The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.

Google+ Badge

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

My Photo
My blog is "The Nicole Factor" on Blogspot, my Facebook page "Nicole Czarnecki aka Nickidewbear", and YouTube and Twitter accounts "Nickidewbear."

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

Search This Blog

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Commentary: Masochist, Liar, Or Revictimized Victim? And What Is Jesus To Many "Christians", Anyway?

Dr. Blasey Ford is one of the following: a liar, a masochist, or a revictimized victim—and there is nothing else that one conclude. Which, though, is Dr. Blasey Ford? Let's look at it this way:


  1. Most masochists aren't going to go as far as to claim to have been threatened with rape, let alone to go out of their ways to endure everything from defamation to threats because they claimed that they were almost raped.
  2. Most liars are going to act like Casey Anthony—whom slandered her father and her brother by claiming that they sexually abused her—as well as those like Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas (whose claims of enduring a "high-tech lynching" can, with everyone looking back, be compared to Bill Cosby's claims of enduring a "public lynching"), Bill O'Reilly, and Brett Kavanaugh (whose behavior reminds me of that Bill O'Reilly when the Ailes scandal broke and when the accusations against him were investigated and reinvestigated).
  3. Given, then, that even most masochists would not try to endure what Dr. Blasey Ford had to endure, and that Brett Kavanaugh acted like (among others) Casey Anthony, Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas, and Bill O'Reilly (especially Bill O'Reilly), one has to intellectually-honestly conclude to Dr. Blasey Ford is a revictimized victim of sexual abuse.
So, then, what about Jesus? Dr. Blasey Ford is certainly not Jesus—and nobody else but Jesus is Jesus—although she certainly was defamed and threatened especially in His name. The ones who defamed her in His name, then, stated that they basically don't consider Jesus to be Lord, and they're willing to go as far as to make Him out to be a lunatic and/or a liar by claiming that He as the Lord would ever command anything contrary to what He commanded.

By the way, as I've said before, this is an example of why many Jews don't believe in Jesus and why those of us that do ended up not knowing that we're Jewish until much later: with the Jesus that those like Dr. Blasey Ford's persecutors being presented as the Jesus of the New Testament, Jews are going to not believe in Jesus and/or not be openly Jewish—and many of my own ancestors did both. Also by the way, nobody who supported Brett Kavanaugh can truthfully claim to love Israel—though if he or she can actually truthfully claim to love Israel, he or she will have to do teshuvah for supporting a man whom is associated with Anti-Semitic D****d *****, went out of his way to help make sure that Julie Swetnick's claims were not investigated, and helped to try to discredit sexual-abuse survivors as pawns of George Soros¹².



In conclusion, any self-identified Christian who supports Brett Kavanaugh will either have to face that they called Jesus a liar and/or lunatic when they called Dr. Blasey Ford a masochist and/or liar or hear that they never really were Christians³, not to mention that even many Christians would rather victims and survivors of sexual abuse work with openly-Non-Christian and other openly-Non-Judeo-Christian-values than so-called "Christian" and other "values" ones that are not Christian or other values-beholden organizations at all¹.



¹Concerning the ones whom are working with Soros-affiliated organizations, they at least know that Soros doesn't really value them although they can still get their message out. They also know that many "Christian" and other "Judeo-Christian-values" organizations who should be helping sexual-abuse victims really aren't Christian or otherwise self beholden to Judeo-Christian values. They'd rather thus work with openly-dishonest organizations than trying-to-disguise-themselves-as-honest ones.

²This isn't to mention that those who support Brett Kavanaugh and D****d ***** have the same kind of thinking that affected acts of Pseudo-Christian Anti Semitism, such as the pogroms and the Holocaust—in which quite a few gentile women were also affected, and in which even some Jewish women probably participated and many gentile women certainly participated (and in regard to women whom did survive the pogroms and the Holocaust, I can imagine that they recall how they were treated by fellow women whom should've been helping them as they see and hear how fellow women are persecuting Dr. Blasey Ford and Julie Swetnick

(By the way, don't think that those like George Soros aren't actually helping the types like Brett Kavanaugh and D****d *****—George Soros even told Steven Kroft that he considered the Holocaust "fun"—and by the way, compare George Soros' attitude with that of Alex Kurzem: Alex Kurzem did not consider the Holocaust "fun".

³As well as face that they took the bait of Brett Kavanaugh, D****d *****, and George Soros for whatever reason.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Commentary: "Conflate"? And "Plain Meaning"?

How can Kellyanne Conway as a sexual-abuse survivor herself work with an self-admitted sexual abuser? There's no conflating about it. Supporting Kavanaugh and ***** is saying to her own sexual abuser, "What you did to me is okay." After all, you can't knowingly support some unrepentant sexual abusers and not support others at the same time. If you're supporting any sexual abusers with full knowledge of what they did and/or are doing, you are by extension supporting your own if you yourself were and/or are a victim of sexual abuse. Thus, an answer like the following one to a question about your own hypocrisy would be all the more inappropriate and intellectually dishonest:
"Don't conflate that with this, and certainly don't conflate that with what happened to me."
Translation: "Stop confronting me about my hypocrisy, and certainly stop telling me to refrain from revictimizing fellow sexual-abuse victims and survivors."

Meanwhile, in regard to a case that involves hypocrisy concerning non-sexual abuse—namely, "Schreiber v. McCamet et. al." (2018)

  • At least Senator Blunt did something right for once during this whole xenophobic, misogynistic, and racist ***** Era, especially since (I guarantee you that) the same ruling would not have been made had the adoptee been a White boy or any girl that ***** and *****ites would consider (forgive the language) a token—and with the Armed Forces not being keen on *****'s plan for a military parade and the adoptee in question being a South Korean and not a North Korean (let alone one whom either escaped from or somehow got special permission to leave North Korea), ***** and *****ites are likely to all the more see adoptee as useless and even detrimental to them. As for Non-White boys, for the same ruling to have been made might've actually been possible given that ***** and *****ites would likely see no value in someone whom they couldn't try to use for a "Women for *****" schtick, especially with the current events at hand—ones that certainly make female voters and to-be voters more of a target voting demographic than male voters and to-be voters.   
  • That judge basically just sent a huge (forgive the language) "**** you. I don't care about your military service" to Lt. Col. Schreiber and his family, as well as to other military families, and an "I don't care about your service" to other Armed Forces members and their families.
  • The only "plain meaning" there, then, is that the judge would've ruled to let the delayed adoption process continue to go through now had the adoptee been a 17-year-old White boy or Non-White girl whom he found useful for "MAGA" and "America First" ends, never mind that putting America first actually includes letting Armed Forces members whom have served honorably as well as been of good character adopt any child whom wants to be adopted by him or her.
Therefore, "hypocrisy" still means "hypocrisy" just as "is" still means "is" and has a definition around which nobody can get—whether whomever tries to get around it is Kellyanne Conway, a bigoted judge, or anyone else.


PPS That I wrote about whomever ***** would nominate and included the following was surprisingly prescient, especially given that I wrote what I wrote in July(!):

"Now-Former President Obama admitted his general disdain for most conservatives as well as most moderate & leaning-moderate people on all sides—and at least he, as far as I know, doesn't have any forcibly-aborted children or sexual-harassment victims in his wake."


Dr. Blasey Ford made her allegations in July, and (as I predicted) Kavanaugh is indeed a ***** sycophant and (as I unbeknownstly-to-myself predicted) fellow sexual abuser of *****. 


(By the way, Julie Swetnick's own indiscretions do not mean that she wasn't sexually abused by Kavanaugh. So, don't automatically assume that he has only two known victims in his wake.)

Monday, July 9, 2018

Of Course, Conservatives Can't Trust *****'s Supreme Court Nominee (And Of Course Can't Trust *****)!

No matter who ***** picks, no conservative can trust her (likely her) or him. Besides, she (as all indicators seem to have demonstrated so far) or he is going to be a ***** sycophant (at least initially—and who knows what's happened when Neil Gorsuch has ruled against his boss, whom is illegitimately in the White House in the first place and thus makes Gorsuch's appointment illegitimate in any case, no matter that the Senate's confirmed it for the time being)? Also, and most importantly, the following should cause everyone to consider why no real conservative is going to back *****'s SCOTUS nominee even if she or he even ends up being a he by the name of Merrick Garland(!):


  1. Real conservatives would rather have a moderate like Merrick Garland, whom was appointed by an albe-legitimately-elected president whom we generally didn't like, than a sycophant of an illegitimately-elected-president in whom no decent person can find any merit.
  2. Now-Former President Obama admitted his general disdain for most conservatives as well as most moderate & leaning-moderate people on all sides—and at least he, as far as I know, doesn't have any forcibly-aborted children or sexual-harassment victims in his wake. ***** still tries to pretend to suddenly be Mr. Reformed and Mr. Conservative when he has never even repented for—and he demonizes everyone whom calls him out on—his own immoderate and far-from-conservative actions, among which are trying to get Marla Maples to abort Tiffany Trump (and someone who really wants to overturn "Roe v. Wade" would come clean about wanting to abort his own child, not to mention his affair-conceived child—and to be fair, one now has to wonder at what point the affair stopped being an affair and crossed into Marla Maples being Stockholmed, since a man who can rape his wife and try to force any woman to abort her child probably didn't have a fully-willing partner in Marla. When he or she also considers, among other things, how ***** bragged about "grabb[ing a woman] by [her private areas]" and "mov[ing] on her like a [dog]", one has to wonder if Marla could've said "No" and had it taken for an answer.)
  3. In other words, Former President Obama is generally a "You get who you see" kind of person and was that way as a politician, even though he at least made bipartisan concessions. ***** is a "For thee and not me" kind of person, and the kind whom "narcissist", "sociopath", and "Machiavellite" only begin to describe!
  4. Especially any women and any (supposedly) pro-life nominee of ***** will be a token and a court packer—and only one SCOTUS nominee of an illegitimately-elected "POTUS" is needed to be pack a court; so, two nominees of a Non POTUS make a packed SCOTUS, even if the rest of the justices are nominees of legitimate now-former POTUSes.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Keurig, Sean Hannity, Roy Moore, And A Disturbing New (Still-Not-Normal) "Normal"?

While abuse continues to remain not normal, no question that we're in the End Times exists—at least for the Jewish Christians like me or the gentile Christians:

"Alas! For that day is great, So that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, But he shall be saved out of it."

"And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."

"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened."

"'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."[']"
[This is the reference that I tweeted re Kurt Eichenwald's tweet, by the way. Emphasis mine; and plenty of Roy Moore supporters will be vomited right out.]

With, for example, people violently breaking their Keurig machines, calling for Keurig boycotts, etc., when Sean Hannity himself gave Roy Moore the benefit of the doubt in his own interview with him is disturbing, as is Roy Moore's Powellesque and Whitesque language in "Higdon v. State":

"Because there was no evidence in this case of an implied threat of serious physical injury under this definition, or of an implied threat of death, Higdon cannot be convicted of sodomy in the first degree “by forcible compulsion.” This Court has previously taken the position that an implied threat under § 13A–6–60(8) may be inferred in cases “concerning the sexual assault of children by adults with whom the children are in a relationship of trust.” See Powe v. State, 597 So.2d 721, 728 (Ala.1991)(emphasis added)"

By the way, plenty Roy Moore supporters—as far as I can tell—will also be finding millstones around their necks and themselves catapulted right into the Lake of Fire by Jesus Himself. After all, even Ms. Corfman has racked up misdemeanor charges because of Roy Moore and other abusers, including pastors:

"“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
"“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

(PS When I read this and think about the Roy Moore supporters facing Jesus, I can imagine them facing one angry God!) 

Monday, October 16, 2017

Two Supreme Court "Justices" That Died As Never-Caught Rapists: White and Powell

Thanks to rapist Byron White, Lewis Powell, and others, rapist Ehrlich Coker made sure that rapists, pimps, and other sexual abusers could live and breathe. By the way, how do we know that Byron White was a rapist, as was Lewis Powell?

"Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life. Although it may be accompanied by another crime, rape, by definition, does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person. [n13] The murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than that, does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over, and normally is not beyond repair. We have the abiding conviction that the death penalty, which "is unique in its severity and irrevocability," Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. at 187, is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human life."

[As if rape isn't all but physical murder, even though victims are often directly physically murdered by their rapists or indirectly physically murdered via suicide. Ok then 🙄.]

"MR. JUSTICE POWELL concluded that death is disproportionate punishment for the crime of raping an adult woman where, as here, the crime was not committed with excessive brutality and the victim [16-year-old Elnita Carter] did not sustain serious or lasting injury. P. 601"

By the way, White and Powell set the precedent for the horrid and racist conclusion in "Kennedy v. Louisiana". Also by the way, Carter was White and thus was evidence against Patrick Kennedy's argument.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

In Response To A Friend's Facebook Post, And Then In Response Another Person's Replies (With Some Additions)

I maintain that "Coker" (1977) needs to be overturned. After all, being in support of capital punishment for rape is being pro life. As I chimed in on the original post, and then replied to the friend of the friend (names omitted):

I myself am pro life, and I guarantee that rape would happen less were "Coker" (1977) overturned. An overturn would effect an automatic overturning of "Kennedy" (2008), by the way, and I say that rapists should face the possibility of capital punishments since they've all but left their victims physically dead. Of course, the rapists who also physically murder their victims (including by effecting victims' deaths due to STDs, suicides, and fatal injuries besides STDs) also ought to face the possibility of capital punishments. 

I don't want to see rapists be able to take lives anymore, and I don't advocate capital punishment for rapists lightly. In my own families' cases:



  1. A cousin of my mom was gang raped in college.
  2.  I'm pretty sure that one of her sisters was raped either by a priest before she was a teen or even by Father Maskell himself (Mom denies the possibility since my aunt apparently defended him, though my grandmother I don't deny itI even told Mom that she could've been Stockholmed,) That aunt, by the way, died nine years and a week ago due to alcoholism that onset when she was 13 (She was born in November 1951 and was the first graduate of Keough, which opened in 1965.). She also told my sister that she liked Jesus, but not the Church. Looking back and even right after she died,  I knew that (when I saw the pictures at the funeral home) she was a pretty-enough young girl for perverted priests to want to target her.
  3. A cousin of my dad (Ziggy Churnetski) participated in a gang rape in the 1920s (and he was sadly in prison for only five years and had to pay a fine of only $500. He even eventually married, and I have no idea whether his wife was his victim.) 
  4. Another cousin of my dad raped someone else and murdered another person. (I wish that his victim's sister, Lana Wood, would come out with it, by the way—as I've said, there's something in that Danilovich water, and I should've figured that rape wouldn't escape our side of the family. Ziggy was Great-Granddad's once-removed cousin.)
  5. In short, I've heard about and seen what rapists can do to people.
I also don't find abortion acceptable in any case (though I used to find abortion acceptable in cases of rape and incest—God decided that my being fully pro life would take my now-ex younger stepsister, of all people, pointing out to me that abortion would be an unfair punishment to the baby, and she wasn't exactly the best stepsister in the world). In fact, if for nothing else, keeping a rape-conceived baby might be a practical measure in terms of getting a DNA sample from him or her to figure out or confirm who raped his or her mother. Besides, there are many couples whom want to adopt children; and my mom's cousin's husband ended up adopting her child when they as a couple could not have children.

(By the way, I hope that my now-ex stepsisters can see that my sister and I weren't talking slanderously when we pointed out what my dad is like—and even though, thank God, he never sexually abused us, verbal and other non-sexual abuse is still abuse—and my now-ex stepmother seems to have seen that. Incidentally, I feel sorry for my dad at this point—he's repeated the "Hurt people hurt people" cycle, and his life choices have caught up to him.)

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Why I Won't Change The Name Of My Blog


  1. If I change the name of my blog, I'm engaging in an ex-post-facto action. Besides, keeping "The Nicole Factor" isn't like—for example and perhaps using an extreme example—if people were to name their children certain names nowadays or, in some cases, keep names that they had prior to certain events. Incidentally, to see that some parents did name and have named their children names such as "_____o" is incredibly disappointing; and I cringe when I see people with that name on Facebook.
  2. I thought that those allegations were hit jobs against Bill O'Reilly.
  3. I've called for the overturning of "Coker v. Georgia" (1977) and "Kennedy v. Louisiana", pointed out that "sexual assault" is really sexual battery—I've also not shied away from the sad reality that I'm somehow related to Natalie Wood's rapist and Jean Spangler's murderer, and I've talked about how rape did not escape our side of the family: in fact, I was surprised that rape seemed to escape our family and should not have been surprised when I found out that one of Great-Granddad Czarnecki's second cousins was involved in a gang rape (Somehow, the Chernetskis and Daniloviches are related in more ways than one, and both have roots that go back to Chavusy; and every single generation has had to live with whatever started with some Danilovich.).
Point being, then, I'm not going to change the name of "The Nicole Factor" just because the now-ex host of "The O'Reilly Factor" became the worst factor in his and others' lives, since I had nothing to do with what Bill O'Reilly did and I've spoken out against sexual exploitation (including that of the would've-probably-been-raped-anyway Jean Spangler) even within my own family history (and since Natalie Wood's rapist murdered Jean Spangler after she exposed their affair via a note to him, he would've raped Jean Spangler and any other women whom'd've said "No"—that's sadly a pattern among Daniloviches whom continue the family dynamics on any side, sexual and non-sexual dynamics alike.).

Saturday, January 9, 2016

Megyn Kelly: "Conservative" and "A Lawyer" Mein Tuchus!

For anyone whom's wondering, "meir tuchus" means "my butt!" Anyway, no true conservative (Classical Liberal) and lawyer would state that "legal" inherently means "should be legal":


  1. As far as the SCOTUS being the final arbiters of the law, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of inherently-illegal doctrines such as "Ferguson v. Plessy" and, before that, "Sanford v. Scott". The former was not overturned until 1955 (when "Brown" was fully cleared for implementation), and "Scott" en de facto was never overturned until Jim Crow ended, despite that the end of the Civil War ended it en de jure. 
  2. DOMA was in force from the Clinton Administration until just relatively recently in the Obama Administration. 
  3. Legalizing same-sex marriage risks religious freedom within certain contexts. For example, why should an Orthodox rabbi be sued by a couple whom he refuses to marry when he believes that the Flood came because of same-sex marriage in part (which the Talmud does state)?
By the way, speaking of rabbis, one'd think that Orthodox rabbis such as Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs would be helpful during this time of Anti-Jewish and Anti-Christian intolerance—although he's not at all tolerant of either Jewish Christians or gentile ones, or any Orthodox Jew whom even tolerates Christians (despite how Christianity as Noahidism is viewed).


Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Afghan Buddhas & China, Jerusalem & the SCOTUS, &c.

In the same way that people are outraged over China's handling of Afghanistan's ancient Buddha statues and other Buddhist architecture, people would be more outraged about Jerusalem being stepped on by the SCOTUS and other (unintentional and intentional) Anti Semites if the Government of Israel held to the "Declaration of Establishment".

In other words, the SCOTUS and others, instead of doing what is right, are saying to Netanyahu and Agudat Yisra'el, "Why should we care about Jerusalem when you all are stepping on it, anyway? After all, you arrest an American oleh for eating a ham sandwich!"

By the way, I told you that Netanyahu and Agudat Yisra'el were trying to sell Israel to the "Palestinians"—you don't for example, propose an "establishment of a confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing the territory of Israel, as well as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" if you do not want a "Palestinian" state.

Monday, June 25, 2012

What Does This Have To Do With SB 1070, By The Way?


Jeremiah 23:24

New King James Version (NKJV)
24 Can anyone hide himself in secret places,
So I shall not see him?” says the Lord;
“Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord.

This has to do with that ex-Senator Russell Pearce's and Governor Jan Brewer's racist motives were found out. By the way, they're going to have to drop that reasonable-suspicion provision soon--you can't tell whether someone is illegal just by looking at them, what language they speak, etc. Let's drop the whole law, put "McCain-Kennedy" into effect, and not punish the children for their sins:

Ezekiel 18:1-4

New King James Version (NKJV)

A False Proverb Refuted

18 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
“Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.


Meanwhile, we should also take away any children who are trafficked across the border and put them up for adoption--no more DREAMers, no more trafficking children, no more excuses. The exception would be if the parent or guardian had an emergency and a good reason for bringing his or her child or trustee across the border with him or her. To drag children across the border and use them as pawns is never okay. 

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Broken Blog Shabbat: "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" (2012)--Composed From My Tweets


That Jerry Sandusky was found guilty by a Penn State-biased jury is amazing. We know that G-d wasn't on Joe Amendola's side. But there is one problem regarding "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" (2012): the only problem in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" is that "Kennedy v. Louisiana" (2008) took the death penalty off of the table.  Thanks to a racist who twisted facts to get his waySandusky will still have some time alive. In other words, the Supreme Court must be (albeit belatedly) kicking themselves for a decision that would and does have long-term ramifications--pedophiles such as Jerry Sandusky will never again be legally put to death for essentially (and in some cases, entirely) taking the lives of children--in other words, Jerry Sandusky would be put to death only if he had actually physically murdered one of his victims (though, if I were a prosecutor, investigator, etc.; I'd charge him with murder if one of his victims committed suicide as a result of being sexually abused).

Meanwhile, I thought that Geraldo Rivera would at least tweet about "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" (2012). Maybe that he didn't is better for everybody. In other words, now is not the time for Geraldo Rivera or anyone else on either side to plug in anything selfish, sensationalistic, etc.. I'm just saying, he has had a reputation for injecting too much self interest and sensationalism into stories. 

The "then again" side  is that he is a lawyer and has an actual and proven reputation of caring for children. So, why hasn't he tweeted? The only reason that I'm saying this is that I remember when he first tweeted about the case saying that he'd beat up Sandusky.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court will hopefully reconsider their "Kennedy" decision in light of "Sandusky"; and Geraldo Rivera--who, if one can say nothing else about him, does have a reputation for caring about children and wanted to beat Jerry Sandusky up for hurting too many children (since even one child is too many children to hurt, and Sandusky hurt at least 10 children over the course of at least 15 years). Anyway, Geraldo Rivera--will hopefully tweet something (hopefully non selfish and non sensationalistic) about the "Sandusky" verdict.

By the way, as I said, one can at least say that Geraldo Rivera does have a reputation for caring about children and would have loved to beat up Jerry Sandusky--too bad that Geraldo Rivera wasn't a prosecutor in the times before and when "Kennedy" took the death penalty off of the table.

Friday, March 30, 2012

CNN's Sympathy and PrObama Ploy Leaves Out The Community, Church, and Diet Changes...

Violet McManus' parents and Elizabeth Cohen (with all due respect to hakohenet-- since, as far as I know, I have no position to be rebuking a kohenet too harshly, since I'm just an Yisra'elit. Anyway, Violet McManus' parents and Elizabeth Cohen) are just being ridiculous. Why was she blue and shaking after 11 months? Sometimes medical episodes do happen; but diet and other factors play a huge role in postnatal, infant, and toddler development. Also, $5,000,000 is a very-fair insurance cap. As I told the friend who shared this article with me, insurance is meant to be insurance and not a complete net. Where's the McManus' church or synagogue helping Violet? Where is the McManus' family community? Why is she on two drugs and not had diet changes?

By the way, I'm speaking as an OCD-, Anxiety-, Depression-diagnosed-and-medicated, IBS- and ADD-unmedicated person with Diplegic Spastia Cerebral Palsy, and a person whose mom gave her a very-healthy diet throughout her postnatal and toddler (and encouraged a healthy diet throughout her preteen and successive) years; and that healthy diet helped manage a lot of my problems and save me from more problems. I didn't have a lot of church and community support, either, by the way-- and my mom was a single mom throughout most of her marriage (My dad wasn't really a dad to us) and from the time of her divorce on June 11, 1998.


'Completely blue in her crib'
Violet McManus was born healthy, but when she was 11 months old her parents woke up in the middle of the night in their Novato, California, home to find her having a seizure.

"She was completely blue in her crib and shaking," Walters remembers.
It was to be the first of hundreds of seizures -- sometimes thirty in one day.
Violet has been hospitalized about six times and each hospitalization cost more than $50,000.
She's now on two drugs to control the seizures and carries oxygen with her wherever she goes because she stops breathing when she has her seizures. She needs speech therapy and frequent doctor's visits.
Matt McManus, Violet's father, gets health insurance through his work as a video game designer. Before health care reform, there was a $5 million lifetime limit on Violet's insurance policy. Violet is now 3 and her parents calculate she could hit that cap by her 5th birthday, and almost certainly by her 10th.