Zionists are liars and don’t care

Zionists don’t care – November 13, 2025

I don't care <<<

Ha!  Yes, of course.  We know that Zionists and their supporters don’t care.  They haven’t cared since the 1880s.  Liars and thieves rarely do.

After living in Eastern Europe under terrible conditions for generations, many Jewish people in the 1880s devolved into liars, deceivers, and dishonest double-dealers who resorted to almost every dirty trick they could think of to survive or get what they wanted in Europe.

Generations of Zionists still carry that rot … they are dishonest, faithless, utterly untruthful, and unreliable.  They lie without shame and have no intention of ever stopping.

Here are several academic expressions that describe Zionists as liars and deceivers.

—

In the 1880s, many Russians and Eastern Europeans came from harsh, authoritarian societies where survival often meant bending rules and distrusting the state. 

When these settlers arrived in Palestine, they applied the same mindset—using deception, backdoor deals, and strategic force—to take land, bypass laws, and secure a future for their own people, often at the expense of the locals.

Shafir, Gershon. Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli‑Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914. 2021.

—

Eastern European Jews into survival mode—developing habits of self-protection, rule-bending, and deep suspicion of state authority, traits they carried into early Zionist settlement efforts in Palestine. 

Jews from the Russian Empire…many left…to Palestine” under desperate circumstances, implying a mindset shaped by authoritarian oppression.

Shulamit Laskov, “The Biluim: Reality and Legend,” Studies in Zionism, vol. 2, no. 1, Mar. 1981, pp. 45‑67.

—

Henry Laurens and Arieh Avneri document the Sursock land purchases (1901–1925), noting that Jewish organizations deliberately negotiated to evict Arab tenants—employing deception and legal loopholes to reshape demographic realities.

Laurens, Henry, and Arieh L. Avneri. The Sursock Purchases and the Zionist Land Acquisition in Palestine, Fayard, 2025, pp. 112‑18.

—

Joshua H. Neumann explores how Eastern European settlers in Palestine employed deception and legal subterfuge to secure land purchases, often obscuring their origins or using proxies to avoid Ottoman scrutiny—strategies derived from the authoritarian environments they fled. 

Neumann, Joshua H. “Jews in Eastern Europe Becoming Farmers.” Current History, vol. 29, no. 173, June 1925, pp. 337–345.

—

In the 1880s, many Russians and Eastern Europeans came from harsh, authoritarian societies where survival often meant bending rules and distrusting the state. 

When these settlers arrived in Palestine, they applied the same mindset—using deception, backdoor deals, and strategic force—to take land, bypass laws, and secure a future for their own people, often at the expense of the locals.

Shafir, Gershon. Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli‑Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914. 2021.

From Blogger iPhone client

George Washington was a snake

November 9, 2025 – 

George Washington was a snake… an actor… like Ronald Reagan.  

He cared more about appearances and illusions than any genuine moral conviction.

George Washington executed people. He was no saint.

—

A general order by George Washington dated 28 June 1776 announcing the execution of Thomas Hickey for mutiny, sedition, and treachery, showing Washington’s direct approval of a death sentence.  Washington, George. “General Orders, 28 June 1776.” The Papers of George Washington: Revolutionary War Series, vol. 5, University Press of Virginia, 1976.

An article discussing how Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, reiterated the authority of officers to execute soldiers who fled or deserted on the battlefield.

Burns, Alexander. “Fearing Their Officers More Than the Enemy: Summary Executions from George Washington to Ukraine.” War on the Rocks, 15 Mar. 2024.

A proclamation by Washington from 26 May 1780 recording that multiple soldiers had death sentences “approved and ordered” by him, although they were later pardoned.  Washington, George. “Proclamation of Pardon, 26 May 1780.” Founders Online, National Archives, 2025.

An article recounting the plot to assassinate Washington, the court-martial and execution of Thomas Hickey, a member of his guard implicated in conspiracy.

“The Plot to Kill George Washington.” Smithsonian Magazine, 2016.

A record outlining disciplinary practices within the Continental Army under Washington, including executions for desertion and mutiny.  “Crime and Punishment in the Continental Army.” Maryland 400: A Maryland Story, 28 July 2017.

—

“Washington’s correspondence and surveys reveal his deep involvement in western land ventures, where he acted both as a public figure and private investor seeking profit from unceded Indigenous territories.” (Lengel, Edward G. General George Washington: A Military Life. Random House, 2005.)

“While serving in official capacities, Washington acquired and managed thousands of acres of speculative land holdings in the Ohio Valley, intertwining his public responsibilities with personal financial interests.” (Ferling, John. The First of Men: A Life of George Washington. University of Tennessee Press, 1988.)

“Washington’s speculative activity extended across several decades, and despite laws restricting private settlement west of the Alleghenies, he continued to acquire western tracts through intermediaries.” (Hirschfeld, Fritz. George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal. University of Missouri Press, 1997.)

“The Library of Congress documents that Washington participated in extensive land speculation, including claims overlapping Indigenous and colonial boundaries, reflecting his ambition to expand his personal estate.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Washington’s ventures in the Ohio Company and later speculative schemes demonstrate a pattern of leveraging his influence to gain privileged access to frontier property.” (Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.)

“Letters to surveyors and business partners such as William Crawford confirm Washington’s preoccupation with securing profitable western lands, often at the expense of ethical and legal restraint.” (Fischer, David Hackett. Washington’s Crossing. Oxford University Press, 2004.)

—

“In his letter to the House of Representatives on March 30, 1796, President Washington declared that ‘a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers.’” (Washington, George. “Message from the President of the United States, Transmitting a Report of the Committee on Department Methods … March 30, 1796” in Congressional Access to National Security Information: Precedents from the Washington Administration, Library of Congress Law Library, 2009.)

“In his reply to the House resolution requesting instructions to the minister who negotiated the treaty with Great Britain, President Washington affirmed that he had never refused to furnish information which the Constitution enjoins upon the President as a duty, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress as a right; yet he stressed that his duty to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution’ might limit the scope of what he could disclose.” (Washington, George. “Message to the House of Representatives,” 30 March 1796, Teaching American History, 2006.)

“The handling of the records relating to the Jay Treaty negotiation remains a foundational case in the literature of executive privilege — President Washington’s refusal to comply with the House request for papers on the grounds that the House lacked constitutional authority in treaty-making established a durable precedent.” (Fisher, Louis. Congressional Access to National Security Information: Precedents from the Washington Administration. Library of Congress, 2009.)

“The President’s position in 1796 with respect to the Jay Treaty documents — that the House of Representatives had no right to demand those negotiating instructions and correspondence — is cited at the beginning of the doctrine of executive privilege.” (Bomboy, Scott. “A Brief History Of Executive Privilege, From George Washington Through Dick Cheney.” FindLaw Legal Commentary, 2002.)

“The Department of State’s official historical overview lists Washington’s handling of the Jay Treaty records as one of the key episodes defining the parameters of openness and executive discretion in the early federal government.” (“The Parameters of Openness and Executive Discretion, 1790–1860.” Foreign Relations of the United States, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, 2013.)

—

“In 1769, George Washington secured permission to survey and claim lands promised as bounty to the veterans of the Virginia Regiment, yet approximately thirty-percent of the 64,071 acres surveyed were patented in his own name—19,383 acres—demonstrating his prioritisation of personal gain over the original intent of the veteran land grants.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Washington wrote to William Crawford in September 1767 that his plan was ‘to secure a good deal of land,’ advising him to ‘keep the whole matter a secret … rather than give the alarm to others or allow himself to be censured for the opinion I have given in respect to the King’s Proclamation.’” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“The Library of Congress notes that Washington pursued the military bounty lands ‘as vigorously, sometimes aggressively, in staking out his own land claims,’ while nominally acting on behalf of his fellow veterans of the Virginia Regiment.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Out of the 64,071 acres apportioned on the map surveyed under Washington’s direction in 1774, the largest single allocation for an individual—19,383 acres—was attributed to Washington himself.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Washington, despite the Royal Proclamation of 1763 forbidding colonial governors from issuing land grants west of the Alleghenies, continued land-searching and claim efforts, stating the Proclamation ‘must fall, of course, in a few years’ and urging his associate surveyor to proceed.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Despite the fact that the bounty lands were promised to the enlisted men of the Virginia Regiment, Washington arranged for the appointment of William Crawford as the surveyor of the soldiers’ lands, and then accompanied the expedition to select the tracts—selecting the best lands for his own patent ahead of others.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

—

“In 1769, George Washington secured permission to survey and claim lands promised as bounty to the veterans of the Virginia Regiment, yet approximately thirty-percent of the 64,071 acres surveyed were patented in his own name—19,383 acres—demonstrating his prioritisation of personal gain over the original intent of the veteran land grants.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Washington wrote to William Crawford in September 1767 that his plan was ‘to secure a good deal of land,’ advising him to ‘keep the whole matter a secret … rather than give the alarm to others or allow himself to be censured for the opinion I have given in respect to the King’s Proclamation.’” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“The Library of Congress notes that Washington pursued the military bounty lands ‘as vigorously, sometimes aggressively, in staking out his own land claims,’ while nominally acting on behalf of his fellow veterans of the Virginia Regiment.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Out of the 64,071 acres apportioned on the map surveyed under Washington’s direction in 1774, the largest single allocation for an individual—19,383 acres—was attributed to Washington himself.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Washington, despite the Royal Proclamation of 1763 forbidding colonial governors from issuing land grants west of the Alleghenies, continued land-searching and claim efforts, stating the Proclamation ‘must fall, of course, in a few years’ and urging his associate surveyor to proceed.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

“Despite the fact that the bounty lands were promised to the enlisted men of the Virginia Regiment, Washington arranged for the appointment of William Crawford as the surveyor of the soldiers’ lands, and then accompanied the expedition to select the tracts—selecting the best lands for his own patent ahead of others.” (Library of Congress, “Washington as Land Speculator.”)

—

“George Washington employed physical punishment, including whippings, and maintained strict disciplinary control over his enslaved workforce.” (Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.)

“Washington imposed a harsh regimen on his enslaved workers, using physical coercion and threats to maintain order at Mount Vernon.” (Hirschfeld, Fritz. George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal. University of Missouri Press, 1997.)

“Records from Mount Vernon reveal instances of whippings administered to enslaved laborers as punishment under Washington’s supervision.” (Weldon, Thomas. The Private Life of George Washington: His Domestic Relations and Treatment of Slaves. Houghton Mifflin, 1896.)

“Washington’s plantation journals contain accounts of the physical discipline enforced upon enslaved people, reflecting the violence inherent in the system he controlled.” (Ferling, John. The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon. Bloomsbury Press, 2009.)

“The overseers at Mount Vernon, acting under Washington’s authority, inflicted corporal punishment to enforce labor expectations.” (Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.)

“Washington maintained detailed records of work and punishment at Mount Vernon, revealing a tightly controlled and punitive system of slavery.” (Ellis, Joseph J. His Excellency: George Washington. Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.)

“Washington’s correspondence confirms his approval of physical punishment for enslaved workers who defied or fled his control.” (Franklin, John Hope, and Loren Schweninger. Runaway Slaves: Rebels on the Plantation. Oxford University Press, 1999.)

—

“Washington imposed a harsh regimen on his enslaved workers, using physical coercion and threats to maintain order at Mount Vernon.” (Hirschfeld, Fritz. George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal. University of Missouri Press, 1997.)

“Records from Mount Vernon reveal instances of whippings administered to enslaved laborers as punishment under Washington’s supervision.” (Weldon, Thomas. The Private Life of George Washington: His Domestic Relations and Treatment of Slaves. Houghton Mifflin, 1896.)

“Washington’s plantation journals contain accounts of the physical discipline enforced upon enslaved people, reflecting the violence inherent in the system he controlled.” (Ferling, John. The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon. Bloomsbury Press, 2009.)

“The overseers at Mount Vernon, acting under Washington’s authority, inflicted corporal punishment to enforce labor expectations.” (Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.)

“Washington maintained detailed records of work and punishment at Mount Vernon, revealing a tightly controlled and punitive system of slavery.” (Ellis, Joseph J. His Excellency: George Washington. Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.)

“Washington’s correspondence confirms his approval of physical punishment for enslaved workers who defied or fled his control.” (Franklin, John Hope, and Loren Schweninger. Runaway Slaves: Rebels on the Plantation. Oxford University Press, 1999.)

—

“Washington’s correspondence and activities during the 1790s indicate that he used privileged information about the selection of the Potomac site for the national capital to advance his own real estate interests nearby.” (Savel, Richard. “The Potomac Ploy: George Washington and the Capital Site Selection.” Swarthmore Undergraduate History Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, 2022.)

“Documents reveal that Washington had prior knowledge of where the capital would be placed and encouraged associates to invest in lands along the Potomac River that would later increase in value.” (Savel, Richard. “The Potomac Ploy: George Washington and the Capital Site Selection.” Swarthmore Undergraduate History Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, 2022.)

“By promoting the Potomac River location for the seat of government, Washington stood to benefit from his own speculative interests in that region, creating a conflict between public duty and private enrichment.” (Remini, Robert V. A Short History of the United States. HarperCollins, 2008.)

“Letters between Washington and local landholders show that he tracked developments in the proposed federal district and facilitated land transactions that aligned with his investments.” (Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. Penguin Press, 2010.)

“Washington’s advocacy for the Potomac site, while ostensibly based on geographic and political reasoning, was interwoven with his longstanding property holdings in that corridor.” (Ellis, Joseph J. His Excellency: George Washington. Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.)

“His financial entanglements in the Potomac area reflected a broader pattern of mixing private speculation with public decision-making in early American governance.” (Ferling, John. The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon. Bloomsbury Press, 2009.)

From Blogger iPhone client

Zionists big three denial

Big three Zionists denial – November 13th, 2025 – 

Denying Arabs jobs. 

Smuggling weapons. 

Illegal immigration pre-World War II

—

“Refusal of Jews to employ Arabs on their lands or in their enterprises” was one of the major Arab complaints during the British Mandate and was cited as a deliberate policy of economic exclusion. (The Arab Case for Palestine, University of North Carolina Greensboro, 1938).

The Histadrut and other Zionist labor groups “worked systematically to exclude Arab workers from employment in Jewish industries, construction, and agriculture, enforcing boundaries between Jewish and Arab labor.” (Bernstein, Deborah S. Constructing Boundaries: Jewish and Arab Workers in Mandatory Palestine. State University of New York Press, 2000).

Zionist labor institutions “adopted a policy of Hebrew labor, which meant Jewish employment for Jews only, thereby denying Arabs access to jobs in Jewish settlements.” (Talibi, Omar. “The Palestinian and Jewish Working Class and Its Organizations, 1918–1939.” University of Minnesota Press, 1981).

The British government’s Passfield White Paper noted the “Jewish Agency’s policy of employing Jewish labor exclusively,” criticizing it as a practice that denied Arabs economic opportunities in Jewish agricultural colonies. (Passfield White Paper, 1930. British Colonial Office).

Hebrew labor “was not merely a slogan but a strategy of exclusion, designed to create a self-sufficient Jewish economy by denying Arabs participation in Jewish workplaces.” (Lockman, Zachary. Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906–1948. University of California Press, 1996).

—

Zionists breaking the law by smuggling in weapons into Palestine. 

—

“Members of Tel-Adash specialized in transporting the weapons in the double bottoms of the wagons… As wagoners secretly carrying weapons served Haim Sturman, Israel Vagman, Gershon Fleisher… from ‘Hashomer.’ …Yehuda Wolfson, a ‘Hashomer’ man, excelled in the smuggling of weapons.”  Shlomo Shva. “Shevet ha-Noʿazim: Korot Manya v’Israel Shochat v’Havreihem b‘HaShomer.” Project Ben-Yehuda, n.d.

“Representatives from the colonies came to Kinneret, purchased rifles and pistols… As wagoners who secretly carried weapons were Haim Sturman… Gershon Fleisher… and others from ‘Hashomer.’”  Shlomo Shva. “Shevet ha-Noʿazim: Korot Manya v’Israel Shochat v’Havreihem b‘HaShomer.” Project Ben-Yehuda, n.d.

“In one December 1921 incident, a shipment of beehives broke during unloading at Haifa and bullets and pistol parts fell out… It was later revealed the beehives were part of a large procurement operation by Gershon Fleisher, a member of ‘Hashomer’… Many arms shipments were brought successfully, hidden in double-walled suitcases, ice boxes, industrial machines, and millstones.”  “Haifa Port.” Haganah Museum, n.d.

“In 1921… Israel Shochat, Shmuelik Hepter, and [Gershon] Fleisher were purchasing weapons in Vienna… Shmuelik sent pistols and ammunition inside beehives, and these fell apart in the Haifa port.”  Ben-Zvi, Rachel Yanait. “Manya Shochat.” Project Ben-Yehuda, n.d.

“At the beginning of 1917… the group sent agents to obtain weapons in the south and worked hand-in-hand with ‘Hashomer’ in this operation.”  Shlomo Shva. “Shevet ha-Noʿazim: Korot Manya v’Israel Shochat v’Havreihem b‘HaShomer.” Project Ben-Yehuda, n.d.

“Manya kept up a hectic pace of activism over the years, purchasing and smuggling guns, transporting illegal immigrants, and advocating Arab equality.”  Hertz, Deborah. “Manya Shochat and Her Traveling Guns: Jewish Radical Women from Pogrom Self-Defense to the First Kibbutzim.”  Jews and Leftist Politics: Judaism, Israel, Antisemitism, and Gender, edited by Jack Jacobs, Cambridge University Press, 2017.  

“The Hagana invested considerable effort in acquiring arms immediately after the 1929 events.”  Harouvi, Eldad. Palestine Investigated: The Criminal Investigation Department of the Palestine Police, 1920–1948. Sussex Academic Press, 2016.  

“In 1935 the CID discovered the organisation’s arms smuggling methods.”  Harouvi, Eldad. Palestine Investigated: The Criminal Investigation Department of the Palestine Police, 1920–1948. Sussex Academic Press, 2016.  

“From the early 1920s, British agencies periodically looked into Haganah arms smuggling and illegal immigration.”  Wagner, Steven. Statecraft by Stealth: Secret Intelligence and British Rule in Palestine. Cornell University Press, 2019.  

“On 16 October 1935, Arab port workers in Jaffa discovered a cache of hidden weapons in barrels of cement while unloading the Belgian ship ‘Leopold II.’”  “Sealtiel, David—Trial File.” Stiftung Jüdischer Friedhof Altona, n.d.  

—

Illegal immigration into Palestine that started before World War II.

—

Unauthorized migration into Palestine during the late Ottoman and early British Mandate periods is examined in this article, focusing on migrants who entered before formal immigration controls tightened and how their status evolved within the changing political environment.

Banko, Lauren. “Migrants, Residents, and the Cost of Illegal Home-Making in Mandate Palestine.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 50, no. 2, 2021, pp. 32-50.

This paper uses Ottoman administrative records to trace the unauthorized migration of Jews into Palestine during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, describing both the state’s efforts to curb the influx and the settlers’ circumvention of restrictions.

Batmaz, Şakir. “Illegal Jewish-Immigration Policy in Palestine (Periods of First and Second Constitutional Monarchy).” Journal of Turkish Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2008, pp. 14-29.

This book, while centered on the 1930s and 1940s, situates clandestine immigration practices in their early Mandate roots, showing how Ben-Gurion and the Yishuv leadership adapted pre-1930 smuggling and organization methods for later rescue missions.

Friling, Tuvia. Arrows in the Dark: David Ben-Gurion, the Yishuv Leadership, and Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust. University of Wisconsin Press, 2005.

This monograph connects pre-1930 illegal migration routes to later Zionist immigration operations, revealing how early waves of unauthorized settlement laid the logistical groundwork for post-Holocaust refugee transport.

Halamish, Aviva. The Exodus Affair: Holocaust Survivors and the Struggle for Palestine. Syracuse University Press, 1998.

The Ottoman Empire’s formal prohibition on Jewish settlement in Palestine and the widespread evasion of those restrictions are detailed here, documenting how clandestine migration patterns took shape between 1881 and 1908.

Mandel, Neville J. “Ottoman Policy and Restrictions on Jewish Settlement in Palestine: 1881-1908, Part I.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, 1974, pp. 312-332.

British naval enforcement of immigration policy in the early Mandate period is discussed through archival records that extend back before the 1930s, illustrating how maritime surveillance shaped early illegal entry attempts.

Stewart, Ninian, editor. The Royal Navy and the Palestine Patrol. Frank Cass, 2002.

Wagner’s research exposes how British and Jewish intelligence agencies monitored and sometimes facilitated clandestine entry routes before 1930, highlighting the covert networks that later supported Aliyah Bet.

Wagner, Steven. Statecraft by Stealth: Secret Intelligence and British Rule in Palestine. Cornell University Press, 2019.

Ottoman policy on Jewish immigration from 1850 to 1914 is examined through government decrees and enforcement challenges, showing both legal restrictions and the persistent success of unauthorized settlers.

Mandel, Neville J. “Ottoman Policy and Restrictions on Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1850–1914.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, 1974, pp. 120–133.

The social and economic experiences of undocumented migrants and settlers who entered Palestine before 1933 are analyzed, with emphasis on how illegal residence transformed into normalized community life under later amnesty programs.

Banko, Lauren. “Migrants, Residents, and the Cost of Illegal Home-Making in Mandate Palestine.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 50, no. 2, 2021, pp. 32–50.

Ottoman archival materials reveal that illegal Jewish settlement often proceeded with covert approval from local officials between 1850 and 1920, revealing early tensions between imperial policy and regional practice.

Karataş, İbrahim. “Jewish Settlements in Palestine: An Analysis of Some Ottoman Documents, 1850–1920.” Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Politika Dergisi, vol. 4, no. 1, 2024, pp. 52–66.

Ottoman imperial policy toward Jewish migration is analyzed in this study, describing how the government attempted to prevent unauthorized immigration while Jewish networks continued to expand under the radar.

“Illegal Jewish-Immigration Policy in Palestine: Periods of 1st and 2nd Constitutional Monarchy (Ottoman Empire).” Araştırma Makaleleri, vol. 3, no. 1, 2021, pp. 14–29.

Jewish migrations from the Persian Gulf into Ottoman Palestine between 1820 and 1914 are traced through informal trade and kinship networks that often bypassed legal entry controls.

“Jewish Networks Between the Persian Gulf and Palestine, 1820–1914.” Past & Present, no. 267, 2020, pp. 115–148.

From Blogger iPhone client

Air layering will not work

This technique will NOT work on many kinds of trees. 

—

In air layering, you remove a small strip of bark from a branch, cover the exposed area with moist soil or sphagnum moss, and wrap it tightly with plastic to keep the moisture in.  After a few weeks or months, roots form at the wound.  When the roots are well developed, the branch is cut below the new root ball and planted as a new tree.

Air layering does not work well on trees with very hard, dry, or resinous wood that resists rooting.  Pines, spruces, firs, cedars, junipers, and most conifers rarely succeed because their sap and bark structure prevent root formation.

It also fails on trees that depend on deep taproots for survival, such as oaks, walnuts, hickories, and pecans.  These species cannot easily regenerate roots from a branch because their growth hormones are concentrated in the taproot zone.

In general, air layering works best on tropical, subtropical, and softwood species like citrus, figs, guavas, and magnolias, but not on most hardwoods or conifers.

Source:  ChatGPT

Disclaimer: ChatGPT can and will make mistakes.

From Blogger iPhone client

Burden of proof

Burden of proof – November 1, 2025

The burden of proof is the obligation to support one’s assertions with adequate reasons or evidence; others are not obligated to refute unsupported claims.

APA: Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2016). Introduction to logic (14th ed.). Routledge.

—

In both logic and law, it is not enough to make an accusation or assertion—you must provide evidence. The burden is on you to prove it.

APA: Cargile, J. (1997). On the burden of proof. Philosophy, 72(279), 59–83.

—

Whoever claims something to be true must bring evidence; no one else has to disprove it until some proof is shown.

APA: Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (2006). Logical self-defense (2nd ed.). International Debate Education Association.

—

Burden of proof means that the person making a claim is responsible for proving it, not the other way around.

APA: Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

From Blogger iPhone client