No Muslim nation wants Palestinians.

Nikki Haley asked the Islamic countries why they are not opening up their gates for Palestinian civilians from Gaza. 

She claimed that the Arab nations are not allowing the Palestinians because they know they "can't vet them" and they don't want "Hamas in their neighborhoods," asserting that "if Arab nations don't want them, then why would Israel?"

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi recently said that the current war is also an "attempt to push the civilian inhabitants to... migrate to Egypt".  

Jordan's King Abdullah II gave a similar message, as he said, "No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt." 

Since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, Egypt has helped maintain a blockade of the strip, sealing off its border and imposing tight controls over the passage of goods and people through Rafah. 

El-Sissi warned about the destruction of Egypt and Israel's 1979 peace deal. Stating that with the presence of Palestinian militia, Sinai "would become a base for attacks on Israel. Israel would have the right to defend itself and would strike Egyptian territory".  He would be right on that assessment as Sinai is part of Egypt.

He added that "the peace which we have achieved would vanish from our hands, all for the sake of the idea of eliminating the Palestinian cause".  That's Just Egypt alone. What of other Muslim nations?

Since 2011, the Egyptian military and police have battled ISIS-affiliated militants. The fear is that incoming Hamas militants could bring further instability to the region.

Sisi also generally views Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, suspiciously, with Cairo considering it a potential security threat.

So this is the last thing Sisi wants, both from a security perspective and from a political perspective, but, ultimately understanding Jordan and Egypt's firm stances requires an overall appreciation of the context.

You cannot understand the Palestinian refugee question while not at the same time also understanding the broader historical, political, and legal circumstances surrounding the issue.

This fear of being displaced is a significant feature of the Palestinian condition. Many of the Palestinians who live in Jordan, Egypt, and elsewhere in the region first arrived there after being displaced in 1948, or following the Six-Day War in 1967.

If you look at it purely from a humanitarian angle, you know a temporary displacement into Sinai would make the delivery of humanitarian assistance much, much easier, but on the other hand, we know it would not be temporary."

It is against this backdrop that Egypt and Jordan would not want to be seen accepting displaced Palestinians because "they don't want to be complicit to another catastrophe.

Let's keep in mind these Pro-Palestinian protesters have NO IDEA what they are actually calling for. If Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria or any other Arab/Muslim country won't accept Palestinians, why should we? Why should Israel?

Vetting is another main reason why they won't accept Palestinians, yet Joe Biden has no problem letting unvetted illegal aliens into our country.

What it's all about

 Now that Trump has been convicted and is awaiting appeal, Liberals are already out in force saying he can't run for President (yes he can, the constitution says so) ,that he can't vote (more on that later in this blog post), That he can't own a gun (I don't recall Trump ever saying he owned a gun) or...wait for this...He can't get Security Clearance.

Let me address the Presidency issue...that was covered in my previous post (Trump is convicted, how can he still run for president?) 

Next is the vote issue, Florida will follow New York law since Trump was convicted there. New York law states a convicted felon CAN vote as long as they are not incarcerated. In other words, if he's not in prison, he can vote.) Trump has no previous felonies, so the likelihood of any prison time is pretty remote. More likely he would be fined and/or placed on probation. This would still give him the ability to vote.

I'm not even going to address the Gun issue because I don't think it matters here as (to my knowledge) Trump doesn't own a gun.

FINALLY we get to the security clearance. IF Trump wins the presidency (Which is still very much possible), He AUTOMATICALLY gets security clearance.

The very fact these liberals are saying all this just proves one thing. It's not about a crime being committed, it's about keeping Trump out of the White House.

Trump is convicted, how can he still run for president?

 Simple! Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution lays down the requirements for President. 

"No person, except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of Thirty five years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States."

There's just three requirements, No part of the Constitution says people who have been convicted of crimes can't run for president.

Another thing to consider is the records could not have been falsified to defraud the voters in the 2016 election, because the Falsification was said to take place the following year in 2017. The election was over and the records were not made public.

The jury instructions given by Judge Juan Merchan dramatically favored the prosecution, telling them that while they had to unanimously conclude that Trump caused a false business entry to be made for the purpose of concealing "another crime."

They did not have to be unanimous as to what that other crime was. This will be one of the many issues that Trump’s legal team will raise on appeal. I would not be surprised if this conviction gets overturned, but that is not likely to happen before the election.

Calls for a SCOTUS Hearing

 A few years ago an upside down American flag was flown at Justice Alito's home. Many rather uninformed democrats referred to it as an "Insurrection Flag".

On twitter, I was quick to point out that there is no such thing as an "insurrection flag". Flying a flag upside down was a sign of distress. I also pointed out BLM protesters doing the same thing (but worse) during the "Summer of Love" protests as shown below:

These BLM Protesters viewed the death of George Floyd as a form of distress, so at least these people knew what it meant (Albeit, burning the flag and writing on the flag was going to extremes). Liberals would be the first to say BLM Protests were not insurrection. But yet liberals call Justice Alito's Flag, (Alito knows the laws better then these liberals), an "insurrection flag". The sole reason is his political leanings. He's a conservative, those pictured above are leftist Marxists who align with Democrats.

There are now calls made by some Leftists saying the Senate needs to hold hearings on the Supreme Court. This won't happen because the constitution states there are 3 separate but equal branches of federal government:, The Executive (President), The Legislative (Congress) and the Judicial (Supreme Court).  Article 1 of The Constitution lays out the roles and Responsibilities of Congress. It does not grant Congress the power to interfere with the Judicial (Supreme Court). Except in the process of CONFIRMING a justice, That's it!

Article 2 of the constitution lays out the roles and responsibilities of the President and Vice President. Like Congress, the President can name a Justice to fill a vacancy, then it goes to Congress to confirm it, Like Congress, that's the limit of their power with regard to the Supreme Court.

Article 3 Lays out the Roles and Responsibilities of the Judicial branch. Like the other two branches, they are limited in their power over the others.

In short, Congress makes laws, the President Passes or Vetoes a law and the Judicial INTERPRET the laws and rule according to the Constitution.

Here is a Link to the Constitution for review.

In summary there is no law in the Constitution denying the Justices or their families freedom of expression as guaranteed in the 1st amendment of the Constitution, no more then the same freedoms exercised by BLM protesters. and the constitution lays out separation of powers among the three branches to keep each one from overpowering the others.

 

Palestine claims to the land of Israel.

 

(Originally posted in my Christian blog)

Palestine, an Islamic "nation". Claims to be the original occupiers of the land of Israel. Islam is the youngest of 3 Abrahamic religions, formed 7 CENTURIES after Christianity. That's 700 years.

In the 1st century B.C.E., (800 years before Islam) the Kingdom of Judea was conquered by the Roman Empire. There is no historical dispute that in both the early Roman period and the Greek period, most of the Jewish people lived in the Land of Israel.

For the Romans, the name "Palestine" had nothing to do with modern-day Palestinians, who of course did not even remotely exist at the time. The Romans knew the coastal region of the Land of Israel as "Palestine," which was named after the ancient Philistine people who once inhabited the coastal territory of the Land of Israel.

A 2019 DNA study of skeletons exhumed from Philistine tombs in the coastal Israeli cities of Ashdod and Ashkelon found that the Philistines come from a "southern European gene pool." In other words, the ancient Philistines have no genetic relation whatsoever to the modern Palestinian-Arabs.

Before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the only people who called themselves "Palestinians" were the Jews. Many Zionist and Jewish organizations in Israel even incorporated the name Palestine into their names.

A mandate to rule the Land of Israel—the British Mandate for Palestine, from the ancient Roman name—was given to the British (among other areas). A mandate was given for a limited time, with the aim of preparing the local people for eventual independence and self-rule. 

Islamic Palestine has never existed. The Jewish people are the rightful owners of Israel. They were there CENTURIES before Islam even existed.

The E. Jean Carroll allegations.

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. EVERYTHING IN THIS BLOG IS MY OWN OPINION AND OBSERVATION. AS WELL AS THAT OF LEGITIMATE RAPE VICTIMS.

I know and have read accounts of legitimate rape victims. Years afterwards, they remember even the most minute details of their rape. It's an experience they would love to be able to forget, but they cannot. 

Rape victims report their rapes as soon as possible while everything is "fresh" (for lack of a better term). They DO NOT wait DECADES to report a rape. 

E. Jean Carroll cannot remember these details. She doesn't remember the EXACT DATE, only that it happened in the 90's. Over 24 years ago with a 10 year window.

In a 1994 Esquire interview, Carroll asked Lyle Lovett about the size of his penis. Carroll told the Hartford Courant about the interview saying that Lovett had “ripped off my clothes – journalistically speaking, of course, at every turn in this story.” The article was titled, “How to Be a Man.” Carroll noted in the article that Lovett had been a journalism major in college.

Some E. Jean Carroll Tweets:

"Sex Tip I Learned From My Dog: When in heat, chase the male until he collapses with Exhaustion...then jump him!"

"How do you know your 'unwanted sexual advance' is unwanted, until you advance it?"

"Would men have invented chastity belts, veils, and croks if women weren't just unbelievably HOT?---Honey, you were BORN to seduce!"

"There is no such thing as a slut. Only sexual geniuses."

"What CAN be done about the penis? It gets large when you want it small, and stays small when you want it large."

"It's not the most beautiful woman, No. No, It's the woman who makes the least mistakes, who seduces the most men."

Trump lawyer, Joe Tacopina repeatedly asked Ms Carroll why she did not shout when the alleged assault occurred.

"I'm not a screamer," she told Mr Tacopina, adding that some women do not come forward about sexual assaults because they are asked why they did not scream.

"I'm telling you he raped me whether I screamed or not," she told Mr Tacopina at one point.

The Trump lawyer also pressed Ms Carroll on why she did not report the assault at first to the police.

The former Elle magazine columnist replied that she was a member of the "silent generation", saying women her age were taught to keep quiet.

Mr Tacopina also questioned Ms Carroll on why she could not recall the specific date of the assault. The writer later conceded that certain parts of her story were "difficult to conceive of".

Easter and Transgenderism DO NOT belong together EVER.

March 31, 2024. What day is that? Easter for most Americans. TransGenderism awareness day for Joe Biden. Only 24 hours later (Monday) did Biden backtrack and "wish" Americans a happy Easter.

Apparently leftists think Jesus would have no problem with Transgenderism. I say FALSE!

Jesus would tell you "the Father does not make mistakes".

“God is not human, that He should lie, not a human being, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?” Numbers 23:19

The very core of Transgenderism goes against that statement. God made a person a boy. That person feels he should be a girl. Therefore he thinks God made a mistake.

Genesis 1:27 reads: "So God created mankind in his own image,

    in the image of God he created them;

    male and female he created them."

Two Genders, and ONLY two.

The Bible, the Torah and the Koran, They all state God created man in his own image, male and female. Nowhere do you find God making a mistake there. Jesus loves the person, NOT the sin. Transgenderism, like homosexuality or bisexuality, are in fact sinful acts.

The Bible makes this abundantly clear, when it says man should not lay with a man as he would a woman. This statement established two things. Leviticus 18:22: Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Number one, the act of sexual intercourse is intended to procreate. That requires a man AND a woman. Two of the same gender cannot procreate. Even a transgender person.

Number two, This is part of God's design. Homosexuality, transgenderism or the acts thereof go against that design.

Even the act of Cross dressing (drag queens) is sinful:

“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5).

In summary:

“For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 18:29-30). 

There's not a Jew, Christian or Muslim who would disagree with the following Statement:

God is the definition of Perfection. He is incapable of making mistakes.