Dealing With Sheer Libel And Slander As An Author And As A Person Overall

I've decided that I'm going to be more proactive in regards to libel and slander against myself and—when to do so is necessary—libel and slander against others. I have had being libelled and slandered over the years, and I have even confronted paternal and maternal family members over it. In fact, in my new book, I wrote the following about both lies that my maternal grandfather's mother told and a long-standing issue because of relatives whom are libelling and slandering me over it:

"Meanwhile, this alone (as I’m now realizing) helps to explain why I thoroughly and even defensively  explain quite a bit of what I explain—as if getting called “an overall liar” at Sheppard Pratt by a caseworker whom fell for my father’s lies about me wasn’t enough, having Nana Allen throw her younger children and their descendants for a loop really affected me to start laying out every detail of quite a few cases once I found out about being thrown for such a loop—and as if many of my matriarchs and patriarchs on Dad’s side didn’t do enough loop throwing, todah rabah (and their loop throwing was more understandable than her loop throwing, as—as I later read—the Inquisition ended in 1834, whereas increasing Anti Semitism still affects many of my paternal relatives loathe to admit that we’re Jewish—even to the point at which one relative is trying to paint me as an overall liar in regard to what my father’s maternal grandmother did, and notwithstanding that I can neither help what happened or conjure up evidence to fit the narrative of what he wants to believe what happened."

Here's my advice to anyone whom would be tempted to libel and slander others in the future:

1. Remember that even in the era of *****, verbal abuse such as libel and slander is never normal—and that includes what that Mila Kunis did in misrepresenting herself and using Mike Pence's name is not normal, even if the Supreme Court should rule (and there exists a very-real possibility that the SCOTUS will rule) that what Mila Kunis did is a protest that is protected by the First Amendment, despite that she committed misdemeanor-level representation at the very least (and I guarantee that any case against Mila Kunis will be appealed up to the Supreme Court).
2. As I've said, keep in mind I may well sue in certain cases in which I'm libelled and slandered, and I may even press charges of criminal libel and slander against those whom are libelling and slandering me—especially since some of the libel and slander that I've had directed against me has been tantamount to hate crimes and even included threats on my life.
3. If you insist on libelling and slandering others, see how well libelling and slandering others ends up working out for you when at least one of your libel and slander victims does end up suing you and/or having you prosecuted.
4. Remember that if you are especially trying to destroy others' livelihoods and/or reputations when you libel and slander them, you may well destroy your livelihood and/or reputation if your boss decides to fire you and you even end up not being able to find another job (By the way, Mila Kunis could well lose her career over representing herself as Mike Pence if the court of public opinion does not rule in her favor, even if the SCOTUS does.).
5. If you are religious in any way, remember that your religion usually include libel- and slander-prohibiting commandments such as "Do not bear false witness," "Love your neighbor as yourself", and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you work in a religious occupation—e.g., as a priest, rabbi or gabbai, or moderate imam; at a YMCA branch, Jewish Community Center, or a Muslim Community Center; or for a religiously-affiliated 501(c)(3) organization—remember that you could also lose your job due to violating one of the core tenets of your religion. 
6. If you have children and/or others for whom you have to set a good example, remember that libelling and slandering others is not setting a good example.
7. Remember that when each of us dies, he or she will leave a legacy in which he or she probably does not want to include a reputation for having libelled and slandered others.

As for me, while I'm not perfect and without instances of having libelled and slandered others in the past, I have worked hard throughout my entire life to be circumspect in avoiding libelling and slandering others. 

Guest Post By Rachel Wheeler: Immigration Court Trends for the USA in 2016

(Note: In light of the issues surrounding DACA and the travel ban, this post—which Rachel Wheeler wrote on July 20, 2017—is very significant and timely. Although Rachel wrote the post regarding 2016 immigration trends, the 2016 immigration trends and the then-to-be-affected 2017 immigration trends played a key role in the 2016 Election.

(Of course, the legitimacy of the 2016 Election results is another discussion—and I've made clear my positions regarding the 2016 Election results, DACA and the travel ban, and other matters regarding the fallout of the 2016 Election.)

Immigration Court Trends for the USA in 2016

Each year the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) publishes a statistical year-end review on immigration court matters. Released last month, the FY 2016 Yearbook highlights several significant trends that appeared over the past 12 months.

An Increase in Matters Received

Last year, 14% more matters were received by the Immigration Courts compared to 2015. ‘Matters received’ covers a range of violations and applications pertaining to immigration law: Bonds that require payment, formal requests from deportation, and motions to reopen, reconsider, or re-calendar various applications and appeals.

More than 200,000 Matters Completed

A 4% increase in matters completed shows that the courts are effectively handling the matters presented to them. It also proves that they are processing at a faster rate than the previous year. Of all matters received, those completed fell into four main categories:

Granted some form of relief – This pertains to an immigration judge’s decision to grant relief or protection from removal to an immigrant otherwise vulnerable to forced expulsion. Roughly 17,000 individuals received such grants throughout 2016 and therefore are able to remain in the USA.

Order of deportation – After the decision to expel an immigrant has been passed, the DHS becomes responsible for their physical removal. Deportation cases generally arise when the Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) finds the country was entered illegally, or alternately entered legally yet in violation of one or more visa terms. Over 96,000 deportation and removal decisions were made last year.

Terminated Cases – Terminated cases arise for a variety of reasons. Often, they occur if the immigration judge finds that the DHS is lacking evidence for the removal of an immigrant. As a result, the decision to terminate a case is made. More than 23,000 cases were terminated by immigration judges in 2016.

Officially Closed Matters – This remaining category covers Administrative Closure of immigration cases, Failures to Prosecute, Other Administrative Completions, and Temporary Protected Statuses. The total of these occurrences in 2016 came to slightly over 48,500 cases.

Skilled Workers Choose the United States

Interestingly, inventors chose the United States as their priority destination over all other first world nations between 2000 and 2010. Recent research shows that 190,000 migrants holding global patents for a wide range of products moved to the USA. In the same period, only 10,000 brought their futures (and inventions) elsewhere.

Furthermore, 47% of the increase in the United States workforce in the past decade can be attributed to immigrants. 22% of healthcare and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) occupations were taken up by immigrants. This proves a strong tendency for people to move to the United States not only to pursue the ‘American Dream’, but also to further their career in skilled areas. In doing so, they also strengthen the domestic economy.

The Language of Immigration

Of all the completed matters presented in immigration courts in 2016, 91% came from just five of the 258 languages spoken in these courts. The highest of these was Spanish, accounting for 76% of all completions, followed by English (10%), Mandarin (4%), Punjabi (1%) and Arabic (0.6%).

Recent trends in both general immigration figures from the EOIR and Migration Policy Debate papers show the importance of the immigration vetting process. Additionally, they attest to the need for professional translation services for immigration courts and patent processing.

Originally On LinkedIn: I Don't Understand Why Some Professing Christians Don't Understand That...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly ruled in "Kennedy v. Bremerton School District".

Firstly, now-Former Coach Joe Kennedy made his praying an issue when he allowed other students to pray with him and gave them the impression that the Bremerton School District condoned it. Secondly, Former Coach Kennedy was at a public school as opposed to a religiously-affiliated one. The First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments don't allow the imposition or prohibition of any religion; and then-Coach Kennedy could've prayed privately with the students in his office. Thirdly, the United States is still relatively "a free country, [and] you can do whatever you want" within certain bounds.

Fourthly—and most importantly—professing Christians—nominal and actual Christians alike—should expect persecution in even apparently-free countries. If a professing Christian really does believe the New Testament—and as for me, I believe the New Testament and have to ask—didn't Jesus say, for example, "In this world, you will have many troubles; but take heart—I have overcome the world?" and "The Power that is within you is stronger than the power in this world"?

Besides—and I as a Jewish Christian have to say this—I would think that fellow Jewish Christians of mine and gentile Christians would understand that we'd definitely get kicked out of institutions such as public schools today since we got kicked out of batim knesset and the Temple back then.

In conclusion, then:

1. Professing Christians like Former Coach Joe Kennedy need to get used to the facts that the Constitution doesn't give professing Christians to cry foul especially when professing Christians are the ones whom are violating the Constitution,
2. The Bible says that Christians are to expect persecution, and that whining when we get kicked out of places for praying—especially when the people who run those places choose not to just say, "Don't do that again; and just pray privately next time."—does not help—in this case, Bremerton School District chose to not say, "Just pray privately next time—or at least don't give students the impression that we as a school district condone staff- and faculty-led prayer in a way that imposes religion on the students."
3. Since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Former Coach Kennedy's violations of the Constitution, he ought to "[r]ender what is Caesar's unto Caesar, and render what is God's unto God."
4. In other words—and forgive my unprofessional language—buck up, grow up, put away the childishness of crying "Unfair!" when you get rightly punished, and quit being bushot l'otem mi lo Notzrim or shandas far di vas zenen nisht Kristn.

I made this using public-domain pictures and Powerpoint. My point: keep the imposition of religion out of public workplaces, especially if you're Christian and well know that you could get persecuted even for being Christian. 

Reilly As A Service Dog & In A Courtroom?!

Firstly, Reilly is not behaved enough to ever be a service dog. Secondly, she misbehaved and barked enough to cause "Momma" to flinch while "Momma" was typing just a few minutes ago—and she knows that barking is a "no-no". Thirdly, she is already two-and-a-half years old and more than old enough to be fasting on Yom Kippur if puppies could fast and had to fast—and she would be fasting if she could and were required to fast.

Finally, "Momma" would never drag barky and all-too-gregarious-for-a-courtroom Reilly into any courtroom—besides, "Momma" thankfully ended up not having to take legal action in regard to a recent violation of the ADA after all—"Momma" has nobody whom'd drive her to the courts, anyway.

Originally On LinkedIn: Regarding Government And the Workforce

I will (at least try to) never forget when Former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto was murdered on December 27, 2007—and I will never forget the clip in which she highlighted her philosophy on government: "Where the madrassas won't get involved, the government will." 

The equivalent of the late Bhutto's statement for Non-Muslim (or at least Non-Muslim-majority) countries: the government has to and will get involved when the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. won't get involved. Taking the examples of my people in the Desert and churches in particular—since I'm a Jewish Christian—I highlight why OSHA had to be created and why legislation such as the Civil Rights Act had to be written (Incidentally, what a shame that Barry Goldwater did not support the Civil Rights Act.)

The first example comes when God spoke to Moses about when a house is being built:

“When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

So much for that being applied and happening in the Judeo-Christian United States! Thus came along the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, since its predecessors weren't adequate enough—and even after Upton Sinclair exposed the equivalent of "guilt of bloodshed...if anyone falls from [a being-built roof]" in the meat-packing industry! By the way, when I Googled to find out when OSHA was founded, I was surprised to see that it was not founded until 1971, long after "one nation under God" should have had an organization to hold the reckless employers and overseers accountable.

Also by the way, OSHA came too late for those such as coal miners in Northeastern Pennsylvania—with my great-great-grandfathers Michael Gajdos, Sr. and Julian Czarnecki among them—and groundskeepers such as Julian's son Anthony (whom, as I've written before, severed three of his toes and his leg up to his knee as he mowed a lawn at the apartment complex which hired him—and his work-related accident partly affected his suicide just months later). 

Were their churches there to raise a voice for them and other workers, to hold their congregants' and community members' employers accountable for the employees' safeties. After all—as especially the Bible-literate ones, including my family whom needed someone to speak up for them as workers, would have known—"Justice, justice you shall pursue!" Yet, not even a layman or laywoman rose his or her voice enough to affect that an organization such as OSHA would be unnecessary.

The same laymen and laywomen also neglected to raise their voices enough when civil rights were an issue, even though "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" automatically implies that nobody should discriminate against anyone else. Because not enough men or women raised their voices until laywomen like Rosa Parks spoke up through their civilly-disobedient actions, and clergymen such as Drs. Martin Luther King and Abraham Joshua Heschel marched as they called for freedom for all Americans, the derogatory signs such as the horrid ones against Jewish and Irish men remained on business-owners' doors and windows, and Blacks and women were lucky if they were paid even remotely close to fairly. Never mind that a Jewish man whom wouldn't have been allowed to apply, James by name, admonished fellow followers of another Jew, Jesus of Nazareth:

Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." 5 You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.

How many church-going businessmen "condemned...the just" such as the Jews (including church-going ones) and Irishmen whom they would not hire, despite that these Jews and Irishmen would have gladly "mowed [their fields]?" How many of these same church-going businessmen had "wages...which [they] kept back by fraud" from sharecroppers, shoeshiners, maids, nurses, and other laborers?

(Incidentally, I have questions for you if you wonder—or, if you knew, still wonder—why my paternal family remained Crypto Jews in even the United States—after all, "No Jews" still reeks of the albe-far-worse Anti Semitism that they escaped when they left Imperial Russia and Austria Hungary. If my family isn't enough of an example, look at the family of lucky-to-be-a-businessman, Austria-Hungary-born Fritz "Frederick Kerry" Kohn.)

Because apparently-pious, God-and-country, "Bless your heart" businessmen withheld wages from and otherwise discriminated against Blacks and women (even with intimidating maxims such as "It's a man's job" and "A woman's place is in the home."), and refused to hire Irishmen and Jews (all while slandering and libelling Jews as conspirators whom owned every business), the Civil Rights Act (including Titles VII and IX) had to be written and signed into law. By the way, in terms of Title IX: you try getting a decent job without some kind of college degree (whether you'd've gotten an Associate's Degree or a four-year-degree), let alone if you had to leave college because you faced horrid discrimination, and tell me when you get that job. 

Even I have a B.A. in Political Science from UMBC, and—according to the National Association of Mental Illnesses' recent newsletter—I am statistically doomed because of mental illnesses, which make me three times more likely to be unemployable than someone with a physical disability—and here's the kicker: I have both mental illnesses and Cerebral Palsy. So, think again if you don't think that Title IX relates to the workforce as much as it relates to the educational system.

I also note that Titles VII and IX far from help me, and they also far from help others—since the government is made up of people whom should be getting involved in their communities both within and outside the government sector, Title VII and IX often fail to be enforced. After all, many of the people who are supposed to be enforcing the Civil Rights Act—not to mention the Americans With Disabilities Act—are the same kinds of people who look down on the kind of people on whom the oh-so-pious businessmen of back then looked down. Therefore, quite a bit of government involvement that's supposed to make up for the lack of community involvement actually becomes a Catch-22.

Nonetheless, the government has to be involved when the communities won't get involved—even when the government gets involved too late for those like Michael Gajdos, Julian and Anthony Czarnecki, and Frederick Kerry, not to mention the Irishpersons, Blacks, and women whom were in similar positions to the positions of the Gajdoses, the Czarneckis, and the Kohns.

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).

This Is A "No Duh!" Action To Take

Taxing the American Internet user would be absolutely detrimental.

Pass the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act!

Send Letters to Congress : 19,198 Letters Sent So Far

States and local governments are poised to extend telephone taxes to your home and mobile Internet bills if the current federal ban on such taxes expires as scheduled on December 16, 2015 (Congress passed a five day extension from the previous expiration date of December 11). The average expected tax would be 12% and could be even higher.  The federal ban MUST be extended.  Permanently. The House has already passed it but the Senate must act.

Tell the Senate: Pass the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act!

Even If Nobody Else Is Saying This...

Quite honestly, I wonder if it didn't have to do in part with the Haredi constituency in New York City that follows Yevamot 62b. Sure, this Vietnamese couple made their argument; nonetheless, was someone also trying to appease the Haredim?

"Our Rabbis taught: Concerning a man who loves his wife as himself, who honours her more than himself, who guides his sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married near the period of their puberty, Scripture says, And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace.49  Concerning him who loves his neighbours, who befriends his relatives, marries his sister's50  daughter,"

Incidentally enough, I had no clue that it was that specific. I just knew about the reference. Anyway, don't kid yourself; the Haredim have a very-strong presence in New York City (e.g., Williamsburg, Crown Heights). By the way, the decision reads in part:

There is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages. Indeed, until 1893 marriages between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, of the whole or half blood, were lawful in New York. And sixty years after the prohibition was enacted we affirmed, in May, a judgment recognizing as valid a marriage between a half-uncle and half-niece that was entered into in Rhode Island and permitted by Rhode Island law. It seems from the Appellate Division’s reasoning in May that the result would have been the same even if a full uncle and full niece had been involved. Thus Domestic Relations Law § 5(3) has not been viewed as expressing strong condemnation of uncle-niece and aunt-nephew relationships.

I wonder, too, if that's why some Haredim immigrated to New York. They may not have been literate in haleshonot l'goyim, though they still knew what was going on. Remember that back in Krasne nad Krasnopol, Wojciech and Marianna Krusznyska Danilowicz were smart enough to claim negligence in baptizing Katarzyna—by the way, Jews did use and even adopt shemot hagoyim; though I'm not sure if we'll ever know the real names of "Katarzyna" et. al.. "Marianna" is probably the one real name, though, since that's "Miryam Chanah".

As for their cousin Rochla (and I'm definitely not fooled in light of this, since Aleksandria listed Katarzyna as her in-law mother and nearest relative, even though they were not talking to each other after Julian and Aleksandra became Anusim), she came to New York with enough English literacy (or maybe she talked to a customs official who could speak Yiddish) to get into New York (Her aunt had to pick her up; so, who knows?).

By the way, all of Great-Granddad's families stuck together in Northumberland County, PA, too (Look it up. If you're too, quite honestly, lazy to do it, I'll give you the names and links to searches for "Czarnecki", etc.; "Danilowicz", etc.; "Andrulewicz". etc.; and "Margiewicz", etc.. Otherwise, you're on your own from there. I've proved myself enough—and I don't need that "Both sets of parents?" argument again, since Alexandria gave her parents' name as "Antoni" and "Katarzyna" as well. As far as I know, that neither is my fault nor was the fault of Great-Grandaunt Alice. I didn't even know that Great-Granddad's parents were here—let alone Crypto Jews who escaped the pogroms—until I was close to 20 years old, and she was simply writing what her mother told her to write. So, I wouldn't even be counted in an Israeli Census before then, and she was a bat chayil.

Anyway, back to my point (since I just needed to say all that in case I would get the "That's not enough evidence," "That's coincidence," etc. arguments): since Haredim are (as I must mention, in case one didn't know that Haredim are) very much a constituency in New York City (and, thus, New York State) and knew enough to immigrate to the "treif medina", could they somehow have played into "Nguyen v. Holder" (2014), even if quietly? After all, I perhaps would darned well consider that if I were a Second Circuit Court judge—especially if I wanted to get reappointed, and even someday appointed to the Supreme Court (As is known, elective politics plays even into appointive politics.).

Let's not be fooled: if (and since) Katarzyna's parents could (so to speak) pull strings to be under-the-radar Anusim, and Rochla knew enough to get into New York, the Haredim could and do know enough to (at least if they wanted) play into a gentile case that has implications for Haredi Jewish tradition.

Let me conclude one incidental observation as well: "Antoni" and "Katarzyna" seem to be to Poland as "Juan" and "Maria" are to Mexico.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment: [O]ne firearm...for the protection and defense, and welfare of the self and others"

A citizen or legal resident of the United States shall be required to have and be trained in the use of at least one firearm, which the citizen or legal resident shall have and be trained to use for the protection and defense, and welfare of the self and others.

As if others and I weren't already thinking about this (which we were, and even in promoting the ideas of amendments like this—and even using this kind of language), this case in Oregon made Switzerland's gun-requirement point very well to and for the United States. Besides, that Switzerland eventually mandated guns and got ahead of the Founders of the United States (whose traditions endure) and their successors (who carried on the traditions of the Founders), who made firearm ownership only a right and not a mandate, is sad and pathetic.

Reposted Entries With Disclaimer (Read the Disclaimer First)

Disclaimer

The disclaimer shows that Emily, Facebook, and others are lucky that they're not getting sued. After all, " I wouldn't even be warning [Emily and others] if--even for all the evil that [she and others] have done to me, and I could certainly repay [them] with evil [e.g., suing them]--I didn't care about [them] and your whole cabal at Hillel--for your Kabbalic "Rabbin"ism is as Eastern Mystic ways, thus apostate [The link showing that Non-Tanakh Judaism-- in this case, Reconstructionist Judaism--is Apostate Judaism and is in fact "Jewish atheism" here is new. Emily is a follower of UMBC's apostate "rabbi".]! "

Entry One

Just because I don't respond to or engage with everything doesn't mean that I don't have a view on it. Maybe, e.g., I could just be letting you look stupid after a certain point in a conversation. Don't think that you've won the argument because maybe you haven't. In fact, you might've lost it so badly and I'm trying to save you for embarrassment even, even while I'm letting you look stupid enough.

And one last word to Emily [Entry Two here], by the way: my mistake was giving you a chance to understand my comment. You twisted my comments about Non-Orthodox Jews who care about Shavu'ot into lashon-hara, and I should've reported and/or blocked you right there and then. By the way, I'd take "Katz" out of your name--you are no kohenet-tzedek and do not deserve a name that means "Kohen-Tzedek". You walk in the ways of the Levi'im-rahim, not Tzadok. And you give the priesthood to "rabbis" like Jason--how dare you! If you keep that up, you will be cursed as was Uzziah and Jeroboam--and more so because you are a kohen who gave the priesthood to Non Kohanim. 

Also, you can see that that's G-d's promise, not any kind of threat--though I'm certainly warning you about what "rabbis" like Jason wouldn't dare tell you, since they follow Talmud instead Tanakh. So, if you have any legal case, you have one against G-d, not me--and I dare you to try to tell Him that anyone is threatening you, for you would be like Anathoth and others who told a real kohen-tzedek to stop prophesying! In fact, I wouldn't even be warning you if--even for all the evil that you have done to me, and I could certainly repay you with evil--I didn't care about you and your whole cabal at Hillel--for your Kabbalic "Rabbin"ism is as Eastern Mystic ways, thus apostate! 

I hope that I was clear enough to you and the other revisionists, Anti Messianics, Anti Semites and/or Self Haters, and others about whom I'm thinking. By the way, don't comment on this entry--I will not publish your comments or any comments of those in your circle. As I stated, I should have blocked you last time and will block you this time to save you for embarrassment even--you embarrassed yourself last time by twisting my lashon-tov into lashon-hara. Also, forgiving doesn't mean forgetting. 

Entry Two

"Emily Katz Boling

·                                 Please remove the tweet you posted with a link to our conversation. It has my name on it and I would not like that on Twitter and then you proceed to talk badly about me and my boyfriend (who has done nothing) on there.

Thank you

"

I'm not removing anything. You commented on something that I shared publicly (e.g., on the article itself, and as I would've shared in general on Facebook had I looked at the privacy settings more closely--and "Friends of Friends" is public enough, anyway); you're held to account publicly. After you slandered me when I exemplified UMBC JSU/Hillel as a Non-Orthodox community that cares about Shavu'ot, I owe you no favors.

Besides, I removed Frank as well. I don't keep non-friends' boyfriends as friends. Besides, what does that say about him that he's dating you--someone who would slander someone just because he or she is Messianic? If Frank has a problem with it, he can come to me. You're his girlfriend, not his mother; and he's old and mature enough to talk to me (I can only hope, anyway.).

Let me tell you something else, Emily. What I said and what you said is in replay all over again. Don't lie about me, and you won't be held to account for doing so:

Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki likes a link.

Yesterday

Public Friends Friends except Acquaintances Only Me Custom UMBC Close Friends Family See all lists... Friends of Friends and Ac Home Notre Dame Classmates and People That I Follow On Twitter Family Friends Creative Kids Camp and Greater Greenbelt Relatives? and Relatives Friends and Acquaintances Church and CCA College Friends Chapelgate Christian Academy College of Notre Dame of Maryland UMBC Howard Community College Howard CC Baltimore, Maryland Area University of Maryland, Baltimore County Acquaintances Go Back

As a Messianic Jew, I find two of the comments really problematic:

1) "The event it commemorates—God giving the Torah to the Jews at Mount Sinai—is arguably the most pivotal in the narrative of the Jewish people. But from the treatment it receives next to its more popular siblings—at least within non-Orthodox American communities—you wouldn’t know it." I care about Shavu'ot, and even admire what people like UtahSoccerMom do. Also, the Kosher Korner at UMBC (which is Non Messianic and has mainly Non-Messianic patrons, mostly those who go to the JSU/Hillel events headed up by a Reconstructionist) is closed beyond the Shavu'ot holiday (May 13-May 19, although Karaites and Messianics like me celebrate Shavu'ot on only the 19th).

2) "Hanukkah is so visible that conservative talk radio hosts think it threatens Christmas." I have never heard talk-radio hosts say that. They're more worried about the Atheists and Agnostics who threaten the legality of Christmas and Hanukkah celebrations within the United States.

www.tabletmag.com

When it comes to theological significance, the late-spring festival of Shavuot is no slouch: The event it commemorates—God giving the Torah to the Jews at Mount...See More

Like ·  · Promote · Share

·                                

Emily Katz Boling Nicole, I am particularly offended by your comment that you make about UMBC Hillel and JSU and speaking about the Rabbi as if being reconstructionist is negative. Since you partake in Shabbat and other activities led by JSU and Hillel it would behoove you not to speak poorly about those who have welcomed you to our events and activities. The Kosher Korner is closed during Shavuot because the man who works there as well as the restaurants that provide the food for the Kosher Korner observe all of Shavuot and therefore cannot work on those days and having someone else do so would make the place unkosher since it is being operated on days that are Yom Tov. And since those are the majority of people who eat in the Kosher Korner, not messianics or karaites, then they close it. You are treading on very thin ice with some of the stuff you say. Hillel may have a reconstructionist rabbi but we have many students who are from all different sects of Judaism. JSU on the other hand is a student run organization, also comprised of many different sects of Judaism. Just remember Nicole, you too benefit from these events and it is not a nice trait to speak poorly of those who have welcomed you to Shabbat and other activities.

Yesterday at 10:02pm · Like

·                          

Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Firstly, I was saying that I found her comment highly problematic. I even said straightly out, "Also, the Kosher Korner at UMBC (which is Non Messianic and has mainly Non-Messianic patrons, mostly those who go to the JSU/Hillel events headed up by a Reconstructionist) is closed beyond the Shavu'ot holiday (May 13-May 19, although Karaites and Messianics like me celebrate Shavu'ot on only the 19th). " I do not see what is neigative about saying that the JSU and Hillel care. Perhaps reading my comments in context would help. Secondly, while we're on the subject and since you brought it up, I am not the only one who has had issues with Jason (I will, out of respect for his or her, not say who. If he or she would like to mention who he or she even is, he or she may do so.). Having a clergyman or clergywoman who is intolerant of those who are not Talmudic is a real issue. After all, UMBC is supposed to be diverse and welcoming. Thirdly, I disclosed that I was Messianic only because I never wanted to be accused of being an infiltrator and proselytizer. I see that my honesty upfront was a problem, and that there are certain people with whom I cannot be honest lest I be slandered.

17 hours ago · Like

·                          

Emily Katz Boling No because I knew exactly what you were insinuating by specifically mentioning Hillel and JSU and I also gave you and explanation of why it wasn't open. ANd ok so you'll spare saying the persons name out of embarrassment but you'll say the rabbi's name...See More

14 hours ago via mobile · Like

·                          

Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki You took the comment right out of context again. She said that Non-Orthodox Jews don't care about Shavu'ot, and I was giving examples to counter her statement. So, you again slandered me. So much for holding about UMBC JSU and Hillel as good examples--at least to people like you--which was my mistake.

And to message me on my public-figure Facebook page when I blocked you. How dare you! I want nothing to do with you, and I made that I want nothing to do with you quite clear. Besides, people like you are part of why UMBC JSU/Hillel involvement and Jewish communal life in general at UMBC is declinining. People who try to walk in Tanakh can and should not stand those who deliberately have walked off of the derech-Yehovah v'Tanakh, and persecute those who do walk b'haderech-Yehovah v'Tanakh. People are quickly figuring out that people like you, like Jason, and like others are those kinds of people who do all kinds of chullil-Yehovah b'HaShem-Yehovah--thus breaking the third of the Aseret HaD'varim in particular.

You clearly didn't learn from when Becca persecuted me. You'll learn this time: I am not a doormat; I am not one about who you may speak lashon-hara, and I am one who is not coming back to UMBC JSU/Hillel or even the Kosher Korner--after all, I'd hate to run into you there.

My mistake for ever speaking any lashon-tov about UMBC JSU/Hillel or even the Kosher Korner--after all, you and your ilk do nothing but twist what I say into lashon-hara, every bit for which you deserve to be called out. I also guarantee that if you keep treating me and others as you have treated me and them (and I rightly group you in with certain people), you will drive people all the more away from the UMBC JSU/Hillel and Kosher Korner to the point at which there'll no longer be an UMBC JSU/Hillel and Kosher Korner. After all, people won't want to try to derive benefit from them if all they'll get is Hell for doing so.

Reposted Entries With Disclaimer; And Not Hate Speech Or Anything Else But Standing Up To a Bully

Besides, as I said, Emily contacted me on my public page and commented regarding my public tweets. Her name will be known; to respond to her using Tanakh is not hate speech, and she will not hurt me and (as I'm sure that she has) others and get away with it--especially since she has a name which means "kohan tzedek", and I guarantee you that she is ironically not. She will not violate my First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to stand up  to her; and she clearly needs lessons in both Tanakh and the Constitution, so I'm going to repost the entries with the original links to Tanakh pirkei and the constitutional amendments (and the relevant articles of the Fourteetnth Amendment) with my emphasis:

• "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; orabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."I dealt with her on the original post itself several times, and she and whoever is supporting her didn't like that. Guess what; you're part of the government of UMBC JSU and Hillel, whether de facto or de jure, and you will get called out if you bully someone by perverting his or her lashon tov about UMBC JSU/Hillel into lashon hara. UMBC JSU/Hillel is an organization at UMBC, a public/government school; and it has the Fourteenth Amendment, which encompasses the Bill of Rights, apply to it. The Fourteenth Amendment thus applies to the government/public-school organization government that UMBC/JSU Hillel has.
• "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." She may not quash my First Amendment Rights of criticizing her in light of her perversion of my lashon tov and in a religious context as hate speech or personal attacks on her or our shared ethnicity. As I said and demonstarted (including with a link to Ezekiel 48), she is a so-called "Katz" who is of "the Levites [who] went astray " and did not do tzedek when she twisted my lashon tov into lashon hara. As a Jew (and one who is a Levite) myself, anyway, I have the right and even a mitzvah to correct another Jew (let alone another Levite) if he or she (in this case, she) has gone astray (even if, and though, she ranks above me). 
• "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Again, UMBC JSU/Hillel is an organization at UMBC, a public/government school; and it has the Fourteenth Amendment, which encompasses the Bill of Rights, apply to it. The Fourteenth Amendment thus applies to the government/public-school organization government that UMBC/JSU Hillel has.

I, thus, have a legal case against both Emily and anyone else who reported the original entries as hate speech, and against Facebook for taking it as hate speech under the Constitution and various case-law laws. For example, "freedom of speech does not protect “free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.” U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S.644, 49 S. Ct. 448, 73 L. Ed. 889 (1929)." Also, "the Supreme Court has identified several kinds of expression that the government may regulate to varying degrees without running afoul of the Constitution, including...stu-dent speech.... The degree to which the government may regulate a particular kind of expression depends on the nature of the speech, the context in which the speech is made, and its likely impact upon any listeners." Tinker clearly reads, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." 

So, Emily, anyone who joined her in falsely reporting my response to her as hate speech, and Facebook could all be easily sued; especially since she first bullied me, then reported my response on my own blog which is protected under the Constitution and various case laws as hate speech. However, Messianic Jews are not to sue anybody; so I will (luckily for Emily) treated her as she deserves and sue her, let alone anyone who joined her or Facebook.

I will, nonetheless, repost the entries--and that is that.