A ceasefire has the result of stopping death and property destruction. It seems you're OK with a shooting war continuimg in the hope that one more Israeli might be killed, even at the expense of many dead Pallys. What a courageous position to take from your position of safety of the Great Satan..If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.OH Hell... Just what did I sidestep?You are sidestepping my post.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.
(COMMENT)rylah said:
There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements). One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short. If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.
In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.
Most Respectfully,
R
R
Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: A ceasefire is agreed to as a matter of "intent."
What establishes "need?"
In order to know if Israeli Military Action works or was working, requires knowledge of the purpose behind the military action.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: A ceasefire is agreed to as a matter of "intent."
(COMMENT)If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
What establishes "need?"
In order to know if Israeli Military Action works or was working, requires knowledge of the purpose behind the military action.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,126
- 4,672
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,643
Israel attacked Gaza to stop the rockets. If, in fact, it succeeded, there would be no reason for a cease fire.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: A ceasefire is agreed to as a matter of "intent."
(COMMENT)If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
What establishes "need?"
In order to know if Israeli Military Action works or was working, requires knowledge of the purpose behind the military action.
Most Respectfully,
R
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,394
- 4,953
- 290
Israel attacked Gaza to stop the rockets. If, in fact, it succeeded, there would be no reason for a cease fire.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: A ceasefire is agreed to as a matter of "intent."
(COMMENT)If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.
What establishes "need?"
In order to know if Israeli Military Action works or was working, requires knowledge of the purpose behind the military action.
Most Respectfully,
R
And FACT IS - the rockets stopped.
Then why would Hamas need that ceasefire?
Was sacrificing hundreds of Gazans what Jihadis call a victory against Israel?
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I don't believe your Premise is correct.
I believe, although no one has stated either the commander's intent or the political objective, it probably would be something Like:
◈ As I have said, several times, it would appear to me that the first intent was to suppress enemy fire.
Another important factor to consider HAMAS activities are heavily supported by external sources of various kinds. This contributes to the resilience of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I don't believe your Premise is correct.
(COMMENT)
I believe, although no one has stated either the commander's intent or the political objective, it probably would be something Like:
◈ As I have said, several times, it would appear to me that the first intent was to suppress enemy fire.
✦ To protect the citizenry.
✦ To protect the Jewish National Home from an active threat.
✦ To secure the integrity of Israel and reenforce its sovereignty over its territory.
◈ I believe that the political (international level) is to demonstrate that Israel does not have designs to incorporate the Gaza Strip.✦ That the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) limits the military advance to that necessary in the suppression of enemy launch activities.
✦ To demonstrate that Israel respects the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.
✦ To impression upon the International Community that military action is defensive in nature.
Israeli Defense Force (IDF) objectives are limited to specific objectives used by HAMAS and attempt to warn civilians of danger close attacks.
✦ That IDF neutralization operation (whose partial or total destruction and capture) offers a definite military advantage over HAMAS.
Another important factor to consider HAMAS activities are heavily supported by external sources of various kinds. This contributes to the resilience of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,394
- 4,953
- 290
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I don't believe your Premise is correct.
(COMMENT)
I believe, although no one has stated either the commander's intent or the political objective, it probably would be something Like:
◈ As I have said, several times, it would appear to me that the first intent was to suppress enemy fire.
✦ To protect the citizenry. ✦ To protect the Jewish National Home from an active threat.✦ To secure the integrity of Israel and reenforce its sovereignty over its territory.◈ I believe that the political (international level) is to demonstrate that Israel does not have designs to incorporate the Gaza Strip.
✦ That the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) limits the military advance to that necessary in the suppression of enemy launch activities.✦ To demonstrate that Israel respects the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.✦ To impression upon the International Community that military action is defensive in nature. Israeli Defense Force (IDF) objectives are limited to specific objectives used by HAMAS and attempt to warn civilians of danger close attacks.✦ That IDF neutralization operation (whose partial or total destruction and capture) offers a definite military advantage over HAMAS.
Another important factor to consider HAMAS activities are heavily supported by external sources of various kinds. This contributes to the resilience of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
I think we should view in context of the negative reactions from the Arab world Hamas recently drew to itself in the last round, they're desperate to convince that death and destruction in Gaza was worth murdering 10 Israelis and a Qatari handout...
Hamas is actually losing support in the Arab world,
the image is rather of narcissistic oligarch pigs...
The above gone viral, receipts of Hamas spending on hotels abroad,
during the recent confrontation - one of receipts above $1 million,
of which $326,000 on massages and "other services",
and that's only one room, in a word - Jihad...
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
(COMMENT)
I believe, although no one has stated either the commander's intent or the political objective, it probably would be something Like:
◈ As I have said, several times, it would appear to me that the first intent was to suppress enemy fire.
✦ To protect the citizenry.
✦ To protect the Jewish National Home from an active threat.
✦ To secure the integrity of Israel and reenforce its sovereignty over its territory.
◈ I believe that the political (international level) is to demonstrate that Israel does not have designs to incorporate the Gaza Strip.✦ That the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) limits the military advance to that necessary in the suppression of enemy launch activities.
✦ To demonstrate that Israel respects the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.
✦ To impression upon the International Community that military action is defensive in nature.
Israeli Defense Force (IDF) objectives are limited to specific objectives used by HAMAS and attempt to warn civilians of danger close attacks.
✦ That IDF neutralization operation (whose partial or total destruction and capture) offers a definite military advantage over HAMAS.
Another important factor to consider HAMAS activities are heavily supported by external sources of various kinds. This contributes to the resilience of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
[/QUOTE]
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,126
- 4,672
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,648
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,126
- 4,672
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,649
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,126
- 4,672
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,650
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,027
- 2,300
..the Pals are like the blacks in the US:
'''unindustrious'''
lazy
murdering their own and also others
etc etc
en.wikipedia.org
'''unindustrious'''
lazy
murdering their own and also others
etc etc
Black September - Wikipedia
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,394
- 4,953
- 290
..the Pals are like the blacks in the US:
'''unindustrious'''
lazy
murdering their own and also others
etc etc
Black September - Wikipedia
No they're not,
they only use, i.e. incite African Americans to further their Islamist agenda.
Elder: Black History Month: Why don't they teach about the Arab-Muslim slave trade in Africa?
As for America’s annual Black History Month, actor Morgan Freeman spoke for many during this 2005 exchange with CBS’s Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes”:
Hamas followers here have no problem to call Arabs who support Israel by the N-word,
look closer, and You will not find Africans ever allowed in any of Pali governments.
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: The al Jazeera Video News Article opens by making the claim that the "Right of Self-Defense" only applies to those under occupation. And that Israel does not have the "Right of Self-Defense."
(COMMENT)
According to the al-Jazeera News Article, this interpretation is grounded as far back as 1982; in which they cite Paragraph 2 of the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 • 3 December 1982.
UN General Assembly Resolutions are organizational in nature and are formal expressions of the opinion or will of UN as an organization unless the resolution is internal to the organization. General Assembly Resolutions are not binding on its membership. Even UN Security Council Resolutions are often non-binding unless they demand a specific action (dependent on the wording). An exception to this rule would be if the Security Council was acting under the color of authority contained in Chapter VII of the Charter. Security Council Action under Chapter VII are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 • Chapter V of the Charter. Oddly enough, the "Right of Self-Defense" (since 1945) is expressed under the Charter in Article 51 of Chapter VII.
Israel has a "Right to Self-Defense" from attacks launched by Hostile Arab Palestinians. You should also note that Article 51 of the Charter is not applicable to either the Gaza or Ramallah Governments. Article 51 applies to "Members or the UN."
(CLOSING WITH)
The entire European Union considers HAMAS a terrorist organization (from the Official Journal of the European Union).
UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1368 (2001) "Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter," does speak to the matter.
Palestinian People are perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts Palestinian Terrorist have carried out.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: The al Jazeera Video News Article opens by making the claim that the "Right of Self-Defense" only applies to those under occupation. And that Israel does not have the "Right of Self-Defense."
(COMMENT)
According to the al-Jazeera News Article, this interpretation is grounded as far back as 1982; in which they cite Paragraph 2 of the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 • 3 December 1982.
"Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle"
Two important points spring out here. ◈ A/RES//37/43 is NOT international Law.
◈ A/RES/37/43 sets no limitation to the matter of self-defense.
UN General Assembly Resolutions are organizational in nature and are formal expressions of the opinion or will of UN as an organization unless the resolution is internal to the organization. General Assembly Resolutions are not binding on its membership. Even UN Security Council Resolutions are often non-binding unless they demand a specific action (dependent on the wording). An exception to this rule would be if the Security Council was acting under the color of authority contained in Chapter VII of the Charter. Security Council Action under Chapter VII are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 • Chapter V of the Charter. Oddly enough, the "Right of Self-Defense" (since 1945) is expressed under the Charter in Article 51 of Chapter VII.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Israel has a "Right to Self-Defense" from attacks launched by Hostile Arab Palestinians. You should also note that Article 51 of the Charter is not applicable to either the Gaza or Ramallah Governments. Article 51 applies to "Members or the UN."
Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;
(CLOSING WITH)
The entire European Union considers HAMAS a terrorist organization (from the Official Journal of the European Union).
UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1368 (2001) "Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter," does speak to the matter.
Palestinian People are perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts Palestinian Terrorist have carried out.
◈ 'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade'
◈ 'Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem'
◈ 'Palestinian Islamic Jihad – ‘PIJ’
◈ ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ – ‘PFLP’
◈ 'Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP – General Command’)
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,126
- 4,672
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,654
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: The al Jazeera Video News Article opens by making the claim that the "Right of Self-Defense" only applies to those under occupation. And that Israel does not have the "Right of Self-Defense."
(COMMENT)
According to the al-Jazeera News Article, this interpretation is grounded as far back as 1982; in which they cite Paragraph 2 of the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 • 3 December 1982.
"Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle"Two important points spring out here.
◈ A/RES//37/43 is NOT international Law.◈ A/RES/37/43 sets no limitation to the matter of self-defense.
UN General Assembly Resolutions are organizational in nature and are formal expressions of the opinion or will of UN as an organization unless the resolution is internal to the organization. General Assembly Resolutions are not binding on its membership. Even UN Security Council Resolutions are often non-binding unless they demand a specific action (dependent on the wording). An exception to this rule would be if the Security Council was acting under the color of authority contained in Chapter VII of the Charter. Security Council Action under Chapter VII are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 • Chapter V of the Charter. Oddly enough, the "Right of Self-Defense" (since 1945) is expressed under the Charter in Article 51 of Chapter VII.
Article 51Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Israel has a "Right to Self-Defense" from attacks launched by Hostile Arab Palestinians. You should also note that Article 51 of the Charter is not applicable to either the Gaza or Ramallah Governments. Article 51 applies to "Members or the UN."
Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;
(CLOSING WITH)
The entire European Union considers HAMAS a terrorist organization (from the Official Journal of the European Union).
UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1368 (2001) "Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter," does speak to the matter.
Palestinian People are perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts Palestinian Terrorist have carried out.
◈ 'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade'◈ 'Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem'◈ 'Palestinian Islamic Jihad – ‘PIJ’◈ ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ – ‘PFLP’◈ 'Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP – General Command’)
Most Respectfully,
R
Nakba denier. You still believe that the Palestinians are the aggressors.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,126
- 4,672
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,655
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: The al Jazeera Video News Article opens by making the claim that the "Right of Self-Defense" only applies to those under occupation. And that Israel does not have the "Right of Self-Defense."
(COMMENT)
According to the al-Jazeera News Article, this interpretation is grounded as far back as 1982; in which they cite Paragraph 2 of the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 • 3 December 1982.
"Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle"Two important points spring out here.
◈ A/RES//37/43 is NOT international Law.◈ A/RES/37/43 sets no limitation to the matter of self-defense.
UN General Assembly Resolutions are organizational in nature and are formal expressions of the opinion or will of UN as an organization unless the resolution is internal to the organization. General Assembly Resolutions are not binding on its membership. Even UN Security Council Resolutions are often non-binding unless they demand a specific action (dependent on the wording). An exception to this rule would be if the Security Council was acting under the color of authority contained in Chapter VII of the Charter. Security Council Action under Chapter VII are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 • Chapter V of the Charter. Oddly enough, the "Right of Self-Defense" (since 1945) is expressed under the Charter in Article 51 of Chapter VII.
Article 51Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Israel has a "Right to Self-Defense" from attacks launched by Hostile Arab Palestinians. You should also note that Article 51 of the Charter is not applicable to either the Gaza or Ramallah Governments. Article 51 applies to "Members or the UN."
Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;
(CLOSING WITH)
The entire European Union considers HAMAS a terrorist organization (from the Official Journal of the European Union).
UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1368 (2001) "Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter," does speak to the matter.
Palestinian People are perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts Palestinian Terrorist have carried out.
◈ 'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade'◈ 'Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem'◈ 'Palestinian Islamic Jihad – ‘PIJ’◈ ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ – ‘PFLP’◈ 'Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP – General Command’)
Most Respectfully,
R
Nakba denier. You still believe that the Palestinians are the aggressors.
They are.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I'm sure you could find someone in the USMB membership that would deny the events of May 1948 took place. I just can't imagine who.
Now, are the events of 14/15 May 1948 truly a catastrophe? Did the creation of the Jewish National Home in the State of Israel become the cause of damage or suffering? (RHETORICAL) Were the events the great disaster the Arab Palestinians make it out to be? (RHETORICAL)
SHORT Answer: No!
The cascade failure of the Regional Peace was not the creation of the Jewish State as recommended by the UN, but rather the child-like temper tantrum of Hostilities that followed, and the gains the Arab League thought they might acquire as a result mixed with a grab for power, wealth, and notoriety. Whatever the reasoning for the events of May 15th it was not a case of nobility, integrity, heroism, or honor.
As a matter of fact, the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians never demonstrated an observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by the Arab States. No, the solution to all disputes by the Arab Palestinians was armed struggle. It was an ill-fated option for armed struggle in which they secured an outcome worse than each of the preceding armed struggles.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I'm sure you could find someone in the USMB membership that would deny the events of May 1948 took place. I just can't imagine who.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore said:
Now, are the events of 14/15 May 1948 truly a catastrophe? Did the creation of the Jewish National Home in the State of Israel become the cause of damage or suffering? (RHETORICAL) Were the events the great disaster the Arab Palestinians make it out to be? (RHETORICAL)
SHORT Answer: No!
The cascade failure of the Regional Peace was not the creation of the Jewish State as recommended by the UN, but rather the child-like temper tantrum of Hostilities that followed, and the gains the Arab League thought they might acquire as a result mixed with a grab for power, wealth, and notoriety. Whatever the reasoning for the events of May 15th it was not a case of nobility, integrity, heroism, or honor.
As a matter of fact, the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians never demonstrated an observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by the Arab States. No, the solution to all disputes by the Arab Palestinians was armed struggle. It was an ill-fated option for armed struggle in which they secured an outcome worse than each of the preceding armed struggles.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,126
- 4,672
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,659
Their country was stolen/destroyed. Most of them became forever refugees or IDPs. Their life has been shit ever since.
And you don't see a problem.
The Nakba and the 1948 war were two different things.
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,027
- 2,300
yes they are--they are shitheads/criminals/etc just like the Pals..the Pals are like the blacks in the US:
'''unindustrious'''
lazy
murdering their own and also others
etc etc
Black September - Wikipedia
No they're not,
they only use, i.e. incite African Americans to further their Islamist agenda.
Elder: Black History Month: Why don't they teach about the Arab-Muslim slave trade in Africa?
As for America’s annual Black History Month, actor Morgan Freeman spoke for many during this 2005 exchange with CBS’s Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes”:www.standard.net
Hamas followers here have no problem to call Arabs who support Israel by the N-word,
look closer, and You will not find Africans ever allowed in any of Pali governments.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Is Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, constitutional?
- Started by johnwk
- Replies: 3
-
-
Sometimes, I like to take My Dragon out to stretch his wings...- Started by Darkwind
- Replies: 2
-
Fury as probe exposes how America's second biggest grocer overcharges customers by listing false sales prices- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 4
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
One Of Trump's Unconstitutional EOs Is Being Raked Over the Coals By SCOTUS Tomorrow- Latest: NewsVine_Mariyam
-
