Liberal emotion based judge

Liberal emotion based judge

It is sad that we have a federal court district judge that exceeded its authority to stop President Trump’s Executive Order to defund sanctuary cities. This is an act of sabotage against the Constitution of the United States and its American Citizens, by a libtard/socialist judge that make decisions based on emotion and not the constitution.

The problems with sanctuary cities are by definition harboring criminals and are breaking the law. President Trump has not exceeded his authority or the constitution by signing this Executive Order. Harboring a fugitive refers to the crime of knowingly hiding a wanted criminal from the authorities. Let’s take a look at the federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1071 which requires proof of four elements:

(1) proof that a federal warrant had been issued for the fugitive' s arrest

(2) that the accused had knowledge that a warrant had been issued

(3) that the accused actually harbored or concealed the fugitive

(4) that the accused intended to prevent the fugitive' s discovery or arrest

All of which have been broken by sanctuary cities. Now you are probably questioning these facts if you just happen to be a libtard. So we will explore what the definition of a warrant.

Warrant: a document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or some other body to make an arrest, search premises, or carry out some other action relating to the administration of justice

 All of the criteria have been met. Tell me you liberal fruitcake how you determine President Trumps Executive Order “has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights” without using emotion? What about our constitutional rights. Why should we (the honest hardworking tax-paying law-abiding citizens) have to fund (with our tax money that is stolen from us) cities that commit crimes by harboring criminals. The facts are clear, that is they (Illegals) have no constitutional rights, only human god-giving rights. Nothing in the constitution applies to them.

I think that sanctuary cities should pay a penalty for harboring criminals. One way we might be able to get around this emotional based libtard decision would be treating the money for sanctuary cities like lettuce in a Japanese Inspection.  

“Japanese Inspection, you see, when the Japs get in a load of lettuce they're not sure they wanna let in the country, why they'll just let it sit there on the dock 'til they get good and ready to look at. But then of course, it's all gone rotten... ain't nothing left to inspect. You see, lettuce is a perishable item...” ~ Fred Thompson from the movie Days of Thunder.

We should not say that we are defunding the sanctuary cities but we could treat the money like lettuce and sit on the money till we get good and ready to give it out. I mean the federal government does it with and payments it owes to us, so why not use the same against sanctuary cities. Until the Supreme Court overturns the ruling.

I have one more thing to bring up. We should not use the term “Illegal Immigrants” it is offensive to the law-abiding people that obtained their citizenship the legal way, they are considered Immigrants. I believe we should use terms like “illegal, illegal alien, criminal, or law-breaker”.

Posted on 21 Nov 2017, 23:45 - Category: Judicial

Political advertisement paid for and approved by Anthony Blackmon for Congress.
Campaign Websites by Online Candidate