June 01, 2025
WaPo "Where do Jews Belong
Timothy Birdnow
The Washington Post seems confused about where Jews "belong".
After asking the question they had to beat a hasty retreat and deleted the post.
WaPo deletes post about confusion on 'where Jews belong' after ...
Jews belong in two places:
1.Israel
2. Any other place outside of Israel where they live.
What is so complicated about either of those statements?
Jew is a term for the Tribe of Judah, who historically lived in the southern part of greater Israel. When the ten northern tribes of the 12 seceded from the Kingdom they kept the name Israel while the small tribe of Benjamin (and the Levites) remained in Judea, hence the name.
And while they were forcibly evicted from the land God had given them twice - notably by the Babylonians and later by the Romans - they came back. And even when they had been sent into exile there still remained many Jews not worth deporting to either Babylon or Rome. They have always been in this land since the time of Moses.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, the old saying goes. They always possessed it, even if they had overlords and johnnie-come-lately colonists.
"Palestinians" don't exist as a people. The name was created by the Romans, a corruption of Phillistia, and it was given to the region as an insult to the Jews who lived there. Rome sought to remove the Jewish influence over the region, so they changed the names of places. The Sea of Gallilea became Lake Tiberius. Sh'chem was renamed by the Romans to Neopolis, Mabartha became Neapolis. Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina after the emperor Hadrian crushed the second rebellion. And it was Hadrian who changed the name of the entire land to Palestine.
"Palestinians" are immigrants, many illegal, who started coming to take jobs being created by returning Jews during the british mandate, and they came from places like Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. They are not an unique people but rather a mix of different Mulsim peoples. Acting as though they are a traditional people with their own culture and heritage is rather like saying the illegal aliens who invaded the U.S. are aboriginal and have their own culture and tradition and are entitled to own the whole Southwest.
They aren't; they're scofflaws. A great many of the Palestinais are likewise.
In fact when the U.N. first partitioned the land these "Palestinians" had their own country - Transjordan. But the king of Transjordan couldn't maintain order int he lawless West Bank and in Gaza, so he simply dumped the territory and closed off his border. To this day the Jordanians won't let Palestinians come in. THEY knew these were bad people.
(BTW back in the '20's and '30's Ramallah was predominantly Christian. The Moslems have since driven out most if not all of the Christians there and it is an Islamic hellhole.)
At any rate the Jews have every right to this land. And they have every right to live in places where they immigrated, as do everyone else who immigrates legally.
The Washington Post seems confused about where Jews "belong".
After asking the question they had to beat a hasty retreat and deleted the post.
WaPo deletes post about confusion on 'where Jews belong' after ...
Jews belong in two places:
1.Israel
2. Any other place outside of Israel where they live.
What is so complicated about either of those statements?
Jew is a term for the Tribe of Judah, who historically lived in the southern part of greater Israel. When the ten northern tribes of the 12 seceded from the Kingdom they kept the name Israel while the small tribe of Benjamin (and the Levites) remained in Judea, hence the name.
And while they were forcibly evicted from the land God had given them twice - notably by the Babylonians and later by the Romans - they came back. And even when they had been sent into exile there still remained many Jews not worth deporting to either Babylon or Rome. They have always been in this land since the time of Moses.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, the old saying goes. They always possessed it, even if they had overlords and johnnie-come-lately colonists.
"Palestinians" don't exist as a people. The name was created by the Romans, a corruption of Phillistia, and it was given to the region as an insult to the Jews who lived there. Rome sought to remove the Jewish influence over the region, so they changed the names of places. The Sea of Gallilea became Lake Tiberius. Sh'chem was renamed by the Romans to Neopolis, Mabartha became Neapolis. Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina after the emperor Hadrian crushed the second rebellion. And it was Hadrian who changed the name of the entire land to Palestine.
"Palestinians" are immigrants, many illegal, who started coming to take jobs being created by returning Jews during the british mandate, and they came from places like Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. They are not an unique people but rather a mix of different Mulsim peoples. Acting as though they are a traditional people with their own culture and heritage is rather like saying the illegal aliens who invaded the U.S. are aboriginal and have their own culture and tradition and are entitled to own the whole Southwest.
They aren't; they're scofflaws. A great many of the Palestinais are likewise.
In fact when the U.N. first partitioned the land these "Palestinians" had their own country - Transjordan. But the king of Transjordan couldn't maintain order int he lawless West Bank and in Gaza, so he simply dumped the territory and closed off his border. To this day the Jordanians won't let Palestinians come in. THEY knew these were bad people.
(BTW back in the '20's and '30's Ramallah was predominantly Christian. The Moslems have since driven out most if not all of the Christians there and it is an Islamic hellhole.)
At any rate the Jews have every right to this land. And they have every right to live in places where they immigrated, as do everyone else who immigrates legally.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:28 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.
Lawfare in Arizona
Timothy Birdnow
Another from Rachel Alexander.
Rachel tackles the bogus prosecution of people involved with creating an alternate slate of electors.
From the article in the Arizona Sun:
Read the rest.
Another from Rachel Alexander.
Rachel tackles the bogus prosecution of people involved with creating an alternate slate of electors.
From the article in the Arizona Sun:
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers ruled last week that prosecutors for Attorney General Kris Mayes left out key information when they presented their case against the alternate electoral slate for Donald Trump and several others associated with the electors, which "denied a substantial procedural right as guaranteed by Arizona law.” Myers previously ruled in February that there were enough grounds in the defendants’ motions to likely dismiss the prosecutions due to violating the First Amendment.
The defendants have maintained that the prosecution was politically motivated. Former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, one of the defendants, posted her support for the decision on X. "She & her team are trying to get the judge to STAY the decision (ie: hold it indefinitely) … so they can go around the law they are required to follow (rule 12.9 of criminal procedure) and they have the GALL to claim that the defendants (us) are not being harmed by this. WE HAVE BEEN HARMED EVERY DAY SINCE THIS BEGAN.”
Mayes is prosecuting the alternate slate of electors for alleged crimes such as forgery, claiming that creating an alternate slate was criminal. Myers remanded the case back to the grand jury because the jurors, who indicted 18 including Trump’s former attorney and constitutional legal scholar John Eastman, were not provided with a copy of the 1887 Electoral Count Act (ECA). Defense attorneys argued that the ECA allowed for multiple slates of electors. It was amended afterwards in 2022 by Congress to restrict that, stating that the Vice President did not have substantive authority to reject slates of electors.
During the State Bar of California’s disbarment trial against Eastman, he presented testimony from numerous experts on the issue, including Berkeley constitutional law professor John Yoo. Yoo, who has published law review articles on the topic, testified about previous historical instances where Vice Presidents exercised their substantive authority when considering whether to accept alternate slates of electors. Yoo said there has been only one legal scholar ever who thought the Vice President did not have this authority before the 2022 amendment.
Myers said in his May 19 opinion, "A review of the grand jury proceedings in this matter demonstrates that the ECA was central to the Defendant’s claims that they were acting lawfully and without an intent to defraud. At the oral argument on the instant motions, the State confirmed that at the time of the grand jury proceedings it was aware that at least some of the Defendants claimed that their actions were authorized by the ECA.”
He cited the obligation prosecutors have to inform grand juries of all applicable law. Myers quoted one of the cases, Korzep v. Superior Court. "This duty includes providing instructions on justification defenses that, based on the evidence presented to the grand jury, are relevant to the jurors determining whether probable cause exists to indict the defendant,” the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.
Myers relied on Rule 12.9 of Criminal Procedure, which "permits a defendant to challenge the findings of the grand jury if the defendant was denied a substantial procedural right,” he said. "If the defendant’s challenge is successful, the case must be remanded to the grand jury for a new finding of probable cause.”
Myers said in February, when he held that there was merit to the defendants claims that the case was brought in political retaliation, that Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law allows a case to be dismissed if "the legal action was substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional right.
The defendants have maintained that the prosecution was politically motivated. Former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, one of the defendants, posted her support for the decision on X. "She & her team are trying to get the judge to STAY the decision (ie: hold it indefinitely) … so they can go around the law they are required to follow (rule 12.9 of criminal procedure) and they have the GALL to claim that the defendants (us) are not being harmed by this. WE HAVE BEEN HARMED EVERY DAY SINCE THIS BEGAN.”
Mayes is prosecuting the alternate slate of electors for alleged crimes such as forgery, claiming that creating an alternate slate was criminal. Myers remanded the case back to the grand jury because the jurors, who indicted 18 including Trump’s former attorney and constitutional legal scholar John Eastman, were not provided with a copy of the 1887 Electoral Count Act (ECA). Defense attorneys argued that the ECA allowed for multiple slates of electors. It was amended afterwards in 2022 by Congress to restrict that, stating that the Vice President did not have substantive authority to reject slates of electors.
During the State Bar of California’s disbarment trial against Eastman, he presented testimony from numerous experts on the issue, including Berkeley constitutional law professor John Yoo. Yoo, who has published law review articles on the topic, testified about previous historical instances where Vice Presidents exercised their substantive authority when considering whether to accept alternate slates of electors. Yoo said there has been only one legal scholar ever who thought the Vice President did not have this authority before the 2022 amendment.
Myers said in his May 19 opinion, "A review of the grand jury proceedings in this matter demonstrates that the ECA was central to the Defendant’s claims that they were acting lawfully and without an intent to defraud. At the oral argument on the instant motions, the State confirmed that at the time of the grand jury proceedings it was aware that at least some of the Defendants claimed that their actions were authorized by the ECA.”
He cited the obligation prosecutors have to inform grand juries of all applicable law. Myers quoted one of the cases, Korzep v. Superior Court. "This duty includes providing instructions on justification defenses that, based on the evidence presented to the grand jury, are relevant to the jurors determining whether probable cause exists to indict the defendant,” the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.
Myers relied on Rule 12.9 of Criminal Procedure, which "permits a defendant to challenge the findings of the grand jury if the defendant was denied a substantial procedural right,” he said. "If the defendant’s challenge is successful, the case must be remanded to the grand jury for a new finding of probable cause.”
Myers said in February, when he held that there was merit to the defendants claims that the case was brought in political retaliation, that Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law allows a case to be dismissed if "the legal action was substantially motivated by a desire to deter, retaliate against or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional right.
Read the rest.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.
More Lawfare from the Bar Associations
Timothy Birdnow
Here they go again!
The D.C. Bar is trying to suspend Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens’ law license over her prosecution of violent rioters at Donald Trump’s first presidential inauguration on January 20, 2017
Make no mistake about it; the bar association is as leftist as any body, and they abuse the authority they have. Not sure why we need a bar association anyway; lawyers already have to be licensed by the states or other authorities.
Rachel Alexander writes:
We are fighting a many-headed Hydra.
Here they go again!
The D.C. Bar is trying to suspend Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens’ law license over her prosecution of violent rioters at Donald Trump’s first presidential inauguration on January 20, 2017
Make no mistake about it; the bar association is as leftist as any body, and they abuse the authority they have. Not sure why we need a bar association anyway; lawyers already have to be licensed by the states or other authorities.
Rachel Alexander writes:
The bar conducted a disciplinary hearing in March, urging a 6-month suspension for the former assistant U.S. attorney, who worked for the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office. The D.C. Bar has been accused of weaponizing the disciplinary system against conservative attorneys, including Trump’s DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark, his former attorney Rudy Giuliani, his Weaponization Czar Ed Martin, and others.
Muyskens had an unblemished work history and has since quit the legal profession. She was accused in the complaint of violating one of the typical broad, vague ethics rules typically used by state bars to target conservative attorneys, "the duty to refrain from actions that seriously interfere with the administration of justice,” Rule 8.4(d). The other five ethics rules she allegedly violated primarily related to not disclosing some videos to the defense.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) for the bar claimed she didn’t turn over enough discovery, despite two judges instructing her to limit the amount of evidence she provided, and she was criticized for minor edits made by a police officer to Project Veritas videos exposing the planning of the riot. He had taken out parts that weren’t relevant, which is standard practice for officers/
Muyskens had an unblemished work history and has since quit the legal profession. She was accused in the complaint of violating one of the typical broad, vague ethics rules typically used by state bars to target conservative attorneys, "the duty to refrain from actions that seriously interfere with the administration of justice,” Rule 8.4(d). The other five ethics rules she allegedly violated primarily related to not disclosing some videos to the defense.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) for the bar claimed she didn’t turn over enough discovery, despite two judges instructing her to limit the amount of evidence she provided, and she was criticized for minor edits made by a police officer to Project Veritas videos exposing the planning of the riot. He had taken out parts that weren’t relevant, which is standard practice for officers/
We are fighting a many-headed Hydra.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.
Flour Girls
Timothy Birdnow
Since yesterday we discusses the flower-rolling set, the Young and the Massive, I thought I'd start this Sunday with a little tune about obesity from Jethro Tull.
Fat Man
Ian Anderson had this to say in his tongue-in-cheek song:
Since yesterday we discusses the flower-rolling set, the Young and the Massive, I thought I'd start this Sunday with a little tune about obesity from Jethro Tull.
Fat Man
Ian Anderson had this to say in his tongue-in-cheek song:
Don't want to be a fat man
People would think that I was just good fun, man
Would rather be a thin man
I am so glad to go on being one, man
Too much to carry around with you
No chance of finding a woman who
Will love you in the morning and
All the nighttime too
Don't want to be a fat man
Have not the patience to ignore all that
Hate to admit to myself
I thought my problems came from being fat, man
Won't waste my time feeling sorry for him
I've seen the other side through being thin
Roll us both down a mountain and I'm sure
The fat man would win
People would think that I was just good fun, man
Would rather be a thin man
I am so glad to go on being one, man
Too much to carry around with you
No chance of finding a woman who
Will love you in the morning and
All the nighttime too
Don't want to be a fat man
Have not the patience to ignore all that
Hate to admit to myself
I thought my problems came from being fat, man
Won't waste my time feeling sorry for him
I've seen the other side through being thin
Roll us both down a mountain and I'm sure
The fat man would win
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:57 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
31kb generated in CPU 0.2049, elapsed 0.7758 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.7664 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.7664 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
