Trump Removes Muslim Federal Judge For Trying to Banned Bacon in All 50 States Of America. Do You Stand With Trump ?

Trump Removes Muslim Federal Judge For Trying to Banned Bacon in All 50 States Of America. Do You Stand With Trump ?

Twenty-second Circuit Court of Appeals Justice, Hansam Al Alallawalahi-Smith has made major headlines this week when he overturned a ruling out of Dearborn, Michigan and tried to implement Sharia Law.

The ruling allowed two critical and violent tenets of Sharia Law to be practiced in the United States of America.


When he was asked why the feds have the right to allow a man to brutalize his wife for speaking with another man and to beat her nearly to death if she were to act on her impulses, the judge mentioned the systematic infusion clause and said that the Sharia Law should be allowed because the 14th Amendment guarantees them the rights guaranteed by the other states.

The laws may be acceptable to savages, but here, in America, we have higher standards.

Alallaha-Smith stated that the 14th Amendment does not necessarily exclude foreign influence from being allowed by law, citing the Christmas Holiday as a perfect example:


“Christmas is a Christian holiday exclusively, yet, if you are a Muslim and you want to go about your day without being bothered you cannot because the laws of a city in a city in Rome take precedent over the First Amendment which guarantees no state-sponsored religion.

A federal Christmas holiday is just that,” said Alallaha-Smith.


With that as a precedent, understanding that a higher court may reverse it, my decision is that items one and two on the docket are allowable between family members as prescribed by Sharia Law,” continued Alallaha-Smith.

The Democrats simply cannot stop complaining about this, claiming that since the appointment.


BREAKING: U.S. Judge Sides Trump – California Is Finished

In a shocking move, U.S. District Judge William Orrick balked from ordering President Donald Trump to pay California $1 million in delayed law enforcement funding after Trump refused to make the payment because California is a supposed sanctuary state.

The Trump administration has put a halt to the payout to California because of its support for lawbreaking illegal aliens. But the state took Trump to court to force the feds to hand over the state’s scheduled payment for law enforcement expenditures.

Granted the administration has not said that the state will not ever get the payout, only that the money is delayed while the administration questions California’s policies.

Still, it was a mixed bag on the judge’s ruling. While Judge Orrick didn’t order the administration to immediately hand over the cash — as the state of California demanded — Orrick also didn’t agree to dismiss California’s lawsuit as the administration wanted him to do.

Orrick said the whole situation raised “weighty and novel constitutional issues,” according to the Associated Press.

California is the big test case for the Trump administration. The question is whether the federal government is required to return federal funds to states that buck U.S. immigration policy by creating sanctuary city or sanctuary state rules that prevent local police from cooperating with federal officials.

As the AP notes:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has blamed “sanctuary city” policies for crime and gang violence. In July, Sessions announced that cities and states could only receive Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grants if they allow federal immigration officials access to detention facilities and provide advance notice when someone in the country illegally is about to be released.

Cities and states were also required to certify that they complied with a particular federal immigration law. The Trump administration says that law requires that California not restrict officials from sharing information regarding immigration status with federal immigration officers, including information regarding a person’s date of release from state custody and home address.

The AP also noted that at least one ruling along this topic has already been handed down:

A federal judge in Chicago last year blocked the advance notice and access requirements in a ruling that applied nationwide. But U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber said the DOJ could require Byrne Memorial grant recipients to certify compliance with the federal immigration law at issue. Read More @ American News Central 


Game Changing Ruling: Fed Judge Drives Last Nail Into Obama’s Coffin, Says Trump’s Order Will Stand

Once again “totally inept and inexperienced” President Trump has checkmated the brilliant politicians in Washington.

Federal District Court Judge Roger Titus has dismissed a lawsuit aimed at upholding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that stemmed from an un-Constitutional Executive Order signed by President Obama. 

Judge Titus acknowledged that legally his hands were tied when issuing his opinion:

“This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

Americans voted for Trump largely because he promised to fix our broken immigration system that the political elite in Washington had failed to do for close to four decades. 

The linchpin of Trump’s strategy to fulfill that promise came back in September of last year when President Trump issued his own Executive Order returning the fate of the 800,000 so-called DREAMERS to Congress, where it belonged in the first place.  Trump gave Congress 6 months to address the DACA problem and they have failed to do so as they have for the past half-century.

President Trump knew he stood on solid legal ground because Obama’s Executive Order establishing DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative branch’s authority.  Respected George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley’s testified before the House Judiciary Committee about DACA’s illegal origins:

“In ordering this blanket exception, President Obama was nullifying part of a law that he simply disagreed with … If a president can claim sweeping discretion to suspend key federal laws, the entire legislative process becomes little more than a pretense … The circumvention of the legislative process not only undermines the authority of this branch but destabilizes the tripartite system as a whole.”

Obama himself had acknowledged this before he signed it.

The deadline in Trump’s September 5th Executive Order expired on Monday leaving the Dem’s, who have built their party’s entire future around keeping the borders open and flooding our country with increasing amounts of immigrants, up the creek without a paddle.

With the six months over Trump declared checkmate:

If the Dems abandon the DREAMERS they face almost certain devastation at the polls in November.  That leaves them with only one other choice – agreeing to Trump’s terms that include building the wall and instituting a merit-based immigration policy that will benefit America.

In a magnanimous show, Trump offered to more than double the 800,000 young immigrants allowed to stay in the country to 1.8 million.  The Democrats would be wise to take the offer and give Trump what he – and the majority of Americans – wants, border security.

The DREAMERS know that the Dems are using them as a political football and have begun applying heat to them by rallying in protest outside the front doors of the DNC.

It sounds like a win-win for everyone and that may force some vulnerable Democrats to break with leadership and support the legislation Trump is pushing for. 

The fact that the Dem’s aren’t happy with Trump’s offer makes you wonder just who they are colluding with?



President Donald Trump was handed another victory by a federal judge in Maryland. Judge Roger Titus ruled against a challenge proposed to battle against Trump and his interest in ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The President would like to stop the program to become tough on the immigration policies and enforce current laws. That does not mean people who are already here will be deported, that just means they will not likely honor any future incidents that would normally be covered under DACA rules.

President Trump has faced an outlandish backlash from Democrats in his desire to end DACA. Numerous people have protested, but have not fully understood what it meant to end DACA. Many people assume that means mass deportation, but that has not been suggested. President Trump provided Democrats with a six month period to create a workable solution to dissolving DACA, but Democrats have come up empty.

Americans would like to protect the borders and enforce the current laws while working diligently to maintain peace, prosperity, and a prosperous America for all who work hard.

The Hill reported more information on Judge Roger Titus’ ruling in favor of Trump:

“A federal judge in Maryland on Monday dismissed a challenge to President Trump‘s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). 

“This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached,” Judge Roger Titus said in his opinion. “Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

“An overwhelming percentage of Americans support protections for ‘Dreamers,’ yet it is not the province of the judiciary to provide legislative or executive actions when those entrusted with those responsibilities fail to act,” Titus continued. 

The Obama-era program permits immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children to stay in the country without fear of deportation.

The Trump administration moved to end DACA last year and allowed lawmakers on Capitol Hill six months to come up with a permanent fix for the program, with the deadline expiring on Monday.

Dreamers and immigrant rights groups across the country have legally challenged the move to end DACA. 

The deadline, however, was essentially negated after the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments on the legal fight surrounding the program.”

Americans became extremely irritated every time an illegal alien committed a crime. The murder of Kate Steinle was seemingly the last straw as her killer walked free. There have been numerous violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and it’s reported that nearly half of the illegal aliens arrested by ICE, on the West Coast, were in or related to a gang and the violent acts and crimes committed by such gangs.

President Trump had once taken a stand against gang members, targeting the MS-13 gang, which has a reputation for committing violent acts of crime. The President took some heat when he spoke out against the members of the gang when he suggested that law enforcement doesn’t need to be so nice when escorting the gang members to the back of a police vehicle.

Dreamers and immigrant groups continue to protest the end of DACA, even though many of them are in their 30’s by now and they are no longer children.

Trump seems diligent in ending chain migration. He also seems more interested in having more immigrants come to America who has something to offer the country. It is in the best interest of America that our immigrants come ready to work and be productive. The more productive we are, the better we will become, and the less welfare we need to pay to those who might be abusing the system.

Ending DACA would be smart because it will no longer make people feel entitled and could increase the number of people who follow the law regarding immigration. That would be good because we are supposed to follow the law anyway, but it almost seems like we’ve been unable to fully enforce it the way it should be done.

Expect more challenges and for Trump to continue Tweeting about the Democrats who failed to present a working solution to the DACA decision making process.

Democrats spent six months trying to figure it out and came up with a nothing burger.

Judge Reveals Scalia Wiretap Bombshell … Media Dead Silent

Image result for Judge Reveals Scalia Wiretap Bombshell … Media Dead Silent

The nation is automatically in complete amazement whenever Judge Andrew Napolitano decides to present himself with a public announcement.

Much consideration and many questions have come into account after his live interview with FOX news. Judge Scalia is no longer with us, however, Judge Napolitano and Judge Scalia were very close friends.

Recently, Napolitano felt he has the responsibility to reveal important information about his friend on live television. Judge Napolitano stated clearly,

“Judge Scalia told him that he was under surveillance of the Obama’s administration. Scalia didn’t like that and probably other members from the Supreme Court had been under surveillance by the intelligence agencies under Obama.”

According to conservativetribune,

Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano just made a stunning claim about the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and President Barack Obama.

In a segment this week on the Fox News Business Network’s “Mornings With Maria,” Napolitano said he was told by Scalia that Scalia thought the Supreme Court was under surveillance by the administration of former President Barack Obama.

Justice Scalia told me he often thought the court was being surveilled, and he told me that probably four or five years ago,” Napolitano said in the clip shown below.


That’s huge for a couple of reasons.

First of all, if that claim is true, it’s a gross overreach of the executive branch into the judicial branch, to say the least. But much, much more than that, think of the massive rulings that were made over the course of the Obama presidency:

Two crucial Obamacare rulings. Gay marriage legalized nationwide — one of the most controversial rulings in recent memory. And if Obama’s White House really did have the Supreme Court under surveillance, Obama could have been inappropriately informed about all of it.

And, as the judge pointed out in the segment, “the use of intelligence data for political purposes is a felony.”

Let’s not forget that President Donald Trump had also made similar accusations against the Obama administration not long ago.

It’s a strange coincidence for several prominent politicians — including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has recently made formal requests for information on his own possible surveillance by the Obama administration — to be claiming the same injury against a man not really known for his uprightness and honesty.

Could there be some truth to this?

At the Conservative Tribune, we’ve discussed Obama’s fascination, shall we way, with surveillance before — this is just further confirmation.

But by all means, mainstream media, go nuts about whatever conversation was had between Trump and the Russians last week.

Judge Puts Mueller in Hot Seat. Bombshells Are Likely Incoming

Image result for Judge Puts Mueller in Hot Seat. Bombshells Are Likely Incoming

A new report suggests that “bombshells are likely ahead” in the Michael Flynn case as the judge puts Mueller in the hot seat.

TheGatewayPundit reported: With each passing day, more evidence suggests the indictment of former National Security Adviser Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was a dubious one. In what would be an insurmountable blow to special counsel Robert Mueller’s unchecked Russia probe, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell says if there is a man who can bring justice for Flynn, it’s Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

As the Daily Caller reported last week, Sullivan “issued a “Brady” order requiring Mueller to provide Flynn all information that is favorable to the defense whether with respect to guilt or punishment.”

According to Margot Cleveland of The Federalist, the order suggests “bombshell are likely ahead.”

The Federalist reports:

With a protective order in place, Flynn’s attorneys should start receiving the required disclosures from the special counsel’s office. There is reason to believe these will include some bombshells.

First, we know from the recently released GOP House Intelligence Committee memo and the Grassley-Graham criminal referral of Christopher Steele, the FBI and DOJ withheld significant (and material, in my view) information in seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. There is cause to believe the FISA court was connected to the criminal charge filed against Flynn because Contreras, who recused less than a week after accepting Flynn’s guilty plea, “is one of just three FISA court judges who sits in the District of Columbia, where it is likely the Trump-Russia FISA warrants were sought.”

Was other evidence withheld, either from the FISA court or from Flynn’s attorneys in negotiating a plea? Again, there is reason to believe so, given the players involved and the facts already uncovered. […]

Mueller must now provide Flynn all exculpatory evidence: Significantly, if the information is favorable to Flynn but the special counsel’s office believes it is immaterial, government attorneys must nonetheless provide the evidence to Sullivan to allow him to make the call. In other words, Mueller’s team cannot unilaterally decide what evidence matters, as the Department of Justice did in applying to the FISA court for a surveillance warrant on Page while withholding the key fact that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for information crucial to the application.

Read full story @ (Link:
Please share and comment

Busted. There Are 11 FISA Judges, Guess How Many Obama Appointed…

Obama is as crooked as Hillary!

Of the 11 FISA court appointed judges, 10 of them were appointed by Obama, including the corrupt Rudolph Contreras that granted the FISA warrant after another judge rejected it. He is also the same judge who had to recuse himself days after the Michael Flynn plea.

This is yet another inconvenient fact that the media and Democrats don’t want to discuss. The entire FISA court basically was full of Obama appointees. The one Trump apoointee to the FISA court also replaced an Obama appointee named Susan Webber Wright who’s term expired May of 2016. Keep an eye on the story about Rudolph Contreas though. That’s the big story that everyone seems to be missing from this memo release. Corruption at the judge level is even more frightening than corrupt DOJ and FBI hacks.

Gateway Pundit reports:

The Obama team’s actions with the FISA Court were not just corrupt – they were criminal! Now his appointed judges are in the news for suspect deep state actions.

The FISA Court was put in place in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the
Chief Justice of the United States. Each judge serves for a maximum of seven years and their terms are staggered to ensure continuity on the Court. In addition, the entire FISA court in late 2016 was stacked with Obama appointees. The entire court as of March 2017 was Obama appointees.

Now Obama appointed Judges to the FISA Court are in the news because of their suspect actions –

1. On Friday the House Intelligence Committee released its FISA memo that described the corrupt actions taken by Obama’s FBI and DOJ to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Obama’s DOJ and FBI used a document created from information by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC funding to obtain multiple FISA Court warrants. The political anti-Trump sources of the information were not provided to the court when requesting the warrant and top DOJ and FBI officials were the ones partaking in these actions. As a result, Congressional leaders are calling for prosecution of FBI and DOJ officials involved in the criminal actions and FOX News’ Gregg Jarrett stated that the criminal acts by Obama’s scoundrels involved in the FISA crimes could qualify for sentences of up to 10 years in prison.

It’s time to determine who signed off on the above warrants. Judges typically sit on the Court for one week at a time, on a rotating basis. Which judge signed off on the warrants with such flimsy information provided? The judge or judges who signed off on these warrants need to be investigated. Also, why have none of these judges announced that they are prosecuting the individuals who provided the fake information? This is their duty!

2. One Obama FISA appointee was also involved in General Flynn’s criminal case. We know this because he recused himself from the Flynn case. Obama FISA Court appointee and U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s criminal case in December. It’s yet unknown the reason for why Contreras recused himself. Why did he recuse himself and did he also sign off on any of the FISA warrants given to Obama cronies?

3. On Friday another Obama appointed FISA Court judge, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg sidedwith the Department of Justice after multiple news organizations, including CNN and USA Today, sued for the public release of Comey’s memos after their Freedom of Information Act requests were denied. (read more). The fact that any judge would currently side with this corrupt Department of Justice is suspect. What is in the memos and why is this being hidden from the public?

SHARE this all over Facebook and social media so people realize what’s really going on in the halls of the ultra-secretive FISA court!

Source: Pacific Pundit,

Judge Behind FISA Warrant Deep Ties To Obama Just Revealed! Dems Attempt To Shield Obama FAILS!

The one glaring name that has thus far been purposely excluded from this tapestry of corruption and malfeasance is without a doubt the puppet master himself…“BARACK OBAMA.”

The mounting evidence of White House involvement which had eluded investigators is now beginning to reach inside the Oval Office, of what is without a doubt becoming the biggest abuse of power scandal within the history of this great nation.

A new revelation just uncovered regarding the crucial FISA warrant granted in 2016 based on a phony Clinton funded dossier was granted and “signed-off” by an OBAMA appointed judge.

The astounding news that FISA Judge Rudolph Contreras (an Obama appointee), was the judge who issued a surveillance warrant on private citizen Carter Page based on a bogus Yahoo News article, that was actually created by British spy Christopher Steele who masterminded the phony dossier in the first place.

Not even the comedic genius of British actor Peter Sellers portrayal of the bubbling Chief Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther film series could have envisioned such a ridiculously absurd plot.

And yet here we are once again, with FISA Judge Rudolph Contreras becoming a major player appointed to rule on yet another case, General Fynn, no doubt another unique coincidence.

The unraveling revelation that an OBAMA appointed FISA judge granted warrants on a political hit piece paid for by the Clinton campaign and used that information as the bases to spy on the Trump team is astounding, moreover by a foreign entity within a political campaign is yet another law which has been violated.

Thus far the silence from both the OBAMA camp and the mainstream media is deafening, perhaps thinking that ignoring the widening scandal and not reporting on the drip, drip, drip of incriminating evidence will somehow run its course.

However, this isn’t merely corruption of politician’s simply accepting bribes to enrich themselves or engaging in some nefarious personal actions. This is an ABUSE OF POWER, to actually change and interfere with our most sacred institution, that of a free and open election.

Do you believe that former President Obama will finally be compelled before Congress to testify under oath regarding his involvement with the 2016 election?

Source: Patriot Beat,


Judge Reveals Antonin Scalia Wiretap Bombshell … Media Dead Silent

Judge Andrew Napolitano decided to spoke publicly about his friendship with Judge Scalia who unfortunately is no longer with us.


He gave an interview for Fox News and felt the responsibility to reveal important information for his friend.

This one is shocking, and the claim he made about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and President Barack Obama is crossing the line.

According to USA Politics Today:

Judge Napolitano stated: “Judge Scalia told him that he was under surveillance of the Obama’s administration. Scalia didn’t like that and probably other members from the Supreme Court had been under surveillance by the intelligence agencies under Obama.”

“Justice Scalia told me he often thought the court was being surveilled, and he told me that probably four or five years ago,” Napolitano said in the clip shown below.

These statements lead to overreach of the executive branch into the judicial branch if they appear to be true. However, if we think of the two crucial Obamacare rulings or one of the most controversial rulings, the gay-marriage and it’s legalization, the things are more cruel.

The judge pointed out in the segment, “the use of intelligence data for political purposes is a felony.” However, president Trump made similar allegations recently against Obama. It’s weird coincidence that Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul recently made formal requests for information on his own possible surveillance by the Obama administration.

What do you think about what judge Napolitano stated? That illegal surveillance must have been prevented, who knows how many other people were included in these scheme. These Democrat crime schemes must stop, someone must face the consequences from their actions. We can’t wait to see Obama beg for freedom, but once he enters his prison cell, all of us will be satisfied. What do you think about this?



Scroll down to the comment section and tell us what you think.


POLL: Should A Muslim Who Supports Sharia Law Be Allowed To Be A US Judge?

A religious nonprofit in the Dallas area offers Muslims the option of Sharia law to settle family and business disputes.

On its website the Islamic Tribunal states that, “The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers. Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.”

A religious nonprofit in the Dallas area offers Muslims the option of Sharia law to settle family and business disputes.

On its website the Islamic Tribunal states that, “The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers. Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.”

“Fox and Friends” sat down with Judge Andrew Napolitano to figure out the legal ramifications involved here.

Napolitano reminded that these types of courts exist all over the United States for many different religions. The people that go before them are seeking a resolution of a dispute that is “integral to their religion,” he explained.

Napolitano said each party would have to agree in writing that they are consenting to whatever decision the tribunal makes.

For instance, a couple might choose to have the Sharia system settle a child custody dispute.

“As long as it’s voluntary and as long as it doesn’t violate federal, state or local law, people can submit to it,” said Napolitano.

He added that it’s sort of like when people go on TV before “Judge Judy.”

“When you appear before Judge Judy or when you appeared before Judge Nap on ‘Power of Attorney’ on Fox, seems like 100 years ago, you actually signed an agreement naming me or Judge Judy or whoever the judge was as the final arbiter of that decision, not appealable. And you’d be bound by that decision,” he explained.

Should A Muslim Who Supports Sharia Law Be Allowed To Be A US Judge?