The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.
Powered By Blogger

The Nicole Factor

Search This Blog

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

My About.Me Page

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label Civil_Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil_Rights. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

I Hope That My Last Blog Entry Was A Lesson For Everybody....


  1. You are not allowed to abuse and persecute me on my own Facebook wall, especially since and when you don't have to even engage what I am sharing.
  2. You are not allowed to violate my First and Ninth Amendment rights, especially when I hold a scientific and religious belief that is legitimate. If you do, I will call you out.
  3. Facebook (and general) literacy is important. If you, for example, persecute me on a public status on my own wall, you will get called out publicly.
  4. If you're a Non-Messianic Jew, you're stuck with the Old Covenant. I did not give Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, or the rest of the 613 mitzvot on Sinai--Yehovah did. You made the choice to reject Yeshua and obey Moshe (who himself looked to Yeshua's coming, and was punished when he disobeyed Yehovah). So, I will be a watchman and hold you to what you profess
  5. I don't proselytize, but I do share. 
  6. If you're contending with Tanakh (whether or not you consider the B'rit Chadashah a part of it), you're contending with G-d, not me. Look at what happened at Massah and Merivah--and Tanakh wasn't fully revealed yet.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

My Law of Return For Medinat Yisra'el

"17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:

"“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”" (From Genesis 15:17-22)

Also--for example--. if Ethnic Syrians can have Syria (per the 1947 refounding of Syria), why can't all Ethnic Jews have Israel first?


Therefore, if only Medinat Yisra'el elected someone who could affect the Law of Return to allow Patrilineal Jews (including Messianic Jews, who are allowed but not under the Law of Return) and Matrilineally-Jewish Messianic Jews--and all other Ethnic Jews. In other words, the Law of Return should give all Ethnic Jews priority, then gerim tzdukim (since gerim tzdukim are equal to Ethnic Jews, but Israel is first supposed to be for the Jew), then the gentiles.


By the way, the 2009 [Correction: 2008] case came down to this: The Levy Supreme Court allowed Patrilineally-Jewish Messianic Jews to make aliyah, but not under the Law of Return. In other words, they sneakily got around it. They said, "You can return, but you can't become citizens under the Law of Return"--which the Talmudists at Wikipedia reveled in, and they hate Messianics there.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Why Russian Jews And Jews Like Myself Are Perhaps Not Buriable In Israel


 Many of those Former Soviet nationals are Jews but are not considered as such by the Orthodox Pharisees--either because they're Karaites, Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians), or something else altogether; Patrilineal Jews or not Matrilineally or otherwise Jewish enough. I come from that very legacy--I am a Jewish Christian but can't even look to bury myself and reinter certain relatives in Israel because we were Ashkenazim Anusim and/or descendants thereof. Prime example: my great-granduncle Bernie--the only reason that he can't be reinterred in Israel is because his parents lived as Crypto Jews (Anusim) in Poland during the pogroms and America when their non-converted family kicked them off of the family farm. Otherwise, with no direct descendants or anyone else claiming to be his next of kin, who would object to me taking my Anusi great-granddad's brother to the land that my great-great-grandparents yearned for?

Friday, July 6, 2012

Ted Nugent and the Civil War...

Ted Nugent is a Far-Left Democrat and RINO in disguise. Ignore him and his comments about the Civil War. After all, he is the guy who threatened to murder the President of the United States--which is neither Constitutional, Biblical, nor acceptable. By the way, the Democrats started the Civil War (Remember that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, abolitionist Republican; and the exception among Democrats at the time included pro-Union Andrew Johnson) and the KKK (with Nathan Bedford Forrest as one of its founders). Therefore, Ted Nugentbelongs with the Far Lefts and the RINOs who are, essentially, self plants intent on infiltrating and destroying the Republican Party--which many Democrat Southerners also were and intended to do after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. 

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Repost: Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."


"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.
The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).
As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.
For example and for comparison:
  1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
  2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.
In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 
In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."

"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.
The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).
As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.
For example and for comparison:
  1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
  2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.
In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 
In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Repost: What Is With Everyone Suing and Prosecuting Everyone Nowadays?



MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011

What Is With Everyone Suing and Prosecuting Everyone Nowadays?

For example, Dr. Conrad Murray-- who should've lost his license but not been prosecuted. What; are my family going to be prosecuted for my aunt Mary Carole's death in 2008 when she decided not to take her insulin that day and was a determined alcoholic, anyway? We couldn't have done anything about her. And Justin Bieber-- honestly, don't sue the woman. Besides, you, Mr. Bieber, pulled a Herman Cain-- responded to legitimate allegations too late and amatuerly.

Save the prosecution for those like my granddad who ought to be prosecuted for the 2007 malice-murder-intent scenario and Social Security fraud regarding my great-grandmother Mary Trudnak Czarnecki. Save the suing for real discrimination, theft, and other lawsuit-worthy cases. Don't be frivolous or unjust in suing or prosecuting. The Criminal Justice and Corrections System in America is clogged up enough. Also-- as with Mr. Bieber--, why not resolve matters as soon as possible instead of a long time later if you have nothing to hide and something legitimate to contend?

Besides, 1 Corinthians 6 reads in part:

 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you dothese things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Second Draft of My Essay for Criminal Justice


In regards to Introduction to Corrections, I still maintain that the class could have been taught with much less book learning and more "chit chat", or engagement of and with the material. Engagement of and with the material would not only have supplemented the book learning, but applied it and made it easier to remember. The field events were a fine application; but the engagement known as "chit chat" would have also helped, and frankly helped apply to the field experience what we learned in class.



I also maintain that Drako did not apply "the punishment fits the crime" first, and the Ancient English did not apply lex talions and wergild first. The Hebrews did, and Genesis 9:6 applies one of the first-- if not the first of the-- Drakon-associated codes. As for lex talions (family justice) and wergild (restitutive sanctions-- e.g., blood money), the Hebrew Torah gives cases in which each are to be applied. For example, if a man accidentally kills another and does not flee to a marked city of refuge allows for lex talions, or if he must make restitution for a baby who he caused to be miscarried during a fight allows wergild.



I respectfully bring to point that I did not like the mockery of Christianity. Being a Messianic Jew and now understanding that (as far as I can tell) you are a Non-Messianic Jew, I fully respect your right not to believe in Jesus. However, I did not like the mockery of, incidentally, what the Quakers themselves based their rehabilitative, reformatory, and penitentiary models on. To them and me, Jesus would not just have been another high for drug and alcohol addicts, let alone one comparable to work and other addictions for the same. I also did not like the "Lazarus has risen" joke regarding Cameron. To me, Lazarus' resurrection was a sacred even and nothing to make light of, let alone to use as a metaphor for Cameron finally coming back to class after car problems.



I myself do not seek to proselytize, but hold strong Evangelical Christian, Messianic Jewish views. As the Quakers did with the views, I apply my views to my life and every aspect thereof, including an Introduction to Corrections class and corrections themselves. On that point, I found the Drug Court to be consistent with a Quaker-Christian view of saving the lost, rehabilitating, reforming, and bringing to penance. As a Messianic Jew, I look forward to seeing the Drug Courts-- and now the Mental Health, Veterans', and other Specialized Courts-- increase in number and effectiveness in decreasing the backlog in the Criminal Justice System.



In conclusion, I learned much about corrections and how to strengthen and apply my views to corrections in Introduction to Corrections, but I still would have liked to engage more with the material to supplement it and the applications of it (e.g., the field trips). I also, as I said, would've liked to see less mockery of Christianity, although I understand your views and certainly do not seek to proselytize. However, as aforementioned, I will do my views as the Quakers did with their views-- that is, apply them to corrections, and learn about other views in light of how to examine and strengthen my own.

Draft of My Reflection Essay For Criminal Justice (It'll Be Easier To Write It This Way First)

In regards to Introduction to Corrections, I still maintain that the class could have been taught with much less book learning and more "chit chat", or engagement of and with the material. Engagement of and with the material would not only have supplemented the book learning, but applied it and made it easier to remember. The field events were a fine application; but the engagement known as "chit chat" would have also helped, and frankly helped apply to the field experience what we learned in class.

I also maintain that Drako did not apply "the punishment fits the crime" first, and the Ancient English did not apply lex talions and weirgald first. The Hebrews did, and Genesis 9:6 applies one of the first-- if not the first of the-- Drakon-associated codes. As for lex talions (family justice) and weirgald (restitutive sanctions-- e.g., blood money), the Hebrew Torah gives cases in which each are to be applied. For example, if a man accidentally kills another and does not flee to a marked city of refuge allows for lex talions, or if he must make restitution for a baby who he caused to be miscarried during a fight allows weirgald.

I respectfully bring to point that I did not like the mockery of Christianity. Being a Messianic Jew and now understanding that (as far as I can tell) you are a Non-Messianic Jew, I fully respect your right not to believe in Jesus. However, I did not like the mockery of, incidentally, what the Quakers themselves based their rehabilitative, reformatory, and penitentiary models on. To them and me, Jesus would not just have been another high for drug and alcohol addicts, let alone one comparable to work and other addictions for the same. I also did not like the "Lazarus has risen" joke regarding Cameron. To me, Lazarus' resurrection was a sacred even and nothing to make light of, let alone to use as a metaphor for Cameron finally coming back to class after car problems.

I myself do not seek to proselytize, but hold strong Evangelical Christian, Messianic Jewish views. As the Quakers did with the views, I apply my views to my life and every aspect thereof, including an Introduction to Corrections class and corrections themselves. On that point, I found the Drug Court to be consistent with a Quaker-Christian view of saving the lost, rehabilitating, reforming, and bringing to penance. As a Messianic Jew, I look forward to seeing the Drug Courts-- and now the Mental Health, Veterans', and other Specialized Courts-- increase in number and effectiveness in decreasing the backlog in the Criminal Justice System.

In conclusion, I learned much about corrections and how to strengthen and apply my views to corrections in Introduction to Corrections, but I still would have liked to engage more with the material to supplement it and the applications of it (e.g., the field trips). I also, as I said, would've liked to see less mockery of Christianity, although I understand your views and certainly do not seek to proselytize. However, as aforementioned, I will do my views as the Quakers did with their views-- that is, apply them to corrections, and learn about other views in light of how to examine and strengthen my own.

A More Specific Example of Frivolous Lawsuits-- re The Papua New Guinean Who I Mentioned....

I am under persecution from HAYRIPITIR1/JLO801. He's threatening me with a frivolous lawsuit. He claims to be simultaneously in Papua New Guinea (as HAYTRIPITIR1), California (as JLO801, on his YouTube profile), and Maryland. His latest threat under his second username:

I ask you nicely to remove the video. since you do not want to do it, that is find with me. Im currently station in Andrews Air force Base in Maryland, since you live in Maryland too that is perfect for me. I will sue you... for violated my privacy. So you think I'm in overseas and not in the State lol we are in the same State. So I gave you 48 hours to get that video remove or i will contact my local police get you arrested. take you to court. read the law about violating person privacyrivacy is the expectation that confidential personal information disclosed in a private place will not be disclosed to third parties, when that disclosure would cause either embarrassment or emotional distress to a person of reasonable sensitivities. Information is interpreted broadly to include facts, images (e.g., photographs, videotapes), and disparaging opinions.surreptitious interception of conversations in a house or hotel room is eavesdropping. See e.g., N.Y. Penal §§ 250.00, 250.05
one has a right of privacy for contents of envelopes sent via first-class U.S. Mail. 18 USC § 1702; 39 USC § 3623
one has a right of privacy for contents of telephone conversations, telegraph messages, or electronic data by wire. 18 USC § 2510 et seq.
one has a right of privacy for contents of radio messages. 47 USC §605

I did nothing wrong. I merely mentioned his name since he commented re a video which I made. Besides, NY penal codes don't apply in MD.

Monday, December 5, 2011

I Should've Mentioned This In My Last Video...

If I sued for all of the times that I've had legitimacy to sue (and I've had plenty, including against Mia Danilowicz for her frivolry-- and I could've easily countersued for her attempt to defame me, misrepresent me and herself, and attempting to stifle legal and acceptable freedom of speech and expression of information), I could've sued.

But I haven't sued? Why? As I mentioned in my last video, a person who brings themselves into a matter needs to deal with whatever arises because of the matter. I, for example, have dealt with Mia-- I've called for any boycott for Marcela "Mia" J. Danilowicz until she gets her act together and starts treating people right. I'm not reaching out to befriend her again and apologize for anything that I may have done-- she added me as a friend in the first place, anyway, then removed me; and I have nothing for which to apologize to her.

Also, suing for selfish reasons is not Christian-- or even good Non-Messianic Jewish-- behavior.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Dr. Conrad Murray: Prison Is Enough? Maybe Loing His License Was...

And since losing a license means no income, the taxpayers will be taking care if Dr. Murray, anyway. Prison or welfare? Either way, he'll end up on welfare. So, with Dr. Murray, Michael Jackson already picked his poison (since he was a druggie, anyway). We may as well pick ours-- and not prison. Losing a license was enough for Dr. Murray.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Some People Are Total Idiots and Mormons; And Saying That Is Being Nice...

For example, some sicko thought that he was being funny by joking that he helped a pervert commit a crime against a child-- or if he wasn't joking, he outright bragged that he was an accessory to a crime. There is nothing funny about crime, let alone any crimes-- especially certain deviance-based crimes-- against children. In fact, this person who joked about being an accessory (actually, an outright accomplice) to the crime would be brutalized by the inmates in jail or prison really quickly-- inmates don't like sexual crimes, especially any sexual-deviance crimes against children.

As Jerry Sandusky will learn and my sister told me that one inmate learned (In fact, our friend told her that he heard that the inmate was murdered, dismembered, and bagged that he was so despised.), even the hardest of criminals dislike and hate the hardest-of-the-hardest criminals.

And tzedek-- karma, justice-- does bite.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Just a Few Examples: You Might Be Antimissionary If...

  1. You don't believe in Jesus.
  2. You not only don't believe in Jesus, but you don't tolerate that anyone else does.
  3. You've sat or you'd sit shiva even for your Anusi loved ones, or who you now consider ex-loved ones.
  4. You like to pretend that Jews for Jesus (Hebrew Christians, etc.) aren't Jewish and are nothing but Pseudo-Jewish Anti Semites who know nothing about or of Jewish culture (as someone accused me of).
  5. You allow anyone to believe in anyone or anything but Jesus; or if you're more extreme, only Judaism and especially not in Jesus.
  6. You support groups such as Yad L'Achim, the Jewish Internet Defense Force, the Jewish Defense League, and Jews for Judaism; or on the other extreme, the Union of Reform Judaism and Central Conference of American "Rabbi"s, and the Anti Defamation League. You also support Antimissionary and other haredi and Likud, or URJ and CCAR policy.
  7. You devote whole websites or sections of websites to Antimissionarism.
  8. You link to Antimissionary websites.
  9. You go to Messianic Jewish websites (e.g., Jews for Jesus' website) just to attack and persecute Messianic Jews.
  10. Most or all of your life is devoted to being an Antimissionary.
  11. You don't allow Messianic Jews and those tolerant of Messianic Jews to have freedom of speech, religion, the press, or other freedoms.
  12. Your favorite sexual position is either "Missionary" by a different name or not "Missionary". (I'm sure that there are Antmissionarys like that.)
  13. You sit in a yeshiva and are a haredi talmid l'talmud-Talmud Bavli, yom l'yom v'laila l'laila; and read Tanakh only in an Antimissionary way.
  14. You support terrorism against those such as Ami Ortiz.
  15. You burn or otherwise destroy sefirot such as full copies of Tanakh-- Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Brit Chadashah; and you complain about Jewish and other Christian sefirot, websites, etc. when nobody's forcing you to engage or utilize them.
  16. You constantly twist out of context or have never even read-- and still twist out of context-- Brit Chadashah.
  17. You blame Paul for saying that Yeshua ze Mashiach when Paul just affirmed what Yeshua said.
  18. You're Abraham Foxman, Skylar Curtis, Noah David Simon, David Appletree, or any person or organization who supports them.
  19. You compare every Jewish Christian to or stereotype every Jewish Christian as Pablo Christiani and Nicolas Donin; or you even you compare Jews for Jesus to the Nazis who tried to destroy all Jews, including Messianic Jews.
  20. You consider Messianic Jewish websites and organizations as hate, impostor, or similar types of websites and organizations.
  21.  You spit, plug your ears, usr hand sanitizer, or whatever else every time you hear the name "Jesus", see a picture of Jesus, etc.

I Clean Out Spam Comments Every Once In a While

As I've said, I don't have the same control spam comments on Blogger that I do on YouTube. Besides, the spam comments which I just cleaned out of my spam box were not worth responding to, full of revisionism (including Antimissionarism), etc.. As I've said, I'm very libertarian and let people see even spam comments at their own premonition and behest when I can. But when I can't choose to leave spam comments up and mark them as spam, then I won't publish them (unless I have to respond to them for whatever reason).

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

I Draw Lines In the Sand Or Build Fences When I Need To

I'm actually a pretty-forgiving, libertarian type of person. I'm more than willing to do everything from reason with people to letting those of them who are fools look like the fools that they are. I don't, for example, delete even slanderous, libellous, and other comments on YouTube-- I just mark them as spam comments and let people see them at their own premonition and behest (They know what "Marked as Spam" implies; and if they're curious to see it, that's their schtick.).

But I draw lines in the sand and build fences when I need to, and-- as with many in my family-- I draw the lines in the sand and build the fences for the involved parties' and others' own goods.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Some of How People Find My Blog Is Going To Kill Me....

Some of the search results are crazy. "Getdentalimplantsinfo.com"? What is that? Also, that one felonous search which I-- not the felon-- got blamed for. As I've said, I don't want people to find or view my blog because of felonous or other illegal, immoral, or inappropriate things-- such as spam like "Getdentalimplantsinfo.com".

And if you want to get dental implants, go to legitimate, legal, moral, and appropriate-- e.g., American Dental Association (ADA)-made-or-approved-- sites, or talk to your dentist or doctor. I'm for legal, moral, and appropriate uses of the internet and freedom-- like searching for information on dental implants that the ADA would hope for the finding of.

By the way, here's a legitimate link to information about dental implants: http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/dental-implants

Monday, November 7, 2011

What Is With Everyone Suing and Prosecuting Everyone Nowadays?

For example, Dr. Conrad Murray-- who should've lost his license but not been prosecuted. What; are my family going to be prosecuted for my aunt Mary Carole's death in 2008 when she decided not to take her insulin that day and was a determined alcoholic, anyway? We couldn't have done anything about her. And Justin Bieber-- honestly, don't sue the woman. Besides, you, Mr. Bieber, pulled a Herman Cain-- responded to legitimate allegations too late and amatuerly.

Save the prosecution for those like my granddad who ought to be prosecuted for the 2007 malice-murder-intent scenario and Social Security fraud regarding my great-grandmother Mary Trudnak Czarnecki. Save the suing for real discrimination, theft, and other lawsuit-worthy cases. Don't be frivolous or unjust in suing or prosecuting. The Criminal Justice and Corrections System in America is clogged up enough. Also-- as with Mr. Bieber--, why not resolve matters as soon as possible instead of a long time later if you have nothing to hide and something legitimate to contend?

Besides, 1 Corinthians 6 reads in part:

 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Leave Conrad Murray Alone!

I agree with those who say that Michael Jackson was a drug addict who'd've obtained drugs anyhow and killed himself with them. If Conrad Murray said "No", Michael Jackson'd've found someone else who'd've said "Yes". Severely-addicted people-- especially celebrity or other money-and/or-power-endowed addicts-- work like that.

We've lost such a sense of personal responsibility in this culture, just like the high-school-aged young men and the professor with whom they had sexual intercourse. Instead of suing everybody for everything from statutory "rape" to drug-addiction-affected death, take personal responsibility. As I've said, the time for personal responsibility has come and recome: blame yourself if you give yourself away to your high school professor, drugs, or who- or what-ever else.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Forget the Elitism Against Gwyneth Paltrow Martin and The Paltrow-Martin Children...

If there is ever a Jewish Elitism; the Jewish Elitism is in especially the unprovoked and opportunistic persecutions of Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians), as Nate Goldstein and Shani prove to anyone who's paying attention (perhaps including Ilana Angel):

Her kids are not not Jewish so your article is moot.




Though your article us useful to identify you as a lowly sycophant.



Comment by Dexter on 7/25/11 at 4:59 pm

Well Gwyneth Paltrow’s Jewish father probably qualifies her to be Jewish under Reform’s standards, so there’s no particular reason she can’t raise her kids in that denomination.



Comment by dee on 7/25/11 at 6:50 pm

I think it’s great that Paltrow has stated publicly that she’s raising her children in the Jewish faith. I’m not quite sure how that works, considering neither she, nor her mother, nor her husband are Jewish…but, at least she brings publicity for the countless benefits and rewards of Jewish life…I wonder why Paltrow hasn’t converted herself, considering she obviously values a Jewish upbringing above all others?



Comment by Shani on 7/25/11 at 8:24 pm

By reform standards she can raise both her kids Jewish. But I think what she is referring to is their cultural heritage and ethnicity and not their religious affinity. In any case, many people are discovering their Jewish roots and choosing to re-acquire that heritage. All the more power to them. In the long run of course, it will be up to her children and not her to ultimately decide the extent of their own Jewishness. You said, “The Jewish population is getting smaller”. Perhaps one of the main causes of this is Jews who discourage the ownership of one’s own heritage because they don’t fit their narrow elitist definition of “who’s a Jew”.



Comment by Mashiach on 7/26/11 at 7:42 am

“I’m not quite sure how that works, considering neither she, nor her mother, nor her husband are Jewish”. That’s hilarious and quite accurate. She might as well announce that she is raising her kids Eskimo. Although it would be smarter to raise them as Navajos and get them a piece of that casino income.



If you are Orthodox then being Jewish is both a religion and a nationality. If you are a Zionist it is not a religion, and if you are a Reform Jew it is not a nationality, but until now we have had no category for ‘none of the above’.



Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/26/11 at 2:42 pm

This seems kind of odd in light of her husband’s support of the Palestinians. Do a search on Chris Martin and Palestine.



Comment by Jason on 7/27/11 at 7:16 pm

I just did. Not to judge a book by its cover, but he looks like a moron. As for G.P.‘s intention; depending on your POV being Jewish has nothing to do with family, God, Israel, history, sprituality, religion, politics, self interest, self determination, ritual, practices, disciplines or a given culture. It is entirely subjective and inconsistent between individuals, and who is qualified to say which is right and what is real? This is how you get ‘rabbis’ for Palestine and all that. Today it has become a good deed for some to support Israel’s enemies and undermine Israel. These are people so removed from reality that the are not capable of considering the source of those ideas.



Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/28/11 at 7:51 pm

The Jewish people are an ethnic group first, and being Jewish comes from either one or both of the sides—ignore Kiddushin 68b, and focus on D’varim 7:1-5 for itself. In light of D’varim 7:1-5 (among other parshot), I find Gwyneth Paltrow to be a Self-Hating Jew who does no good for ‘ameinu by supporting Pleshet over Yisra’el—what is a Jewish woman doing supporting the remnant of Goliat’s people over the fellow descendants of Ya’akov?



Comment by Nicole Czarnecki on 7/31/11 at 2:43 pm

This whole thing is Bulls—t!!!! If you had a Jewish and a non-Jewish parent usually you grew up favoring one or the other!!!

Whether your mother or father was Jewish is besides the point!!! If you believe you are Jewish and claim to be then you are!!! Bill Maher’s mother was Jewish…he was raised Catholic…he never claimed to be Jewish…he is NOT Jewish!!! Paul Newman’s mother was not Jewish he chose to be Jewish…therefore he was Jewish!!!

Michael Douglas was raised ???...his mother was not Jewish…He always felt Jewish via his dad…He Is Jewish!!!



Comment by Nate Goldstein on 8/10/11 at 9:38 am

I remember when Michael Douglas MC’d an Israeli Special Anniversary on TV and said he was proud to be a Jew…later in the newspapers some crazy orthodox rabbi’s claimed he was not Jewish because of his mother…Michael was incensed claiming who were those nuts to tell him what he was or wasn’t??? Sarah Michelle Gellar & Julia Louis Dreyfus both deny being Jewish…srew ‘em…so be it!!! Michael Richards, neither parent Jewish, believes he is Jewish…says he always felt Jewish…What do we do with him???



Comment by Marty Stone on 8/10/11 at 9:50 am

To be a Jew is to be a citizen of the Israelite nation. We have a federal nation and the tribes are our states.



1) A child of two Jewish parents is a citizen of Israel and with inheritance rights in its father’s state.

2) A child of a Jewish father only is not a citizen of Israel.

3) A child of a Jewish mother only is a citizen of Israel but a citizen of no state, with no land rights.

4) A naturalized citizen (convert) is comparable to one with no Jewish father.



The law is the law and it doesn’t matter how we feel about it. The law is never going away.



Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/10/11 at 9:30 pm

Today the Indians have casinos and each Indian receives a share of the casino income. Anyone who is not a lawful Jew but insists he or she is one can try to claim to be a Cherokee and demand some of the casino income.



Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/10/11 at 9:31 pm

...More BS…More BS…if you left it up to the hypocritical orthodox Jews there would be NO Israel!!! How dare they refuse to accept someone as a Jew if they want to be one merely because their mother is a non Jew!!! We can’t afford to throw away our “Lantzmann” like that and survive. My family is secular, yet we follow all the holidays, our kids married Jews and we have been told that we are the most “Culturally Jewish” people any of our friends know!!! Let your local Chabbad fight us over whether we are Jews just because we don’t go to Temple.



Comment by Nate Goldstein on 8/10/11 at 11:20 pm

Meanwhile, a now-former friend of mine who’s a kohein (as my sister told me) thinks that Judaism is meshuga, although he loves being Jewish and supports Israel—and he’s very Far Left! As Nate Goldstein noted, “Let your local Chabbad fight us over whether we are Jews just because we don’t go to Temple.” In fact, isn’t that why many of us don’t even go to Temple or any shul of any sort? Granted that I’m a Messianic Jew, but that’s actually another thing as well—why can’t Jews believe in Jesus (Yeshua) if we can believe in Bar Kochva, Menachem Schneerson, or whoever else one could name?



Comment by Nicole Czarnecki on 8/10/11 at 11:31 pm

Hey Nicole…you lost me with…“I’m a Messianic Jew”!!! We can’t believe in jesus because he turned left while the rest of us were going right!!!



Jews for Jesus are christians…very simple!!!

Jesus was a Jew who was searching…his followers decided he was the deity!!!

In their misguided faith in their new religion the christ followers decided to “murder off” the competition…I give you the inquisition, the pogroms, the holocaust, etc.all!!!



Because of that history…switching sides, as you did, and trying to take others of us with you becomes the ultimate blasphemy and indignity towards those LOST millions of our bretheren!!!



Comment by Nate Goldstein on 8/11/11 at 10:17 am

Nate, I wasn’t here to proselytize but to give an example re your point. You sadly made your own point: “...More BS…More BS…if you left it up to the hypocritical orthodox Jews there would be NO Israel!!!” and “Let your local Chabbad fight us over whether we are Jews just because we don’t go to Temple.” You are more fit to join a haredi (“Chabad”) movement than you would like to claim.



Comment by Nicole Czarnecki on 8/11/11 at 11:08 pm

Nicole:

nah…you’re wrong…we are basicly agnostic/secularists. HOWEVER…we are very strongly Jewish culturists!!!....we won’t go to temple…but we’ve been to Israel 3 times…and support them AS MUCH AS Possible!!!...also we just about “Kvell” when we pass by the ultra orthodox with the remnents of their Russian black garb walking with their familys on Pico/Fairfax area….because they are fighting their uphill battle to preserve their faith.



BUT NOW…it’s just because of that Jewish DNA that I possess that I go crazy when I come across messianics and jews for jesus.



Comment by Nate Goldstein on 8/12/11 at 12:56 pm

“Jews” for Jesus is the title of a Christian religious organization. It’s not that we “can’t” believe in Jesus (whatever that means),it’s that there is no “Jesus” in Jewish culture, tradition, scripture,or religious practices. When you’re Jewish, temple or not, there is no worldview that encompasses any type of “salvation” because a human allowed himself to be sacrificed as some sort of political statement.



Comment by Shani on 8/12/11 at 4:35 pm

Nate and Shani, you two are proving that many Jews are way too elitist against fellow Jews. Also, I already clarified that I’m not here to proselytize. So, knock off your Anti Missionarism.



Comment by Nicole Czarnecki on 8/12/11 at 4:43 pm

Why would I “knock off” being against missionizing? In any case, you can missionize to your heart’s content,but if you think such an action is culturally,socially,politically,religiously, or traditionally Jewish, you are wrong. Missionizing or suggesting we’re “incomplete”, (as many missionaries claim), is elitist.As a Christian, you have to live with the consequences of the choice you made. You cannot expect observant Jews to understand those of you who believe in a life philosophy that encompasses the antithesis of being Jewish.



Comment by Shani on 8/14/11 at 8:59 pm

If you want to be a messianic…go be it!!!...but keep it to yourself!!!



As soon as you try to drag your fellow Jews along you’re nothing better than a turncoat/traitor who’s pissing on the graves of the multi-millions who died rather than give up their spiritual beliefs.



Comment by Nate Goldstein on 8/24/11 at 3:40 pm

Shani, I already stated that I already clarified that I’m not here to proselytize. I simply mentioned that I’m a Messianic Jew to be in full disclosure. As I said, “In fact, isn’t that why many of us don’t even go to Temple or any shul of any sort? Granted that I’m a Messianic Jew, but that’s actually another thing as well—why can’t Jews believe in Jesus (Yeshua) if we can believe in Bar Kochva, Menachem Schneerson, or whoever else one could name?”



What’s elitist is suggesting that I may not believe that Jesus (Yeshua) is the Messiah if another Jew can believe that Bar Kosiva or Menachem Schneerson is Mashiach.



Comment by Nicole Czarnecki on 8/24/11 at 3:41 pm

Nate and Shani, I wasn’t trying to drag anyone along; and I find your attitude unacceptably and intolerably elitist, as I was merely disclosing my Messianic Jewish beliefs in order to explain why I understand why many Jews do not go to shul—because of both intolerance of haredim and frankly because of intolerance such as yours.



Comment by Nickidewbear on 8/24/11 at 4:01 pm

Jews don’t “believe in” Jesus. Period. Christians, and only Christians do. There is a major difference between being fooled/hoping someone is Messiah and believing that a man who died thousands of years ago is G_d. One action is naive, the other goes against the soul.



Comment by Shani on 8/24/11 at 5:14 pm

Perhaps Ilana Angel ought to have chazak v'ematz and write "Are Jews Too Elitist To Accept Jewish Christians [or Messianic Jews, or Jews for Jesus, or followers of Jesus of Nazareth]"?