Friday, March 24, 2017

Leahy vs Gorsuch: Incontinent Sphincter Of The Senate Demanded Travel Ban Perjury!

Leahy vs Gorsuch: Incontinent Sphincter Of The Senate Demanded Travel Ban Perjury! Fox News displayed this video of  Senator  Patrick Leahy, for whom I have the utmost contempt and hatred,  and Judge  Neil Gorsuch  in his confirmation hearing.  

    In this line of interrogation, the incontinent sphincter attempted to suborn perjury.  Watch closely as the judge ostensibly refuses to Felch.    Listening inter alia, it sounds as if Judge Gorsuch  implied that he would rule against the  travel ban which is what the 'crat  senators want to hear.

    Fox embed code does not work. I am attempting to embed Cspan's video. The relevant part begins one hour and 49 minutes into the 9 hour video.  Neither embed code works. Click fox to watch the clip, Cspan to watch the whole thing.

    I attempted to transcribe the video, both my hearing and my typing skills are poor; I do not guarantee accuracy, spelling or punctuation.  I begin with the first question, answers are inset. Superscripts in the transcript are internally linked to my comments which follow.
  • Does the first amendment1 allow the use of a religious  litmus test2 for entry into the united states?
    • Senator, that's an issue that's currently  being litigated3, actively, as you know 
  • I'm not asking about the litigation in the ninth circuit or anything else, I;m asking about the fact4: is a blanket religions test- is that consistent with the first amendment ?
    • Senator, we have a free exercise clause5 that protects the free exercise of religious liberties by all persons in this country If you ask me how I'd apply that to a specific case, I can't talk about that  for understandable reasons. 
  • Well, could the Pres...
    • The understandable reasons--I'm as frank and candid with you, Senator, as I can be, Senator, when you ask me to apply it to a set of facts that look an awful lot like a pending case, in many circuits now, ...
  •   Would the President have the authority to ban all of Jews6 from the United States or All people that come from Israel7?
    • Senator, that would be an easy question: we have a Constitution and it does guarantee free exercise it also guarantees equal protection of the laws8 and a whole lot else besides and the Supreme Court decided in [unintelligible] that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country.  I will apply the law; I will apply the law9 faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons.
  • I don't care about their religion
    • Anyone, any law is gonna get a fair ans square deal with me. My job as a judge is to treat litigants who appear before me as I wished to be treated as a lawyer when I appeared with my client large or small.  I did not want them to be discriminated against because they were a large company or or a small individual with an unpopular belief10, and that's the kind of judge I try to be, Senator,  I think that's my record.
  • Well, Judge, let me ask you  do you agree with me that there should not be a religious test in the United States ?
    • I need to know more specifically...
  • Well, let me give you an example: should there be a religious test to serve in the military11?
    •  Oh, Senator, that would be inappropriate, yes, it's against the law. 
  • [unintelligible] Solely on their religion, solely on their religion...not based on a threat12 or something, would you ban somebody solely on their religion?
    • Senator, we have not just a first amendment free exercise clause in this country, very important protection, we have not just an equal protection guarantee of  the fourteenth amendment, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender ethnicity; we also have the religious freedom restoration act which Senator Hatch mentioned, which was a bipartisan bill passed by this body, with the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer when he was in the House, and that imposes an even higher standard on the government than the first amendment when it comes to religious says that if there is any sincerely held religious belief; honestly held religious belief, the government must meet strict scrutiny before they regulate on that basis, strict scrutiny being the highest standard known  in American law.  
  • The reason I ask these questions, there is a legitimate concern, I hear stories from my grandparents that signs usta say that no Irish need apply or no Catholic need apply, I am sure that Senator Feinstein can speak about  rules of her religion.  President trump promised a Muslim ban13, he still has it on his web site to this day, he is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States and a Republican congressman recently  said the best thing the President can do  for his Muslim ban is to make sure he has Gorsuch on the Supreme Court before the appeals get to that point14.  
    • Senator, a lot of people say a lot of silly things, my grandfather...
  • [unintelligible] he wants you on the court so you can uphold a Muslim ban .
    • Senator, he has no idea how I'd rule in that case and, Senator, I'm not gonna say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule15 in any case like that that  could come before the Supreme Court our my court of the tenth circuit it would be grossly improper of a judge to do that; it would be a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table, in order to get confirmed, had to make promises or commitments about how they'd rule in a case that is currently pending and likely to make its way to the supreme court. 

first amendment

 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- See more at:

    The idea was to establish  liberty by limiting the power of government.  Many of the colonists came here to escape from religious persecution.  They did not want the federal government to establish a state religion, domination or sect. They did not want their own denominations to be proscribed by law.  

    The constitution applies to citizens and residents, not non-resident aliens. It does not guarantee any rights to aliens not  under its jurisdiction.  Immigration is a privilege granted by the government under strict laws and rules, not a right.  Africans, Arabs &  Asians are not born with a constitutional right to come here.  They must apply for visas.

religious test

    Article six includes the supremacy clause, constitutional oath requirement and proscribes religious tests for public office.  Art. 6 does not mention immigration.  

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 establishes federal control over naturalization.
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    Where in the constitution  do you find an absolute unqualified  right  for aliens to come here?  Where do you find a prohibition on religious tests for immigrants?

current litigation

    The issue before the courts is a travel ban based on national origin, not religion.  How is it a Muslim ban while the majority of the  Ummah  is not affected by it?   The words "Muslim" & Islam are not included in the executive orders challenged in court.  

    The executive orders are irrational. 15 of the "Magnificent Nineteen" were citizens of  the Kingdom Of Saudi  Arabia  but that nation is not included in the banned list. Pakistan and Iraq also provided terrorists but they are not on the list.

    The executive orders exclude persons originating from places where the governments are unwilling or unable to provide identifying information about their citizens.  Even knowing the prospective visitor's name, patrimony and address, how would you  determine if he harbored hatred for us and had the ability & intention to do us harm?  Even if you knew that he lacked desire, ability and  intention, what is to stop him from getting them in the immediate future?  Tashfeen Malik passed five vetting interviews before she helped her husband slaughter 14 innocent victims. So much for vetting; it's vaporware!

    Exactly how  would banning the entry of Muslims violate the establishment clause?  Exactly how would it interfere unconstitutionally with the free exercise clause?  Does it interfere with the  salat, saum, hajj, zakat, shahada or Jihad of the Syrian in Syria?  No, it simply prevents him from doing it here for the next 90 days.  Do either Leahy or Gorsuch know that Jihad is the "highest peak of Islam", not one of its pillars, yet a communal and individual obligation binding on all able bodied adult Muslims?  Have either of them  bothered to read  Reliance Of The Traveller, Book o, Chapter  9.1  or page 18 of "The Book Of Jihad"?  Do they know that 9.5, 14, 29 & 123 are fard ayn: individually binding obligations since the invasion of Afghanistan?

'fact': fallacy!

    There is no religious test in the executive order!  Islam is not mentioned in it. There are 56 nations with Muslim majorities, only 6  are included in the ban.  Leahy postulates fallacy as fact.

free exercise clause

    The free exercise clause of the first amendment prohibits Congress from  enacting legislation impiring free exercise of religion.  Executive orders are not acts of congress; they are orders, not legislation.  Leahy knows the diffeence, but he is dishonest.

    What is free exercise of religion?  Congregational prayer, singing hymns, church bells, communion?  How about Jihad, genocide & terrorism?  Those are Islamic sacraments and a required part of  the practice of Islam.  

    Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and the Messenger.  They are warned to emulate Moe if they want to get into his celestial orgy.  Allah commanded Muslims to striker terror into the hearts of prospective victims my harsh treatment of defeated enemies and terrify them with maximized military might.  Moe terrorized the Jews of Medina by having Kab Ashraf assassinated and the B. Khatma tribe by  the assassination of Asma Bint Marwan; the entire tribe saw "the power of Islam" and reverted at once.  

    What do Muslims say while slitting the throat of a goat in celebration of Eid?  What do they say when they slit the throat of an Infidel?  Both are acts of worship.  The accursed abomination 9/11 was an act of Islamic worship!  
Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks,are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God.

    Does the free exercise clause vitiate legal proscription of terrorism?  Is the Constitution a suicide pact?  Islam entails Jihad & terrorism; is incomplete with out them. There can be no right to manifest, practice and propagate it.

ban Jews?

    Why do you want to ban Jews?  Are Jews terrorists by divine mandate?  Are  Jews raising Hell wherever they go as Muslims are?  

ban Israelites?

    There  is good cause for excluding Israeli Muslims because they are under a divine mandate from Allah to terrorize us,.

equal protection

    A Christian, Jew & Muslim have equal protection of the laws: due process.  There is also due process in immigration law.  The McCaran-Walter  Immigration Act of  '52 makes provision for exclusion of inimical persons.  

(3) Security and related grounds
(A) In generalAny alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—
any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
any other unlawful activity, or
any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.

has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;**
is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

    Islam espouses terrorist action!!! read'em and weep, creep!
3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67, 9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123, 33:26,27, 47:4,49:15, 59:2,13, 61:10-13*; Sahih Bukhari Vol. 4, pg. 140

apply the law

    The President and his administrative  staff & subordinates apply the law,  trial court judges determine facts and appellate judges interpret the laws & constitution.  

unpopular belief

    That means Muslims.  Even they get equal protection of the laws, not found guilty without probative evidence.


    What does the constitution say?

..".no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article VI!/articles/6/essays/135/religious-test

Is soldier an office of public trust??   Whose cause do they fight in,  ours or Allah's ?  Remember Nidal Malik Hasan's business card?  It read "Soldier of Allah".   That is a clue for the few who can grasp a clue.

    Allah wants us defeated and gathered into Hell 3.12 , that is the role of Muslims: to do his wet work. Do you really want them in our armed services???


    Islam, you damned fool, is a threat!!!  Most people, like that ignorant fool, are unaware of Moe's extortion letters. This one, part of a collection in Ibn Sa'd's sira, is the most explicit of them. Reasonable, open minded men of good will will curse Islam when they read it:

    Sahih Bukhari,  volume 9, page 237 contains a clear threat:
"How dare you
fight the people while Allah's Messenger
said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people
till they say: La ilaha illallah. And whoever
says La ilaha illallah, saves his wealth and his
life from me unless he deserves a legal
punishment justly, and his account will be
with Allah.' " '"

Muslim ban

    Candidate Trump did propose a Muslim ban and for good reason: numerous plots, some foiled, others successful by Muslims, some of them first or second generation  immigrants. That history, combined with the continuing threats from ISIS & al-Qaeda, constitute good cause for expelling and excluding the slaves of Allah who are obligated to do his wet work.

    Read the  EO at the New York Times and see if you can find "Muslim" in it. "Islam" is included  in a  defense of the  original travel ban, not in an active provision.  Exactly how is an order that affects only 40% of the Ummah a Muslim ban?  


    Assumptions make an ass of you.  Assuming that  Judge Gorsuch would vote in favor of the  EO  without first hearing the arguments and reading the briefs made an ass of Leahy.

how I'd rule

    The judge should rule after reading the briefs, hearing the arguments and   carefully examining  the precedents. Canons of judicial ethics proscribe perjury. It is not his case yet and he should neither have nor express an opinion on it.


    Click image to enlarge.
Hilali/Khan Noble Qur'an2.190 footnote Reliance Of The Traveller o9.0
  • Al-Jihid (holy fighting) in Allah's Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry)
  • (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. 
    • The literal expression is striving: extreme exertion.  The connotation is Jihad In The Way Of Allah.  "Strive hard and fight with your wealth and your lives."
    • How does one get injured or killed in Jihad an-Nafs?  3.156, 157. Fighting in Allah's cause obviously means mortal combat.
  • Ordained for Muslims: its Islamic law. Offensive Jihad is a communal obligation binding on the Ummah until a sufficient number have volunteered, then the rest are relieved of the obligation.  

Islam's Highest Peak

Jamih Tirmidhi Vol. 3, pg. 40 #1658 Sunan Ibn Majah pg. 193

  • 'hump (the most
    prominent) of the deeds
  • head of the matter
  • it's pillar 
  • it's pinnacle
    Highest peak; pinnacle:  no deed ranks higher in Islam!  

No comments: