“There is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.”

The statement above, delivered by the judges of the 9th court, provides the ‘reasoning’ behind the reversal of President Trump’s recent travel ban. Unfortunately, the decision speaks poorly of our country’s judicial system, for the judges’ comments are not only misplaced, but outright lies that will ultimately damage American safety.

The court’s decision is alignment with the Democratic party’s current platform, which encourages the idea that residents of the 7 countries covered in the ban (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) are not dangerous. However the facts don’t support their arguments.

First, these countries were deemed dangerous in 2015, by “tolerant” Barack Obama. Both parties agreed then that those countries were “identified as having a terrorist organization with a significant presence in the area, or the country was deemed a “safe haven” for terrorists.”

Democrats would like us to forget that inconvenient fact and assume that Trump just wants to ban Muslims. The problem is that President Trump’s ban in no way targets a specific religion, just dangerous regions.

The 9th Court made liberals proud when they decided they would continue the unlawful judgement against the ban last week. Democrats celebrated loudly, Hillary Clinton getting quickly shot down on social media when she bragged about the win.

They should get their celebrations done quickly. The lawsuit is continuing onto the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuitis not known for having a good record there.

According to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association, 8 out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled. The 9th Circuit, a liberal playground, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.

The chances of a reversal are high, but even more so since the court used false evidence to defend its’ ruling. A Republican Representative, Trey Gowdy, stated, “No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today’s ruling. The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible.”

Gowdy went on to say it “seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second-guess national security determinations made by the commander in chief. There is a reason we elect the commander in chief and do not elect federal judges.”

America’s federal is designed with a checks and balance system to prevent one single person from having too much power. Nobody seemed to complain when Obama went around that system hundreds of times with Executive Orders.

The arguments are coming from every direction now that the President is a Republican who is feared. Yet those differences of personal opinion should not be stopping the courts from preforming their job honorably.

A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reviewed information compiled by a Senate subcommittee in 2016. The results make the 9th Circuit look like either completely misinformed or simple liars.

The report reveals that “72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks.”

The breakdown is as follows;

Somalia: 20

Yemen: 19

Iraq: 19

Syria: 7

Iran: 4

Libya: 2

Sudan: 1

The total adding up to one large mistake by the 9th court and all those applauding its’ decision.

These 72 are not coming in through illegal channels. 17 entered as refugees from the 7 terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.

These terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). At least two of the terrorists lived in Washington.

Both Minnesota and Washington are filing suit against the federal government placing refugees in their states. They claimed the state is suffering as a result.

33 of the 72 individuals were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included

Use of a weapon of mass destruction.

Conspiracy to commit a terror act.

Material support of a terrorist or terror group.

International money laundering conspiracy.

Possession of explosives or missiles.

Unlawful possession of a machine gun.

These are not petty crimes we are talking about. Yet liberals continue to deny any danger from refugees. However the 9th court is not just a group of liberals making noise. They are a federal court and should be focused on upholding the law rather than encouraging Democratic rhetoric.

The report does not even include more recent terrorists. For instance, Abdul Razak Ali Artan who came to the U.S. as a Somali refugee in 2013. Artan plowed his car into a crowd of pedestrians at Ohio State University before attacking students at random with a butcher knife in November.

Clearly these facts have no place with liberals, even those sworn to uphold the law.

Somalia had the highest number of terrorists since 9/11, with 20 of the 72 coming from there. Yemen and Iraq were next with 19 each, followed by Syria (seven), Iran (four), Libya (two) and Sudan (one).

The proof is substantial and yet the Democrats seem determined to ignore it. President Trump’s ban will reach the Supreme Court next. We have faith that those justices are far better suited to do their job than the 9th Circuit.