No products in the cart.


Robert Barnes: Trump Could ‘Go Full Andrew Jackson’ and Ignore Interference from Activist Judges

by John Hayward  16 Mar 2017

Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his latest Breitbart News column, “Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America.”

Marlow asked Barnes to begin by explaining why Trump’s temporary ban on various terror countries was blocked.


“The district court judge in Hawaii, who was a fellow law graduate of Harvard law school with former President Obama – and, in fact, Obama was in Hawaii yesterday before the decision was issued, so some people have speculated on the coincidence of that. But he issued a decision that blocks the ability of anybody to enforce the order anywhere,” Barnes said. “So he went beyond just the district of Hawaii. He said no state can enforce it. Nobody in any part of the country can enforce it. Nobody anywhere in the administration can enforce it. He issued what’s called a nationwide injunction, and it precludes any application of the order, pretty much, on any aspect of the order, pretty much, until there’s further review.”

“His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens,” Barnes continued. “Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time. Instead, this judge said it did, as long as you had a university here who wanted to assert, quote-unquote, the foreigner’s rights, or you had some physical person here. In this case, it was one of the leading Muslim imams in Hawaii; he wants to bring over various family and friends from the Middle East.”

“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.

“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.

“So it’s an extraordinarily broad order. Its legal doctrine has no limits. If you keep extending this, it means people from around the world have a special right to access the United States, visit the United States, emigrate to the United States, get visas to the United States. There wouldn’t be any limit, and the president would never be able to control our own borders. It would be up solely to the whim of a federal judge who effectively delegated it, in this case, to a Muslim imam in Hawaii,” he contended.

Barnes noted that the judge did not “cite any prior decision” that has ever established this astonishing new quirk of the Constitution.

Read more at Breitbart

Photo credit: Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution
against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.





  1. The judge is insane, has dishonored his oath of office and is a traitor. He needs to be removed from office immediately. Where in the heck did he get that ridiculous interpretation?! Remove him from office NOW!

  2. This has been the essence of my commentary on social media since the FIRST court injunction. The U.S. public is in grave danger of Islamic terrorist actors from these countries – every day of delay gives them more opportunity. I don’t understand why Trump has not already done this.

  3. Even given his inclination to go off half-cocked, I seriously doubt that Trump will go full Andrew Jackson on this Hawaiian judge, and instead just let it play out in the courts. But it does beg the question, what if an immigrant or refugee from one of the listed countries launches an attack that kills and maims dozens of Americans before the courts resolve this? Can this judge and the state attorney general who filed the suit be held accountable?

  4. I do not know WHY the president listens to these judges. Congress is suppose to MAKE the laws, not some flunky judge. Trump ought to put the National Guard at these ports of entry and enforce the already written law.

  5. Guess I see it different. What should happen is Trump, via Congress should be making legislature to give EVERY US Citizen their “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” back. It’s time to handle it at the point of impact. Arm Everyone! This is what the Second Amendment is for.

    1. @ Greg, We are basically under a contract that those who serve within our government are to do certain put-into-writing duties as representatives for the people and/or states, and DEFEND our liberty. In return we will follow all constitutional and NATURAL LAWS, they will get money, prestige, travel, etc (No where does it give them paid vacations). We even tell them in the contract what/where they have the authority to speak for us, for our nation; what they may **spend money on.

      “Trump, via Congress should be making legislature to give EVERY US Citizen their “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” back.”

      Neither Trump, the Congress, or anyone else who serves within our governments – state and federal – is in any position that was delegated any authority over the people, weapons – what kind, how many, etc. Instead in the Bill of Rights it is made clear that this is one of the many authorities/powers that was NOT delegated. That is correct, the people KEPT all authority over weapons – all types, how many, etc – to be decided by themselves. Any governmental enforcement of anything to the contrary is an act of *terrorism against the American people. It is right there for all to see in the supreme LAW of our land.

      Preamble to the Bill of Rights: “Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

      Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (those words are pretty clear even though “infringed” is not used in daily conversation anymore today, but that is because our language is also dumbed down.”

      Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

      *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      **Publius Huldah: “In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
      — Military defense, international commerce & relations;
      — Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
      — Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
      — With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.

      As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States OR The People….

      What would our Country’s financial condition be if WE THE PEOPLE had enforced the enumerated powers on Congress? It is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:
      — immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
      — mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
      — Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
      — post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
      — patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
      — federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
      — military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
      — the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
      — [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, & clauses]

      The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on. See also the two geographical areas over which Congress was delegated “general legislative powers”: Art. I, §8, next to last clause, & Art. IV, §3, cl. 2.” (end quote)

      Richard Henry Lee: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” (1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights)

      George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

      Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5: “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

      1. Cal, I grasp the Constitution, and by the way it’s a “Compact” not a “Contract,” although they are virtually indistinguishable. Here’s the rub.

        All the folk that lose their “Arms Rights” unconstitutionally, are in danger of serving serious prison time should they violate the Unconstitutional Legislature’s Laws. Prison time is prison time, as such they are taken off the battle field just the same. It’s way past time to get rid of Title 18’s gun control measures that made US citizens victims of “Ex Post Facto” legislation, which got added to in 1993. All these City, County and State Gun Control laws are unconstitutional as well, but that’s not the point. Our asses are on the line, by terrorists and the Government, that’s what the 2nd Amendment was written for.

        While your explanation is great, it suggests the only answer at this point is violent in nature. Heck, take that $50,000 they are giving each refugee, and have a gun payout to all the citizens of the US. “Threat of force indeed, is probably the only force we need.”

      2. The US Constitution is a compact between the states; a contract for those who serve within our government laying out duties they must perform, powers they may use to perform those duties, etc; it is the definer of our governments, lists some things is neither under the jurisdiction of the state governments nor the federal government; and and the supreme Law of this nation. All of that and more.

        “All the folk that lose their “Arms Rights” unconstitutionally, are in danger of serving serious prison time should they violate the Unconstitutional Legislature’s Laws.”

        That sentence outlines the key points of our government – why it is in writing, and why everyone who serves within our government takes an Oath to Support and Defend the US Constitution FIRST
        — before the orders of superiors (if any) and
        — before the duties of the position they occupy.
        Understand? EVERYONE in every single position in our governments – high or low – are required to take and KEEP that Oath.

        But to keep it they must understand the US Constitution, because how can they do their very first SUPREME duty that is to be done before all others if they do not know what that duty entails?

        This is why all of those who would be in any way involved in the implementation of getting that said person who “… are in danger of serving serious prison time should they violate the Unconstitutional Legislature’s Laws” are REQUIRED by that Oath and by our supreme government (US Constitution) to say “no” to those orders, they are required to say “no”. No implementation, no problem.

        Se why Oathkeepers/cspoa are critical to our freedom, to keeping our nation, to our children being able to live free? The Oath is not meaningless, it is dangerous to those who are working from within to destroy our nation. But look at all those that go off to unLawful wars because of a traitor’s or domestic enemy’s orders? If they say “no”, then there will be NO unLawful “wars”. If those told to go arrest someone with no warrant says “no”, then that unlawful color of law *terrorist act will not occur.

        Starting to understand self government now? It makes every single one of us responsible for our actions in every way.

        Do you think that all those peds serving within our governments would be free to continue with those actions if all those spying on them did NOT allow some superior on the basis of rank to work against the American people and the USA and instead said “no”, and made it public so that they could be arrested, prosecuted? Do you think the “whistleblowers)” who made the crimes known to the American people would be arrested, etc if those Oath takers KEPT THEIR OATH? Do you think treasonous H. Clinton would be free? That ped rapist and child murderer Hastert would have been charged with paying blackmail (not a crime) so that he would not inform on the child ring in Washington DC instead of with the crimes he had really committed so he would not blow the whistle on the rest of the scum Or that a person who did NOT meet the 3 requirements to be a presidential candidate would have been made a presidential impersonator?

        Do you think WACO, Ruby Ridge, etc, etc, etc, etc would have happened if they had said “NO”?

        See why the framers required the Oath? See the personal responsibility all who takes it has? See why those who are working to destroy us made it seem like it means nothing, when like the Second, it means all?

        God Bless and Stay Safe All,

        If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

        Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

        Just a side note, is this not the American way?

        Tecumseh: “Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide.
        Always give a word or sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, or even a stranger, if in a lonely place. Show respect to all people, but grovel to none. When you rise in the morning, give thanks for the light, for your life, for your strength. Give thanks for your food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason to give thanks, the fault lies in yourself.
        Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.” Tecumseh (1768-1813) Shawnee Chief

      3. Great Cal, So what I your proposed “SOLUTION.” Just spouting these truths in court will not get you anywhere but a quick trip to that jail cell I mentioned. It’s not enough to point out the problems, we need tangible solutions, and we need to get started right away!

      4. Cal, I wrote the comment about solutions and left the room disturbed. You have a vast wealth of knowledge. One day I noticed you explained the 9th Amendment perfectly. Most people, especially Legislators and Judges can’t grasp its purpose. Even more disturbing they don’t know why it was put in the “Bill of Rights.” However, sometimes it’s important to understand subtleties of certain words.

        “The US Constitution is a compact between the states; a contract for those who serve within our government laying out duties they must perform, powers they may use to perform those duties, etc; it is the definer of our governments, lists some things is neither under the jurisdiction of the state governments nor the federal government; and the supreme Law of this nation. All of that and more.”

        The distinction of Compact is important. All US citizens are bound by the Compact. We don’t get the privilege of individual “Contracts.” Our “Compact” originated as individual “Contracts” that were “Compacted” so as to have balanced Rights and duties for every US citizen. Furthermore, it was condensed to one “Compact” so that no one group could hold dominion over another, including the Several States. No matter how you try to parse it out, we are supposed to be operating via “Compact” not individual “Contracts.” Right now, our elected representatives are acting as if they have an individual “Contract” as you have described it. ACA, criminality, etc., they are acting outside the “Compact.” It is a difference with a distinction, but hardly worth note when we have bigger fish to fry.

      5. @ Greg,
        I agree that the US Constitution is a COMPACT that binds the state and the people, and that it and all that is in Pursuance of it is the supreme Law of our land.

        But understand that it is also a contract that lays out the duties for those who serve in government; it assigns the “powers” that they are allowed because of what branch or office within a branch they occupy, etc. Serving within government creates a distinction that is different then a layman as to constitutional requirements. It is a contract for those that serve within both the state and federal governments with requirements made even stronger by the required Oath.

        “Right now, our elected representatives are acting as if they have an individual “Contract” as you have described it.”

        No, they are not because they would have been fired long ago for breaking the contract if that was my or yours business employee. But what they are acting like as if THEY are “the” government, instead of working within the government with duties and powers laid out in writing for them to follow.

        I think that you and I agree on most things here. But let me show you why this is a contract for governmental employees – elected, hired, contracted, etc.

        Basically the elements of a contract as I understand it are
        — an offer;
        — an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds;
        — a promise to perform;
        — a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form);
        — a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments);
        — terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises;
        — performance.

        When a position within our government is open, people may apply, run for office, etc to fill that position as ways to fill that position, whatever the level it is.

        For lower positions there will be a secondary contract (or third-in-order of importance contract if state employee) that comes after the US Constitution in importance; but for the higher positions there is the US Constitution itself, plus (if state employee) the state Constitution which is secondary in importance to certain NAMED in writing supreme Laws/duties that take precedence.

        The duties and powers of the Congress and Senate is in writing. Those are all that they are LAWFULLY allowed to do as representatives of the states and people. They are not theirs to give away, trade, sell to others in different branches, offices, etc (Fast Track for example). It is not a delegated power for any who serve within our governments. Those powers/authority are separate for always.

        This is why Dr. Vieira and our founders say that when those that serve within our government do not follow the US Constitution they no longer meet the requirements of the contract – except he says ti better.

        Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

        The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.”

        See what I mean? When those who serve within our government – whatever party they belong to – do not follow the contract that they are under, they no longer have the authority to do things in the name of the people or the name of the states.

        What does that mean? We have three (3) requirements for anyone who wishes to be a US President has to meet. it is up to the person applying – elected, hired, contracted, etc – to prove that they meet them. If they do not meet those requirements it matters not how many votes, etc they receive, they are NOT the US President, nor do they have any LAWFUL authority to act in our name. This goes for judges, legislature; those who serve within agencies within a branch because they only are allowed to use the authority of the branch; etc.

        All of us who take the Oath have requirements because of that Oath when our governmental duty ends, unless we forswear it. Our duty now, as it was then, is to the US Constitution itself ONLY. It matters not that “Bob” is a nice guy, great boss, and gives great B B que’s; if he does not keep his Oath, he must be reminded of it. If he still refused then he is working against our nation from the inside – knowingly or through ignorance the end is still the same.

        Judge Thomas M. Cooley: “Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it…To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume.”

        The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

        Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

        If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or the people, must overrule them”.

        Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials – state and federal – is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

        5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take before assuming office.

        5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office.

        18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

        5 U.S.C. 7311 explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

        The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

        It is important to realize that our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. That according to Executive Order 10450 and 5 U.S. 7311 any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

        Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

      6. “So what I your proposed “SOLUTION.””

        Militia; get elected locally, then move up; start using the Constitutions – federal and state – as the Laws that they are; start working to remove judges for not using the constitutionally required good Behaviour”; Oathkeepers and that teach what the Oaths mean, and maybe expand that to how to implement what they are required to do when issued unLawful orders, etc.

        Remember that if no one will enforce that unLawful action against the American people, etc then it is “null and void”. That is why OK, etc are so important, because no implementation of unLawful actions & “color of law” means we start taking back our nation. I am sure that better ehads then mine can add to that list.

  6. Kahoolawe Island is a great place to insert all those so called refugees. Also insert judges who legislate from the bench onto the island. Then resume the island as a military bombing range. One can sit on the Maui southern beeches to take in the entertainment. Result: fewer judges exhibiting bad behavior. Clear and simple decision making.

  7. I’ve been reading have learned much. Still not 100% sure if the site is true and honest or another propaganda tool or not. To read Andrew Jackson saved USA from 1812 from Zionist/Jesuits destruction of America by British (who long before this the family was replaced) as in Russia in 1917, replaced. Yet, he removed Cherokees a part of my race from GA in an in humane way then sold land to many Jesuit slave owners who pass as caucasians. The cherokee in GA I read were living in homes and dressing like europeans and had cut their hair and indoctrinated as Christians and some still living as they had always lived. Not sure what Jackson did full blown, good and legal. The paintings we see today I read one was a King of Briton and the painting of him was altered on purpose to make him more european, deception. To search khazar mafia leads to an article in Veterans Today that is surfacing history that has on purpose been omitted, hidden from us for so long.

    1. @ Greg, both you and Cal have a lot of understanding of the Constitution and a way to relay it, that is both knowledgeable and easy for the Layman like myself to understand. One thing I here a lot of from most of the people that give an opinion is that “We need to…” and then nothing gets done. Greg, I remember asking Cal to put some of that knowledge to use and run for office. Greg you and I live in the same state and I am asking you the same question. Why don’t you run for office? That would sure be a “we gotta do something to me. And I would sure support you and vote for you. Give it some thought.CB

Comments are closed.