do is promote the use of condoms. They refused to speak out against the hookup culture that pervaded and continues to pervade the male homosexual community or, heaven forbid, to tell male homosexuals to keep their butt cheeks together. They were even squeamish about identifying male homosexuals as the primary “at risk” group, preferring instead to shotgun blast their preventative message, as impoverished as it was, to the public as a whole. The message might have had more impact if it had been aimed somewhere but that would have meant identifying a demographic group and addressing the specific high-risk behaviors that made that community unique—something they were entirely unwilling to do.

One can almost understand the rationale behind this kind of reckless denialism. The disease was discovered in 1981, just a few short years after male homosexuals had established sexually “liberated” enclaves in places like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. They had just escaped the moral condemnation of their conservative parents and they weren’t about to give up their newfound “freedom” for anything, even if the new objection to their sexual habits was medical rather than moral. Any finger-wagging prude caught preaching that jive was not welcome at their never-ending orgy.

In the mid-1980s, the author David Horowitz, who was then on a journey from the Marxist Left to conservative Right, sat down with Randy Shilts to discuss AIDS, the burgeoning menace then stalking San Francisco. What Shilts told him was shocking. As Horowitz wrote in his biography, “Radical Son”: “According to Shilts, it was the gay leaders themselves who suppressed the research findings, along with the fact—now generally accepted by medical officials—that AIDS was a sexually transmitted disease. This was difficult to believe, but when I checked Shilts’s story, it turned out to be true. The Stonewall Gay Democratic Club, one of the political powers in the community, had summarized the politically correct view prevailing among activists in a slogan: ‘Sex doesn’t cause AIDS—a virus does.’ The activists were afraid that identifying the disease with promiscuous sex and also with gay sex—95 percent of the cases in San Francisco were among homosexual males—would stigmatize the ‘gay life-style’ and create a political backlash.”

Yeah, and we wouldn’t want to stigmatize the “gay” lifestyle, would we? I don’t know what’s wrong with stigmatizing a filthy sexual practice rife with adverse health consequences, including AIDS of course, but also gonorrhea, anal cancer, and intestinal parasites. We stigmatize smoking, why wouldn’t we stigmatize anal sex? Put me down as pro-stigma.

Unfortunately, male homosexuals whine that their rights are being violated whenever anyone looks askance at butt sex, the activity that apparently defines them. They demand not only the right to engage in dangerous, unhealthy sexual behavior, but the right to positive affirmation as well.

Sadly, the medical community seems to be fulfilling their wish. Doctors these days live in fear that their careers will be summarily ended if they advise against anal sodomy—which is pretty good medical advice, no matter how you slice it. To cite just one example, consider Dr. Paul Church, a well-respected urologist who was recently fired from his position at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston for opposing the homosexual lifestyle on moral and medical grounds. His story began in 2009 when BIDMC sent out an email inviting staff members to ride on the hospital-sponsored float in an upcoming “pride” parade. Dr. Church responded with a mass email of his own, asking why a hospital would endorse a behavior with undeniable health consequences that include death. “If a medical scientist cannot raise research that the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control clearly shows homosexual conduct as harmful,” he concluded, “then that means that your health, my health, medical science — all of that is being called into question simply because of a political agenda.”

He was right, of course, though it’s dangerous to be right when your employer is wrong. The torrent of homosexual outrage came down on Dr. Church hard. After a lengthy fight with BIDMC, he lost his job. He may lose his positions at other Boston-area medical centers, including Harvard Medical School, where he also practices medicine.

Church was essentially fired for being a good doctor, for staying true to the Hippocratic Oath he took to “do no harm” at a time when all the other doctors around him had abandoned theirs. “Truly caring for the well-being of individuals requires telling them the truth about their choices,” said Church. “The hospital does this on less controversial issues such as smoking and diet.” Yes, that’s true, but smokers and fat people don’t have well-financed and well-organized political apparatuses and they don’t crush people who get in their way. That’s the difference.

The homofascists had to make an example out of somebody and they chose Dr. Church. The chilling effect will be felt far and wide—no one will dare point out that homosexuals are perverting medicine’s core mission, though they plainly are.

We’re living in an era of hedonism, in which a substantial portion of the population careens from disco to disco and from orgasm to orgasm. Not all such hedonists are homosexuals, of course—there is always the occasional Charlie Sheen—but a significant number of them are. There is nothing they won’t do just to keep the good times rolling. They don’t care about other people’s health or safety, nor do they care about facts or truth. They care only about their own pleasure and they will stop at nothing to secure it.

Dear Editor: RE: Race in Politics....