How Dammesek Has Fallen!

The burden placed on hanevi'im:




Isaiah 17:1-3
New King James Version (NKJV)
Proclamation Against Syria and Israel

17 The burden against Damascus.

“Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city,
And it will be a ruinous heap.
2 The cities of Aroer are forsaken;[a]
They will be for flocks
Which lie down, and no one will make them afraid.
3 The fortress also will cease from Ephraim,
The kingdom from Damascus,
And the remnant of Syria;
They will be as the glory of the children of Israel,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

Jeremiah 49:23-27
New King James Version (NKJV)
Judgment on Damascus

23 Against Damascus.

“Hamath and Arpad are shamed,
For they have heard bad news.
They are fainthearted;
There is trouble on the sea;
It cannot be quiet.
24 Damascus has grown feeble;
She turns to flee,
And fear has seized her.
Anguish and sorrows have taken her like a woman in labor.
25 Why is the city of praise not deserted, the city of My joy?
26 Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets,
And all the men of war shall be cut off in that day,” says the Lord of hosts.
27 “I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus,
And it shall consume the palaces of Ben-Hadad.”[a]

"Brilliant or Tasteless?" (Title Linked To Original Post)

As hard as saying "tasteless" is, I have to say "tasteless". Also, as I said before, Hitler (Y'Sh) did have an abusive mother (and, might I add, an abusive stepdad), and that's what adds an element of tastlessness to it. Abuse begets abuse; hurt begets hurt, and evil begets evil. Some of the other most-vile people who ever lived were also subject to abuse by vile people (who were also probably abused). I can only hope that someone who has abused and/or is abusing a child suddenly has the thought that his or her child may turn out like (G-d forbid) Hitler (Y'Sh) and Stalin (Y'Sh). 

Abuse certainly doesn't excuse abuse, but abusers do affect abusees to be abusers in return if the abusees do not get what help they need. 
Also, some of the comments wishing that what happened in the commercial took place are actually against Tanakh. "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways" (From Ezekiel 33:11). Meanwhile, while we're getting into counterfactuals, just imagine that someone could've saved Hitler (Y'Sh) from his abusive household and/or gotten him help--then what? Would the Holocaust have happened if a victim of abuse had not turned into a vile and ethnocidal totalitarian?
We're supposed to be about tikun ha'olam here, and wishing that an abuse victim had been killed when he was a child instead of wishing that he had gotten what help he needed is not in the spirit of tikun ha'olam.

For People Who Tell Me That I'm Picking On Krystal Keith

Firstly, look at the history of all of the stars who have used their parents' or other relatives' names, etc. to get far. With exceptions, very few or none have broken that "They're their [whosever's] [whichever relative's]" rule (e.g., "Rosanne Cash is Johnny Cash's daughter", "Ali Lohan is Lindsay Lohan's sister".). Secondly, look at the ones who have foregone using their parents' names, connections, etc.. Kate Hudson (who deliberately turned down a role with her stepddad and did not use her mother's name), Whitney Houston (who could've ridden on Cissy Houston's and Dionne Warwick's coattails, but didn't), and Hank Williams, Jr. (who had his name thrust on him and deliberately broke away to develop his own style) made their own names in their own rights. Thirdly, Crystal Gayle is an example of whom learned the lessons in the first two points--she tried Loretta's name, style, etc.; then she came back as Crystal Gayle with her own style. Fourthly, Krystal Keith's first single already failed, peaking at #53 on the country charts and #27 on the general charts; and she can never get away from being only her dad's daughter now.

Don't tell me that I'm "picking" on anyone or that I need a "hobby". Besides, having famous and somewhat-famous relatives, I know about what I speak.

"What's the difference between Jews, Christians, and Catholics?"

I can sadly and unfortunately tell you that a majority of Jews actually do not believe in Jesus (Hebrew, "ישוע", "Yeshua"). In fact, Jews like me are often intraethnically persecuted (e.g., told that we're no longer Jewish or even that we're actually just gentiles posing as Jews in order to proselytize and destroy Jewish souls, thus attempting to finish the evil work of the Nazis). Also, I am quite sure that this answer may even be disliked and/or reported by Anti-Messianic Jews who will attempt to slanderously portray me as Anti Semitic.

However, many (if not most) Non-Messianic Jews are tolerant of Jesus-believing (Messianic) Jews (Jewish Christians), although they disagree with Messianic Jews on whether or not there is even a literal Messiah ("משיח", "Mashiach) and/or who Mashiach is. For example, Karaites and Orthodox Pharisees (and Ultra-Orthodox Pharisees) do believe in a literal, yet-to-come (or, in the case of Menachem Mendel Schneerson's followers, yet-to-be-resurrected) Mashiach. Conservative and Reform Pharisees generally do not believe in a literal Mashiach.

Some Non-Messianic Jews, and even some Messianic Jews, are Crypto Jews ("אנוסים", "Anusim"). Many direct paternal ancestors from the 1700s-1900s became or were born to such--in fact, my dad and his parents deny that we're Jewish because (long story short) dad's paternal granddad became an Anusi when he was a baby to survive the pogroms and escape Anti Semitism in better-than-nothing America, and my dad's Anusit maternal grandmother was partly responsible for the murder of her Non-Anusi relatives who died in the Holocaust (which, for Grandma, is pretty painful to recall--she was six to eight years of age when her mother denied Vilmos Rusznak, Zoli Grinfeld, and other cousins [z'l] financial help to leave Europe and make aliyah ["עליה"]. In fact, she once snapped at my mom, "You keep your money in your own country." when Mom unknowingly and unintentionally opened that painful and reminding wound that Great-Grandma left in her daughter's soul.).

Most Anusim were or (as are my grandparents) are Roman or Byzantine Vaticanists ("Catholics", "universalists")--partly because they're in dread of the Vatican, which attempted to supersede Mount Zion with Vatican Hill because of replacementism. Some Anusim (e.g., Issac D'Israeli and Heinrich Marx) were or are Lutheran, Anglican, or affiliated with other denominations that broke away from Vaticanism. Very few Anusim are affiliated with Anabaptist or other Non-Vaticanist denominations (Even my dad, who goes to a Southern Baptist church, goes to a Southern Baptist church only because his wife is a Southern Baptist. If he were not an Anusi, he'd be a Reform Jew.).

As for Vaticanists, be sadly assured that most are not Christians. Christians (including Jewish Christians) believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Christian/Completed Jewish Bible (Old and New Covenants/Testaments). Vaticanists generally do not, as they tend to either believe what the Vatican says about it (as opposed to what it says for itself) or the "Documentary Hypothesis" (e.g., Non-Messianic Jews--excepting Karaites, Orthodox Pharisees, and Ultra-Orthodox Pharisees--and Vaticanists alike would agree with the words of Reform Pharisee clergywoman Amy Scheinerman--i.e., "Some institutions are considered to be a product of the cultural milieu and societal norms of the ancient Near East when the Hebrew Scriptures [i.e., the Old Covenant] were written down, and do not speak to our lives today.")

Hopefully, this clears up any confusion and specifies differences as well as similarities for you.

My Response To Samurai Mohel Re Ari Hart, Uri L'Tzedek, and Others

You are clearly breaking two mitzvot-gedolot: to love your neighbor as yourself and to desire mercy over sacrifice. Your petition is hostile, unhelpful, and will frankly turn many reasonable, decent people from even considering your point. As friend and :( stated, "[T]his post [is] a mindless, pointless rant." and "why do you feel the need to rip apart people who are really trying to fix the world?" As misguided as Ari Hart, Uri L'Tzedek, and similar individuals and organizations may be or are, you are clearly an angry and hostile person--and one who clearly has no problem speaking lashon hara against others, among violating other mitzvot (besides the two already mentioned.).

[P.S. For anyone who clicks on the title, be forewarned that Samurai Mohel is an extremely-hostile and -angry person, and has no problem speaking lashon hara--some of it eligible to be prosecuted as criminal libel--against people and organizations such as Dennis Prager, Eddie Beckford, and Ari Hart, and the Rosh Pina Project.].

Tommy Christopher and His Racist, "Race" Baiting Ilk

First of all, there are no "races". We are all of the human race. Secondly, Wikipedia of all sources admits that "When Darwin referred to "civilised races" he was almost always describing European cultures, and apparently drew no clear distinction between biological races and cultural races in humans. Few made that distinction at the time, an exception being Alfred Russel Wallace." There was no distinction, as "ethnos" means "people" or "nation". Also, Wikipedia admits that Darwin stated, " At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

People like Tommy Christopher and some of the commenters on "Paging Geraldo" want to continue that Darwinian racism and "race" baiting. By the way, Wikipedia also admits that Classical (19th Century) Conservatives (modern--17th, 20th-21st Century--liberals) took cues from Darwin. "The questions of what "race" was, how many human races there were, and whether they could be "mixed", were key debates in the nascent field of anthropologyin Darwin's time. After the American Civil War (1861–1865), the questions of race and slavery were brought to the forefront in anthropology in the United States and Europe. Some scientists from the Southern U.S. published long monographs on "Why the Negro is inferior" and would soon be driven to extinction by newfound freedom, with an implication that slavery had been not only "beneficial" but "natural.""


Of course, they try to send mixed signals and act like Darwin wasn't really a racist, but know who you're following and what you're doing when you've chosen to cause ethnic division and speak lashon hara against Fox News and Republicans, and attempt to revise history.

My Response To "Taking My First Trip to Ukraine, Under the Watchful Eyes of Jesus"

Firstly, I think that brushing away the "holy water" was unnecessary. Unless one puts meaning behind an item or object, the item or object is just the said item or object--at least in cases where the object is not inherently signified or set apart as something. Secondly, when Malina wrote about how her "dad stood slouching in a back corner pew", I was reminded of my own Crypto-Jewish granddad falling asleep in the back of the church that he had his family attend (about which I was told by my aunt Mary--who was, although we are Ashkenazi, named for both of her then-living grandmothers [Mary Trudnak Czarnecki (z"l), the granddaughter of Mária Nagyová Trudnyaková; and Marysia "Mary" Rusnak Gaydos, a Levite and a granddaughter of Mária Nováková Rusznáková]. She distinctly remembers that Pop-Pop would fall asleep in the back of the church while Grandma would Dad and Aunt Mary with her in the church service.).

Thirdly, I relate to Malina's point about how "this is not how I envisioned my first trip to the country where my maternal grandmother... and her entire family fled during pogroms". As someone who just discovered that I'm Jewish and a bat-Anusim a while back, I myself am trying to recover of much of my Jewishness as possible (I was honestly raised to believe that my dad was fully Slavic [Polish, Lithuanian, and Czechoslovakian--I had no idea that he was an Ashkenazi Jew and Matrilineal Levite.]). Granted that I personally believe that one is still Jewish when he or she believes in Jesus (as I myself do), but I agree that a Jew is (to say the very least and maybe understating at least a little bit) remiss to have a Vaticanist ("Catholic", "universal") wedding. I also had to convince my sister and her to-be husband to incorporate some Messianic Jewish traditions into their to-be home (Granted that their officiant will be a Messianic Jewish pastor, but the wedding will still be traditionally Protestant and not Messianic Jewish--and as much as I love my to-be-in-law brother, I was hoping that my sister would find a fellow Jewish believer to marry.).

Wikipedia: Laughable In Smaller Matters If Not Dangerous In Larger Matters

Why I'm glad that I didn't attempt make a new account at dishonest, revisionist Wikipedia (who, e.g., considers the Nazis [National Socialist German Worker's Party] "Far Right") when I made the article on the Andrulewicz Family:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

Their hypocrisy and revisionism is stunning. Firstly, they talk about "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability"--when the specifically-listed family members are clearly notable, and with two of the noted members have Wikipedia pages. Secondly, they talk about "reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject". That would be laughable were Wikipedia not so hypocritical. Ancestry.com and Findagrave (despite their bad points) are considerable "reliable" (and FindAGrave is referenced on Teddy Andrulewicz's page), and JewishGen Genealogy is also considered (and is) reliable and without controversy. So is Yad Vashem (who accepted a submission for and lists Bronislawa Andrulewiczowna Pozniakowa, Teddy's cousin and part of the family, as clearly a victim of the Shoah--she did die in Orlinek in 1944, and Anusim as well as Openly-Jewish Jews were affected by the Shoah.).

This is the same organization who allows the Nazis to be called "Far Right" without reliable, credible, non-revisionist sources; yet they can't trust Ancestry.com (who is working on their credibly issues), FindAGrave (despite what an evil it is), JewishGen, and Yad Vashem, and records therefrom--again, would be laughable if not so hypocritical (and in the cases of the Nazis being considered "Far Right", absolutely dangerous).

By the way, I got banned for setting the record straight on the Far-Left Nazis, and giving Jews such as Eugen Kogon (Kohon) and Sergei Levitsky (Lvitsky) a chance to have their Jewishness noted, for example. That tells you what Wikipedia (which one has to take with a grain of salt at best, and be highly skeptical toward at worst) thinks of history that doesn't fit their mold, and of Jews who don't fit their mold, by the way.

When Are They Anusim (Crypto Jews)? some Clues and Hints

1. They have uncommon surnames. According to JewFAQ, "One reason for the frequency of German names among Jews is a 1787 Austro-Hungarian law. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, which controlled a substantial part of Europe at the time, was the first country in Europe that required Jews to register a permanent family surname, and they required that this surname be German. A copy of the decree can be found on the Polish-Jewish genealogy website, Shoreshim. This explains the frequency of German surnames in Western Europe, but it doesn't explain the frequency of German surnames for Jews in the Russian Empire, where German surnames for Jews are also common. The frequency of German family names among Russia may be due to migration from Western Europe." (http://www.jewfaq.org/jnames.htm) In Russia, surnames were not required until 1804. "In the Austrian Empire, which ruled much of southern and eastern Poland, Jews were ordered to take such names in the 1780s and ’90s; in Germany, in 1797; in tsarist Russia, in 1804." (http://forward.com/articles/13721/how-did-jews-choose-their-last-names-/#ixzz2cWvkzAwz) In order to comply, some Jews--especially Anusim--made up or took gentile or gentile-sounding names to pass at least the lines of acceptability, assimilation, etc..
2. A gentile name doesn't necessarily mean that they are gentiles. In fact, "Jews living in gentile lands have historically taken local names to use when interacting with their gentile neighbors. Anyone with a name that is hard to pronounce or to spell will immediately understand the usefulness of this! The practice of taking local names became so common, in fact, that by the 12th century, the rabbis found it necessary to make a takkanah (rabbinical ruling) requiring Jews to have a Hebrew name!" (ibid.)
3. Baptism records don't show up too much before 1700, if at all. In fact, for example, Slovakian baptism records "Many church books from earlier time periods were lost during the Turkish invasions and Slovak rebellions around 1600-1700. Those which carry over past the early 1900's (even though they may have begun earlier) are still located in local city halls or other institutions. The Family History Library has copies of almost all birth, marriage, and death registers for the following religions: Catholic (the majority religion), Evangelical Lutheran, Reformed, Jewish, Greek Catholic, and Orthodox. Filming of the records was done from 1991-2009. The images in this collection are from those films." (https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Slovakia_Church_and_Synagogue_Books_(FamilySearch_Historical_Records)) Also, "Starting in 1869, the civil authorities took charge of keeping records of births, marriages, and deaths, although the individual churches continued to actually record these events. The official legal copy was kept by local officials. This action was prompted when many of the clergy refused to perform Catholic rites for non-Catholics. Everyone was registered under this new system (not only Catholics or Protestants)." In fact, Andrew Rusna's granddad had to be "acquitted to marry" because his conversion was not believed to be geniune--he had to go through a dispensation to maintain his Anusi Yahadut (Crypto Judaism).
4. Religious freedom was really nominal in any given state for at least the commoner, even in de jure terms. Also, gentiles could not convert "down", though Jews could (and often had to) convert "up". According to Wikipedia, the story of Count Potocki could not be true. "There is some evidence that the Potocki legend is an embellishment of a true story. A report published in the July 1753 edition of The London Magazine describes the story of a very similar execution. The correspondent dated his report June 11, two days after the end of the Shavuot holiday. It describes "an apostate named Raphael Sentimany, a native of Croatia", who converted to Judaism and adopted the name Abraham Isacowicz." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_ben_Abraham) Also, "Tazbir notes that the tragic fate of Potocki, passed through Jewish oral tradition, remains unconfirmed by 18th–century Polish or Jewish primary sources and that there is no evidence in any archives or genealogy tree that Potocki existed.^[7] He also notes that the Polish nobility was guaranteed the freedom of faith (by acts like Neminem captivabimus and the Warsaw Confederation), and capital punishment was extremely rare.^[7] "
5. Some Ashkenazim did follow Sephardi/Biblical practice by naming their children after living relatives. Many, however, did follow Ashkenazi custom of naming children after decedents, including deceased children. This continued among Anusim.
6. Ashkenazim were well aware of the events in Sepharad. In fact, Ashkenazim were also among the first Anusim. "The vituperation heaped on Jews by Christian ecclesiastics, and the violent methods employed by the church in the fourth century (see Jewish *History, Middle Ages), led to many forced conversions. There is clear evidence that anusim existed in the Frankish kingdoms of the sixth century, for the typical pattern of mass violence combined with threat of expulsion is already present in the mass conversion of many Jews to Christianity in *Clermont-Ferrand in 576. The almost inevitable result of the creation of a Jewish "underground" within the Christian society is also clearly visible." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01173.html) Also, "In Jewish sources, the term anusim is applied not only to the forced converts themselves, but also to their descendants who clandestinely cherished their Jewish faith, attempting to observe at least vestiges of the *halakhah, and loyalty to their Jewish identity. Both the elements of compulsion and free will enter the psychological motivation of the forced convert. The concept denoted by the term anusim, therefore, is fluid, bordering on that applying to apostates and even to *Marranos; it has been the subject of much discussion."
7. Anusim often hoped that their descendants would someday return to Judaism, especially when (as they believed) Mashiach would come (since they did not generally believe that Yeshua is Mashiach). Many Biblical verses can point to this, and "Anusim and Chuetas keep traditions and have great motivation to return fully and openly to Judaism. Unfortunately, many come across the shock of official Orthodox Rabbinical Halacha as a barrier to their acceptance into Israel. When we open our gates to the Anusim and Chuetas we will see the next great Aliyah, and a massive return to Judaism." (http://israeltheviewfromhere.blogspot.com/2012/10/anusim-maranos-conversos-chuetas-secret.html) Again, this does not apply to just Sephardim Anusim. In fact, one group states their mission as "We are a group of Orthodox Jews (Ashkenaz & Sephard), "Returnees" and converts sensitive to the issues concerning return of B'nei Anusim to their ancestral heritage." () Be aware that this group is extremely Anti Messianic and even Anti B'nei Anusim in some cases--e.g., "As advocates for B'nei Anusim we facilitate Halachic Return and Halachic Conversions, rescue B'nei Anusim misled, or deceived, by Messianic Groups, and lobby for broader recongition of B'nei Anusim in Authoritative Rabbinic Groups." and "This is understood to mean that if parents do not pass down Jewish customs and traditions to their children - then by the 5th generation those descendants are considered non-Jews (even with their Jewish geneology [sic.]). In such a case, Halachic Conversion is required to be accepted back into the Jewish community - this holds true for all Jews, at all times, in all lands - not just B'nei Anusim."
8. Look for inconsistencies in records, names, etc.. In fact, I just found that Regina Jantozonková Czarnogurskyová gave her names as "Antonizonka" and "Jantozonka" (See FamilySearch.org). Also, Andrew Rusnak's granddad borrowed "Kvetkovits" from his neighbors to use as an alias. 
9. Look to see if they kept in contact with their Non-Anusi relatives. Sometimes, they did not because the Non-Anusi relatives were angry at the Anusi ones and sat shiva for them. In the Czernecki and Andrulewicz families, as my granduncle Tony wrote to me (though he had "serious doubts" that we are Anusim, although he basically--albeit unitentionally--gave a clue away), "Periodically a church pastor would run a heritage trip back to Poland for a group.  Very few of those who immigrated would return.  Occasionally someone "in the family" in America would join a relative for the return trip, Usually meeting the Polish or Slovak relatives for the first time and occasionally maintaining a letter writing relationship afterwards.  This DID NOT happen in our family. There was not very much correspondence with the Polish family.  Only an infrequent letter.  There were no exchanges other than through the Polish Church which would have clothing drives and send clothes to Poland in general, but not to specific family members.  Bertha's photos which came after the trips were the only contact until they asked for the deed to be changed in the mid 1960's." As for the famous "Kerry" (Kohn) family, they did (Search for a Rusznak in Budapest, and you will find that "Otto Kerry" is associated with that Rusznak--who, as far as I know, has no direct relation to us [and with "direct" meaning besides that we're related as Jews, anyway].). As for the story re Vilmosz Rusznak and Mary Rusnak Gaydos, let's just say that she betrayed his trust in any Jew who professed to believe in Jesus--one of whom he obviously wrote to as a means of last resort and per piku'ach nefesh. 
10. Think about the Kerrys. They assimilated and pretended to be gentiles. Similarly, the Czerneckis, "settled among Polish, Slavic, Hungarian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian people just like themselves.  Similar language, similar customs, similar faces, houses, churches, etc.  But life was much better than on the farm.  They were quite happy in America and much better off.  The motherland, Poland, was far off and just a memory, not to be forgotten but no regrets for leaving either." The pogroms, being rejected by family living with, and Anti Semitism in even the United States were not worth dealing with for them--they didn't want the pogroms in Polish Russia, their conversions questioned in the same, or to be called "Christ killers" in the United States (Open Jews in the U.S. did get called epiphets such as "dirty Jew". In fact, in The Color of Water, James McBride relates that his mother recalled a classmate asking her, "'Ruth, when did you become a dirty Jew?'"--and after she took the name "Ruth" to assimilate a little, since that was seen as a more-gentile name--although Ruth the Moabite converted to Judaism, but "Ruth" was seen as more gentile than "Ruchel Dwjoa Szlyska" or "Rachel Deborah Shilsky".).
11. Remember that sometimes only one parent would become an Anusi Yehudi, or both would become Anusim for a time, go back to Judaism, or even perhaps go between Anusi and regular Judaism. Also, keep in mind that children were sometimes considered "illegitimate" when they were "legitimate" but did not have their dads backing their mom's decisions.

I could also gave plenty more clues, I think. 

Example of Not-So-Obvious Jews: Andrew and Julia Fosko Rusnak

The Rusnaks (Rusznaks, Rosnaks, etc.) were Levites. Gyorgy "György Kvetkovits" and Erzsébet Molnárová Rusznák converted out of P'rushi Judaism during Anti Semitism and self exiled to what is now Zláta Idka. Andrew's dad was Jákáb Rusznák, and the Foczkos were Crypto-Jewish Levites themselves. Andrew even specifically wrote to Juliana Foczková, asking her to come to America and marry him. One can safely assume that this is because Juliana was a Levite, and for several reasons--including that at least some the Rusnaks who stayed in traditional Judaism married intratribally (e.g., Ieshaihau Iehiel  HaLevi Rosenblite and Miriam Rosia HaLevit Rosnoková Rosenbliteová ), and there were at least quite a few marriages between the families of Juliana's parents (István Foczko and Johanna Hanzóková Foczková, whose mother was a Lázárová--although whether she was a kohenet and descendant of Ele'azar HaKohein ben-Aharon HaKohein ben-'Amram HaLevi [אלעזר כהן בן אהרן הכהן בן 'עמרם הלוי] cannot be determined). The reasons mentioned hearken to Numbers 36:5-12 (despite the P'rushi attempt to lift of the ban on intertribal marriage).

For more on Anusim (Crypto Jews), see the Jewish Virtual Library's "Anusim".

It reads in part, "In Jewish sources, the term anusim is applied not only to the forced converts themselves, but also to their descendants who clandestinely cherished their Jewish faith, attempting to observe at least vestiges of the *halakhah, and loyalty to their Jewish identity." Anusim and bnei-Anusim like Andrew and Julia could and/or did not observe everything due to dread of Anti Semitism (e.g., "Following the establishment of the Inquisition, Jewish observance by New Christians became dangerous as well as difficult." In the same way in Europe, Andrew's grandparents had to actually be "acquitted" to marry, thus proving their conversion genuine in the eyes of the Slovakian-Hungarian Vaticanist Church.).

Essay: Some People Just Don't Get How Life Works, Even For the Believer

I've had people in my life decry that I want to be famous and make an impact--and for what? All because they want differently for my life and frankly don't get how life works--even for believers and so-called believers like themselves. Firstly of all, they don't get that one has to be famous in order to make an impact. In fact, "For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more." Therefore, much has to be given for much to be required. Even Kings David and Solomon, Mother Teresa, and scores of other influential people would not have had the impact that they had if they had not become famous--and sometimes even infamous before they became famous.

For example, who would've cared about a young, righteous shepherd in Bethlehem had he not become king? In fact, his own family derided him:

"Thus Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, “TheLord has not chosen these.” And Samuel said to Jesse, “Are all the young men here?” Then he said, “There remains yet the youngest, and there he is, keeping the sheep.”

"And Samuel said to Jesse, “Send and bring him. For we will not sit down till he comes here.” So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with bright eyes, and good-looking. And the Lord said, “Arise, anoint him; for this is the one!” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel arose and went to Ramah."

They hid him and did not have him pass before Samuel because he was, in their mind, a non-descript shepherd boy. Even Samuel wasn't looking at, or even for, David at first. "So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before Him!”

"But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”"

Also, who cared about Moses before he became a man of prominence? In fact, they also derided him. "Then he said, “Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?”" He wasn't loved for doing what was right until he was given a platform. Also, he even rejected having a platform at first because he knew how he was viewed:

"Then Moses said to the Lord, “O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.”

"So the Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say.”

"But he said, “O my Lord, please send by the hand of whomever else You may send.”"

Who was going to give a darn about a righteous man who was "slow of speech and slow of tongue" unless the Lord gave him a platform? Would just another prince of Egypt, especially a differently-abled one, be able to make an impact? After all:

13 

"Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more. For he comes out of prison to be king, Although he was born poor in his kingdom. I saw all the living who walk under the sun; They were with the second youth who stands in his place. There was no end of all the people over whom he was made king; Yet those who come afterward will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and grasping for the wind."

What do we see here? We see ideals and paradox. Ideally, "those who come afterward will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and grasping for the wind." Yet, what happens? He is remembered. "There was no end of all the people over whom he was made king;" and people remember him--especially if he was actually a good king and actually made an impact. Even God remembers him. After all, what did he call David? "‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’"

We don't remember even most princes of Egypt because they were not given the fame--the platform--to make the impact that a king could make. So, we wouldn't have remembered Moses or had an impact made by him were he not given fame. Therefore and all the more, what kind of impact could a shepherd boy made were he not made a famous king? 

Again, "'For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.' Therefore, much has to be given for much to be required."

Secondly, there's a loved-famous-loved cycle. One does not become famous unless he or she is loved, and one has to be famous to be all the more loved--and thus make an impact. With Moses, he had to have the support of Aaron to be exalted and make an impact:

"So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and He said: “Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And look, he is also coming out to meet you. When he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. Now you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach you what you shall do. So he shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God. And you shall take this rod in your hand, with which you shall do the signs.”"

As for David:

"So Saul said to his servants, “Provide me now a man who can play well, and bring him to me.”

"Then one of the servants answered and said, “Look, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite,who is skillful in playing, a mighty man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a handsome person; and the Lord is with him.”"

Again, "One does not become famous unless he or she is loved, and one has to be famous to be all the more loved--and thus make an impact." Besides, who speaks of most of the other 6,999 in the time of Elijah?

"Then the Lord said to him: “Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria. Also you shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi as king over Israel. And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. It shall be that whoever escapes the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill. Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”"

We talk about Elishah, Jehu, Obadiah, and 100 prophets among them, but not the others. Also, Obadiah is explicitly mentioned as having a platform. "And Ahab had called Obadiah, who was in charge of his house." So, Obadiah and a few others could make an impact because they had a platform--but most of the 7,000 couldn't because they had no platform, and no support to have one.

Another example is Daniel. He had to have the backing of Nebuchadnezzar to make an impact:

"Then the king instructed Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs, to bring some of the children of Israel and some of the king’s descendants and some of the nobles,  young men in whom there wasno blemish, but good-looking, gifted in all wisdom, possessing knowledge and quick to understand, who had ability to serve in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the language and literature of the Chaldeans. And the king appointed for them a daily provision of the king’s delicacies and of the wine which he drank, and three years of training for them, so that at the end of that time they might serve before the king. Now from among those of the sons of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. To them the chief of the eunuchs gave names: he gave Daniel the nameBelteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abed-Nego."

The same Scripture states, "Then the king interviewed them, and among them all none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; therefore they served before the king." But two points come to mind:

1. Daniel and his friends would not have been picked were they not "no blemish, but good-looking, gifted in all wisdom, possessing knowledge and quick to understand, who had ability to serve in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the language and literature of the Chaldeans." Anyone else could have had all that, but Daniel and his friends had what they needed to build a platform.
2. Had the king not picked them, they would have been overlooked and obviously been unable to make an impact. 

As aforestated, "there's a loved-famous-loved cycle"--and one doesn't get loved, famous, and able to make an impact without having the advantages to get loved, famous, and able to make an impact. 

Thirdly, I can't change the reality that one needs to be advantaged, loved, and famous to make an impact. Talk about, "God, give me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change..."! I can't change that there's a loved-famous cycle and a advantaged-loved-famous-impacting hierarchy--actually, an advantaged-loved-famous-impacting cycle and hierarchy at the same time. Again, the famous of every generation would ideally not be remembered by successive generations, and the non-famous youth who is poor and wise could be the one to make the impact. But at least I live in the reality that the more exalted make more of an impact and that the influential are more exalted, even though the reality is a non-ideal and vicious cycle.

In conclusion:

1. One has to be famous in order to make an impact, as people such as Moses and David experienced, and sometimes infamy comes before the fame and the impact making.
2. One does not become famous unless he or she is somehow loved--or at least exalted-- by God and man, and one has to be famous to be all the more loved--and thus make an impact. Elijah, Elishah, Obadiah, and Daniel are among the examples of whom needed to be advantaged and exalted by God and man to make an impact.
3. As much as reality opposes the ideal and is harsh, especially one who professes Christianity--whether or not he or she is a Christian--has to accept the reality is that there's an advantaged-loved-famous-impacting cycle and hierarchy at the same time. After all, Moses knew that he wasn't going anywhere as a differently-abled man and just another prince of Egypt. David and others knew that a non-descript shepherd boy would have no influence. Most of the 7,000 people who worshipped Yehovah in Elijah's time made no impact because they had no advantage, love, or fame that affected and effected them to make an impact. 

Therefore, there should be no wonder that I want to be famous, since I want to make an impact--even though I have been derided and gained infamy along the way. 

Pending "Andrulewicz Family" Wikipedia Article

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andrulewicz_Family for more.

The Andrulewicz Family is an Ashkenazi Jewish family from Poland, Lithuania, the Ukraine, the United States, and other countries that have been settled by Ashkenazim in the Jewish Diaspora(including the United Kingdom and Argentina).

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Surname History
• 2 Religious History
• 3 Famous and Notable Members of the Family
• 4 References

Surname History[edit source]

When the "Andrulewicz" surname was taken by the family is unknown; but the name first appeared in Stakliškės, Lithuania as "Andrulevičus"^[1]. Variants of the name include and are not limited to "Andrulevičius", "Andrulevich" (as used by voter Vil'gel'm Andrulevich in Buzhanka, Ukraine during the 1906 Duma Elections) ^[2], "Andrulewicz" (as first recorded in regard to Kazimierz Andrulewicz of Bose, Poland in 1764 and 1765)^[3], "Androlewicz", "Andrelovich" (as used by Nik Andrelovich^[4]), "Andrulewitz", "Andrulavage", and even "Andruskiewicz"^[5].

Religious History[edit source]

In terms of religious practice and observance, the family was and is still mixed. For example, Alexandria Alice Andrulewicz Czarnecki (born June 26, 1882^[6][7]) and her husband, Julian, wereAnusim. Other Andrulewiczes were Anusim as well, and converted at various times throughout the 1700s-1900s--including during the pogroms, which is when Julian and Alexandria (to the chagrin of their families) converted (They even, due to Anti Semitism in those times, remained Roman Catholic in the United States, which is to where they immigrated when their families sat shiva for them and cut them off.). Most of the conversions were into Roman Catholicism. One relative, Vincas Andrulavicius of Trakai ("Trakei"), is listed as "Protestant" on a Labrador ship manifest for August 12, 1929, when Labrador embarked from Hamburg, Germany to Buenos Aires, Argentina. Also Protestant are some of the branches of the family in the United States, though quite a few have remained Roman Catholic.

As for the families of Vil'gel'm Andrulevich and Nik Andrelovich, as well as one (or possibly two) of the "Andrulewitz" families^[8], they remained openly and religiously Jewish.

Famous and Notable Members of the Family[edit source]

• Teddy Andrulewicz
• Michael Andrews (Michael Androlewicz)
• John "Jack" G. Czarnecki, one of the three IRS Agents who served tax papers to then-President Richard Nixon's attorneys during Watergate. Czarnecki retired from the IRS in 1992, and is the oldest-surviving grandchild of Alexandria Andrulewicz Czarnecki (through her son Anthony "Tony" Czarnecki, Sr.--who was baptized into Roman Catholicism by his parents during the pogroms).

References[edit source]

1. ^ PolishForums.com
2. ^ Ancestry.com and JewishGen.org
3. ^ http://genealodzy.pl/PNphpBB2-printview-t-17821-start-60.phtml
4. ^ [1]Same as Source #2
5. ^ [2] According to a granddaughter of Joseph P. Czarnecki, Sr. (a son of Alexandria Alice Andrulewicz Czarnecki, whose name was Aleksjondria Alicja Andrulewiczówna Czernecka before she arrived in Sugar Notch, Pennsylvania, Alexandria Alice Andrulewicz Czarnecki gave the name "Andruskiewicz" as her maiden name. Alexandria had a brother named Franz who also used this variant, as did Franz's daughter Franciszka "Frances" Andruskiewiczówna Judycki.
6. ^ [3]Naturalization Record for Julian Czarniecki (né Czernecki or Chernetski)
7. ^ A maternal uncle or a maternal cousin, Shmuil Morgovich, is listed on JewishGen.org as having died on April 4, 1882 in Stakliškės of tuberculosis. This validates Julian's and Alexandria's claim that she was born on June 26, 1882, and explains why Alexandria's parents--an Andrulevičus (Andrulewicz) and a Morgevičutė (Margiewicz)--left Stakliškės for Bose, which was then in Sejny Uyezd inSuwałki Gubernia of the Russian Empire.
8. ^ See "Index of 1890 and 1891 NY Immigrants from Austria, Poland, and Galicia" on JewishGen.org.