Commentary: A Prophecy and Exhortation(? If So, Blessed Be Yehovah)

Keep in mind that this was all originally a thread, by the way. Please read every tweet if possible. Also, do not let this be to me. Let the glory be to Yehovah.

(PS I call the New Testament both the B'rit Chadashah and Yigdal, thus why this blog entry is tagged as such.).

"And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes... https://t.co/04Lj50k7li

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) January 3, 2020

Commentary: I Almost Died This Weekend (Don't Let Anyone Convince You Otherwise!); So...

Three lessons:

1. As a family friend pointed out, I need to gradually withdraw from caffeine days before the surgery next time.
2. "I will not die; but I will live to tell what Yehovah has done": Interpretation Two happened. i.e., I had severe complications, though I did indeed live. (The other three interpretations: live without complications; die physically and at least be in Heaven, and live at the Resurrection; and die physically and at least be in Heaven, and live at the Resurrection as well as perhaps so-to-speak live through whatever writings of mine, etc. others discover after I die.).
3. There are people whom will take the low-enough action of unfollowing a person on Twitter just because he or she hasn't tweeted in a day, even despite that he or she made clear that he or she was having a surgery! Of course, I have to wonder how those people treat their loved ones and others will illnesses both online and offline!

Meanwhile, here's the long story short regarding how I almost died (and relearned to never assume that any surgery, including a Baclofen Pump-replacement surgery, will be successful without complications as well as to never take life for granted):

After coming out of anesthesia successfully, I gradually had an onset of severe caffeine withdrawal. The withdrawal, from what I understand and experienced myself, totaled 10 hours (I thought that it was way less before I was told otherwise! Anyway, I had 10 hours) of life-threatening headaches, vomiting (including throwing up coffee), and near-fainting dizziness due to a caffeine headache that was resolved by a caffeine IV (and then I held down coffee!) and caffeine pills (Irony!). 

I was held back for almost two days, having not come home (away from home) until Sunday (and I was scheduled to come home on Saturday morning, and was anticipated to come home perhaps even on Friday afternoon!). As for the present, at least I'm home (away from home [L'shanah haba'ah b'Yerushalayim, 'im yirtzeh Yehovah!]) and recovering step by step.

I'm also learning and relearning to never take life or uncomplicated success in surgery or recovery for granted, and I'm advising others to learn and relearn from someone whom almost died (namely, me) to never take life or uncomplicated success in surgery or recovery for granted!

Commentary: "Who Wants To Live Forever", "Senseless Violence", Names, and a Nightclub in Re 9/11

So was about to go a reply to the following comment on a music video for a Queen song:

BreatheFree1 month agoThank you for listing the names. As Bono has said, no family member wants to think they've buried a statistic. Each was a person with a name and family and a life that mattered. Each was a unique person whom a domestic terrorist treated like one in a crowd. We know differently. RIP all who are victims of such violence.

3REPLY

​ BreatheFree , I know what you mean. On September 11, 1897, a massacre against miners happened in Luzerne County, PA, as I found out today via Wikipedia (since I try to look up events for every day in history). The miners were all apparently Slavic and other gentiles. Looking at those names and the location, though, I knew that an apparently-Slavic (or any other apparently-gentile) Jew could be among them (even if any of his blood was gentile).There was such a one on September 11, 1922, indeed 50 years later. In a mine accident, an apparently-passed-for-gentile Jewish miner named Julian Charnetski (Julian Czarniecki), 46, died (His death certificate read 1879, though.). Before, I'd've looked at the list from 50 years before and not thought much. I'd also not thought of 9/11 as affecting this Jew (namely, myself) as much as it does, even though it did affect me and although I didn't lose any close relativesCANCELREPLY

Then I stopped. I would've continued until I thought that this needs to be shared with others as a reminder that indeed "no family member wants to think they've buried a statistic", and that anyone can be affected. Continuing, then:

....as far as I know. 9/11 affected me, but I didn't know that part of it was a neshamah Yehudit (a Jewish soul) in me responding. Page 251 of the 9/11 Commission Report states that the main target of 9/11 was "Jews, and not necessarily the United States". Then after doing family research, I figured out part of why, and moreso as I subsequently researched: some suspicions that I had were confirmed. Great-Granddad "Charnet-ski" was indeed a Jew; and that, that did indeed explain why my father would pronounce "Czarnecki" as "Charnetski" seemingly randomly enough, although it was really hint dropping. Of course, now that I figured out the heritage and what happened, he denies a lot of it, though I understand it: it can be painful when you're a third- and fourth-generation pogrom survivor (as he is, and his grandfather Anthony Czarnecki's parents survived by becoming b'nei ba'alei teshuvah [children of returnees to Judaism] that returned to Catholicism [as their parents were Anusim and B'nei Anusim whom became ba'alei teshuvah) and your kid figures out what happened after you told her a whole other story (especially when your whole life is based partly on telling lies to keep secrets and for other reasons, with the main reason for that being the big family secret about your heritage). By the way, the age given on the death certificate as well as the name was a lie: he was in fact born Julian Czerniecki (perhaps Julian Zernetzky) on December 24, 1875; and he often gave conflicting information in life to hide his identity.

There it is. The very violence that affected everyone on 9/11 included its effects on this unbeknownst-to-herself Jew on 9/11. The death certificate that she saw on July 25, 2008 confirmed that she was a Jew alone through Anthony, one of whose grandparents was "Katarzyna Danilowicz" (which was omitted from his uncle's death certificate, as "Danilowicz" apparently was a clear giveaway as to one's heritage at that time), and that put what happened almost seven years before she found it out and 79 years after it happened in a whole new light for her. She can then say, "Never think that it may not affected you if you can't be sure that it didn't," and that now she looks at that list on Wikipedia and wonders if those "Slavic" and other miners had any among them whom were like Julian, perhaps even relatives of his, and had or would have descendants whom were a general target for the 9/11 terrorists, whom did not like "Jews and Crusaders".

Now for the whole commentary outside of what would have been the comment:

One commenter posted the following in reply to another on Queen + Adam Lambert's music video for "Who Wants To Live Forever", which they dedicated to the Pulse Nightclub Shooting victims and other victims of "senseless violence" throughout history:

"Thank you for listing the names. As Bono has said, no family member wants to think they've buried a statistic. Each was a person with a name and family and a life that mattered. Each was a unique person whom a domestic terrorist treated like one in a crowd. We know differently. RIP all who are victims of such violence."

I know what he means. On September 11, 1897, a massacre against miners happened in Luzerne County, PA, as I found out today via Wikipedia (since I try to look up events for every day in history). The miners were all apparently Slavic and other gentiles. Looking at those names and the location, though, I knew that an apparently-Slavic (or any other apparently-gentile) Jew could be among them (even if any of his blood was gentile).  

There was such a one on September 11, 1922, indeed 50 years later. In a mine accident, an apparently-passed-for-gentile Jewish miner named Julian Charnetski (Julian Czarniecki), 46, died (His death certificate read 1879, though.). Before, I'd've looked at the list from 50 years before and not thought much. I'd also not thought of 9/11 as affecting this Jew (namely, myself) as much as it does, even though it did affect me and although I didn't lose any close relativesas far as I know. 9/11 affected me, but I didn't know that part of it was a neshamah Yehudit (a Jewish soul) in me responding. Page 251 of the 9/11 Commission Report states that the main target of 9/11 was "Jews, and not necessarily the United States". Then after doing family research, I figured out part of why, and moreso as I subsequently researched: some suspicions that I had were confirmed. Great-Granddad "Charnet-ski" was indeed a Jew; and that, that did indeed explain why my father would pronounce "Czarnecki" as "Charnetski" seemingly randomly enough, although it was really hint dropping. 

Of course, now that I figured out the heritage and what happened, he denies a lot of it, though I understand it: it can be painful when you're a third- and fourth-generation pogrom survivor (as he is, and his grandfather Anthony Czarnecki's parents survived by becoming b'nei ba'alei teshuvah  that returned to Catholicism [as their parents were Anusim and b'nei Anusim whom became ba'alei teshuvah]) and your kid figures out what happened after you told her a whole other story (especially when your whole life is based partly on telling lies to keep secrets and for other reasons, with the main reason for that being the big family secret about your heritage). By the way, the age given on the death certificate as well as the name was a lie: he was in fact born Julian Czerniecki (perhaps Julian Zernetzky) on December 24, 1875; and he often gave conflicting information in life to hide his identity.

There it is. The very violence that affected everyone on 9/11 included its effects on this unbeknownst-to-herself Jew on 9/11. The death certificate that she saw on July 25, 2008 confirmed that she was a Jew alone through Anthony, one of whose grandparents was "Katarzyna Daniłowicz" (which was omitted from his uncle's death certificate, as "Daniłowicz" apparently was a clear giveaway as to one's heritage at that time), and that put what happened almost seven years before she found it out and 79 years after it happened in a whole new light for her. She can then say, "Never think that it may not have affected you if you can't be sure that it didn't," and that now she looks at that list on Wikipedia and wonders if those "Slavic" and other miners had any among them whom were like Julian, perhaps even relatives of his, and had or would have descendants whom were a general target for the 9/11 terrorists, whom did not like "Jews and Crusaders". She's now even thinking of looking up their death certificates to find out—i.e., were they relatives; and were they thus indirect targets of the terrorists? Besides, they have the right to be counted as such for the record if they were, as they were victims of direct Anti Semitism in Polish Russia and elsewhere (including the U.S.) as well as indirect victims of 9/11 (and I'll add those corrections on their death-certificate indexes to note that).

Originally on LinkedIn: Commentary: Would Limiting Special Counselor Mueller's Testimony To Only A Few Hours Do Any Good?

The short answer is "Yes." The long answer is the following:

Since Speaker Pelosi summarized Special Counselor Mueller's report in roughly 75 times less pages, Special Counselor Mueller can give what would be a days- or even weeks-long testimony in a few hours. For his part, all that he needs to do is the following:

1. Commence and conclude well.
2. Concisely drive home especially the key points.
3. Be consistent.
4. Be clear.
5. Connect especially the key points to keep the testimony flowing steadily and smoothly.
6. Stand by his convictions.
7. Try to convince Congress of the veracity of his testimony.

In conclusion, then, Special Counselor Mueller needs to deliver his testimony in the same manner as Speaker Pelosi summarized his report: with what I call the Eight-C Method. In other words, he will testify will if he commences and concludes a concise, consistent, clear, and conviction-driven testimony with well-connected key points and the effect of convincing Congress to remove the barriers that prevent him from indicting an illegitimate POTUS.

After all, he needs to remind Congress that they should not give said illegitimate POTUS undue legitimacy by impeaching him, and they should not even hold him unaccountable for using Putin to help him be illegally elected. Besides, impeaching him would essentially be the same as not holding him accountable.

PS Not originally on LinkedIn: an alternative "c" for "connect[ed]" could be "cohesive[ness]", and "conscious" could be added as a ninth "c".

PPS "Conscious" was actually added as a ninth "c" on LinkedIn. What I catch once I look over what I write! 

Open Letter To Anyone Whom Has Been Associated With Jeffrey Epstein, Especially His Accomplices

I urge you to please come forward for, if nobody else, the sakes of your and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, with the youngest being at least only 14 years old—and for all that I and the rest of the general public knows, maybe even younger. If you are one of the accomplices in question, you know whether any of your and Mr. Epstein's victims were even younger than 14 years old. My own suspicion is that some of them were younger than 14 at that time that you and Mr. Epstein victimized them, and some may even still be younger than 14—and again, you and he know; I don't, since I wasn't there.

Besides, I myself wasn't even close to 14 years old when one of the accomplices, a certain now-former POTUS named Bill Clinton by name, was elected POTUS—I was still a seventh of that age until three days after his inauguration—and so I couldn't have been there back then, anyway (and I thank God that I never was later). That said, I (literally) was not born yesterday and well know that Former POTUS Bill "Knows Nothing" (aka, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...") Clinton is one of the obvious accomplices whom was there and does know (not to mention that everyone can see right through his "knows nothing" statement just as everyone saw through his "...with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" statement)—and I guarantee you that maybe even Former POTUS Clinton's associations with Jeffrey Epstein could end up going that far back.

Speaking of obvious accomplices, others are a certain illegitimate POTUS and Alan Dershowitz (and he was OJ Simpson's lawyer and is now defending a certain illegitimate POTUS; so, should we be surprised?). As for the ones that aren't so obvious, meanwhile, my thoughts about them are very similar to those of Christine Pelosi—and my heart breaks to think about who some of them could be¹.

Especially if any of the accomplices of Jeffrey Epstein are self-professed advocates for children and/or victims of abuse, particularly child victims of sexual abuse, and/or they have children of their own, I really urge them to come forward for at least the sakes of their own children if they can't come forward for the sakes of those whom they helped Jeffrey Epstein victimize—after all and frankly, how can they be trusted around their own children when they've victimized others' children; and how can they even look their own children in the eyes after what they've done?

In conclusion, then, I urge Former POTUS Clinton and the other two aforementioned obvious accomplices of Jeffrey Epstein as well as the other obvious ones to just come forward already, and the not-so-obvious accomplices to come forward particularly if they have children of their own and/or are self-proclaimed victims' advocates and are victimizers whom should probably not even be around their own children, let alone be unashamed to look their children in the eyes.

¹ It's like when I was heartbroken en re the Bill O'Reilly scandal—and remember that I even named my blog "The Nicole Factor" not knowing that an inspiration for my wanting to be a commentator and an analyst was in fact the very hypocrite about whom those like Andrea Mackris warned for a reason—and truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if Bill O'Reilly or someone associated with him is or, like even the late Roger Ailes, was an accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein.

Commentary: Why I Don't Intend To Watch the Democratic Debates

1. 25 candidates for POTUS in the same party at one time is called one thing: overcrowding the boat, which will eventually sink it. To rock the boat and run for POTUS is one matter. To, (whether deliberately or inadvertently) overcrowd the boat especially on rough-enough seas, let alone when you have the same basic ideas as everyone else on the boat, is another.
2. Some of them really aren't running for POTUS, anyway. To those not really running for POTUS, with all due respect and seriously, please get off of the boat and vie for what you really want in some other way—you can get power, 15 minutes of fame, a chance to be the running mate of the ultimate nominee, another idea for a way to continue to speak out against Trump, or whatever else in another way.
3. While I can bipartisanly work with those whom are at least being honest in remaining on Trump's real ship in continuing to speak out and support Special Counselor Mueller, I—as I covered on a Twitter thread—am a Republican for a reason—and, for example, to have "Medicare for All" and exclude everyone but "people of color, women, and immigrants" (as Ben Jealous implied that he wanted to do) in the name of progressivism isn't it (and people like him are increasingly becoming representative of the Democratic Party, as they claim to want to include all groups while they even go as far as to embrace radical movements such as "Black Lives Matter", radical feminism with free-for-all abortions, and even the Abolish ICE movement in quite a few cases—and which, might I add, is no better than turning ICE into a Neo Gestapo, as abolishing ICE altogether instead of reforming it would also hurt asylum seekers and other legal immigrants as well as DREAmers). Besides, I've seen how RINO Trump is still the far-left Democrat that he ever was—and the Neo-Tammany Hall type at that—and is trying to destroy the GOP—I'm not, so to speak, going to jump the ship on which I currently sail and jump onto the ship of the person whom's trying to destroy the ship on which I'm riding. 
4. I'm waiting to see who the Republican nominee is, and I'm certainly doing another write-in vote if Trump ends up being the nominee after all—and especially if after Special Counselor Mueller testifies and Congress decides to not to allow him to indict Trump, I'm doing a write-in vote. I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary last time, and I'm not voting for RINO Trump or an open Democrat this time—and I skipped some ballot questions last time because I wasn't sure whether the Republican in question was a Trumpite RINO or an actual Republican.

In conclusion, then, for me as a Republican to watch an overcrowded boat be at risk for sinking, anyway, while some of the 25 different people on the boat go for spotlight grabs would be a waste of my time, and especially because the boat is Trump's real boat, anyway.

¹PS ICE is absolutely being turned into a Neo Gestapo when it's depriving children and vulnerable adults as well as every other immigrant at detention centers of basic hygiene items, dignity, and other human rights, not to mention because a xenophobic illegitimate POTUS is currently in charge of ICE. Besides, as I've said, the immigrants are the figurative guinea pigs for Trump's real goal—to target especially Jews (myself included) and build a wall to keep us in more than keep others out—and his roundups are also practices for his real aspirations.

So in re detention centers being turned into modern-day concentration camps, AOC is right—and I as a Jew surely am not jumping onto a ship whose Alt Right (Modern Far Left in re nationalist socialism) wants to murder me on one hand, and whose Far Left on the other hand wants a "two-state solution" (basically, for the State of Israel to be destroyed—as if Anti-Zionist and Haredi-posing-as-chiloni Netanyahu and the Agudat Yisra'el-Shas-Likud-UTJ-Yisra'el Beitenu coalition aren't doing that enough, and even trying more to do so than the "Palestinians" are).

Commentary: Assuming That DePaul's Like Notre Dame Of Maryland, They Will Support The Anti Semites

Assuming that DePaul is very-traditionally Catholic, it will support the Anti-Semitic students and persecute Dr. Hill. I as a student learned this the hard way when I went to Notre Dame of Maryland University (still then the College of Notre Dame of Maryland) for a time, and I left it for good reason when I did (and why Yehovah, ב״ה, allowed it to become a university is what only He knows, and it became a university within a year after I left. I suspect, though, that NDMU will be another case of the arrogant being exalted by Yehovah only to be humbled by Him.).

In my case, I was a student whom was persecuted by an Anti-Semitic professor and the administration (and I will name names, too: I have no problem speaking up about whom persecuted me). I was even set up by the campus religious director, Melissa Lees, after I confronted the religious studies professor, Dr. Weiss, on his Anti-Semitic remarks—literally, she promised to defend me in a meeting with the administration only to have sided with them in the first place, as became clear when I got into the meeting room. I'm not kidding when I say that Dr. Weiss' remarks were Anti-Semitic, either, and four that still stick out are the lies that: 

1. We stole Passover from the Syrians
2. The Exodus didn't happen and that it was "an ancient peasant rebellion" as opposed to an actual exodus from slavery
3. "It's possible" that "the prophets [were] inspired by the Devil" (a student actually asked if the prophets could've been, and the professor actually answered, "It's possible").
4. Matthew knew that Jesus was born in Nazareth and wrote that he was born in Bethlehem to advance his narrative, anyway

In other words, Dr. Weiss, Melissa Lees, et. al. perpetuated and encouraged these three among other Anti-Semitic canards that are rife within traditional Catholic institutions:

1. That we're thieves
2. That we're liars and perpetual victim-card players
3. That we're demonic and do demonic things in the name of God 24/7 

Meanwhile, someone in a Facebook group asked the following question (which can be publicly seen), and this is why I even wrote all of this in the first place: 

"Funny they are being ugly and racist re Jews but that is okay and doesn't seem to threaten any of them. Do they not have any Jewish students? I would find their attitude threatening and racist. Why is that allowed!" 

As I replied to his or her question, "[m]y guess is that any Jewish students who are part of their student body either are self hating or are being persecuted like the professor is"; and "any Jewish students that have spoken up against Anti Semitism at DePaul, then, have probably been in the same position that I was in when I went where I went."

I didn't name Notre Dame or Dr. Weiss or Melissa Lees in the group, as I didn't want to try to make the thread in re Dr. Hill and DePaul about me. At the same time, I almost left this commentary as a comment in response into comments such that "the school needs to support the professor". So, I decided to turn what was going to be a clearly-too-long comment into this warning—essentially, that
one has to either understand or learn the hard way that Catholic Anti Semitism like that at DePaul is as Catholic Anti Semitism that Dr. Weiss, Melissa Lees, et. al. taught at NDMU, is as Catholic Anti Semitism anywhere and everywhere else:

1. It is sadly not a "paradox", despite one commenter's giving of the benefit of the doubt: it is run-of-the-mill Pseudo-Christian Anti Semitism that Non-Evangelical (Non-Christian) Catholics still perpetuate. 
2. It is the kind of Pseudo Christianity that caused my father's family to hide and deny our heritage, and I learned the hard way that Non-Evangelical Catholicism is indeed a cult. 
3. It is what Martin Luther harbored: when he said that he never wanted to leave the Catholic Church, he meant that he never wanted to leave it; and he harbored its Pseudo-Christian Anti Semitism until his dying day (Besides, Luther was an opportunist and wanted to steal the work of the real reformers—Hus and Wycliffe—to make himself look like a real reformer—and were he a real reformer, he would've been a martyr like Hus was and even like Wycliffe was, as the persecution that Wycliffe endured fatally wore down his health.)

Originally On LinkedIn With Some Edits Here: No Shoes...That's a Problem, With Or Without Feet

"I have no shoes, and I'd complain about that. Then I saw a man with no feet."

That apparently-wise piece of advice angers me to no end. As I posted when I saw that proverb surface again, it was in the form of a comment on a Facebook picture that illustrated an equally-unwise piece of advice: basically, shut up and don't complain about what you don't have, especially since quite a few have less than you. I therefore finally voiced my take on Facebook, since I as a person with mental illnesses and other conditions have had enough of the "no shoes" proverb:

This is beyond short sighted, and here's what I stated about it on my personal Facebook timeline:"As a person with disabilities, I can tell you that there are 😲 invisible disabilities, including MS, Lupus, and 😨 mental illnesses. Also, some people with visible physical disabilities can 😱walk to some extent 🤯 (I know; right? 🙄)

"PS The man who has no shoes...may end up with no feet because he doesn't have shoes."Also, the man may have no shoes because he may, for all that anyone knows, just may have Schizophrenia that is severe enough to the point at which he cannot work to have money for buying shoes; and somewhere along the line, he became convinced that his Schizophrenia and thus inability to work is not as debilitating as, for example, losing feet due to a childhood disease or being born without feet. Someone might have told him:

"'Be thankful for what you have. Perspective is everything. You can walk. Just walk to a homeless shelter for God's sake and let them help you...'"

"This despite that a homeless shelter once told him, 'We don't accept Schizophrenics like you.'

"By the way, he can't afford medication that will help him manage his Schizophrenia and be able to hold a job.

"PS Using people with visible physical disabilities to diminish people with invisible disabilities, and vice versa, is ableist: we are not pawns for able-bodied and non-illness-afflicted people to try to get their foolish arguments across.

~The page creator and moderator"

Also by the way, why (for instance) do you think that the Nazis forced their victims to either give up their shoes or wear ones that hurt their feet? To teach them a proverb? Or perhaps cause them to (for example) have infected feet that would cause them to have sepsis and/or gangrene. 

Think before you consider a piece of advice to be wise, let alone timelessly wise just because it's been given for millennia in some or another form. While you think, remember those whom apparently-wise-although-foolish advice especially affected: remember those such as Holocaust victims whom lost their feet and could never walk again (let alone have livelihoods and start new lives) even if they did survive, and non-surviving Holocaust victims (z"l) whom died due to infected feet that became infected when their either wore shoes that caused their feet to blister or didn't have shoes at all. Also remember those with invisible illnesses whom were murdered in the T4 Program (such as my distant cousin Magdalena Rusznak, z"l, whom was murdered because she had Schizophrenia, although she was also Anti-Semitically murdered) and those with invisible illnesses such as PTSD that caused them to have agoraphobia wherever they could find to live (and thus had no chances to have livelihoods and start new lives).

Is Fox News Getting The Courage To Confront ***** And Take Back Control Of Itself?

My response to the following tweet would have been an RT and a thread that followed it, though I figured it would fit better as a commentary than a Twitter thread.

Fox News actually did? Now, if only Lachlan Murdoch would finally get the ko'ach to tell Trump, "You don't run Fox News. The news is the news, not your propaganda medium. Fox News reports the news; and by the way, as even you acknowledge isn't 'fake news', "You're under investigation by Special Counselor Mueller. I have asked, then, that every reporter (including every anchor), commentator, and analyst at Fox and every other News Corp journalism organization cooperate with Special Counselor Mueller's probe; and "I will be testifying in the probe and requesting that those such as Sean Hannity be brought forth as witnesses to testify."

So, to summarize today's ad action: @CNN, @NBC, @FoxNews and @Facebook have all rejected an ad by the *President of the United States* because they consider it racist. Amazing.

— Paul Farhi (@farhip) November 5, 2018

PS Didn't I tell you that many at Fox News are afraid of ***** and the *****ites there? If you didn't believe me (and, I'm sure, others whom had noted that), you should believe Gabriel Sherman (and I was asking that "Didn't I tell you?" question as I was reading his recent article.

(I will say, though, that I was surprised that even Roger Ailes of all people was a #NeverTrump type, and he was cut from the same cloth as ***** in many respects

(PPS I wish that I could censor *****'s name in the "Never *****" hashtag.).

Commentary (Originally a Series Of Tweets): Yeah; ***** Is That Evil.

So, ***** called John Bolton & Steve Doocy other names at least twice recently. Is that another sign that he might actually have dementia, then? It is tempting to think that ***** has dementia, but:

1. An ancestor having it doesn't necessarily mean that he'll have it. 
2. Calling John Bolton & Steve Doocy what he called them was a deliberate attempt to degrade them & those by whose names he called them (and notice that he also used "Mike" and "Pete", instead of "Michael" and "Peter", which is very patronizing and disrespectful on his part).

It is tempting to think that Trump has Dementia, but: 1) An ancestor having it doesn't necessarily mean that he'll have it. 2) Calling John Bolton & Steve Doocy what he called them was a deliberate attempt to degrade them & those by whose names he called them. Think about it... https://t.co/F8FyFLvfWn

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) October 24, 2018

Think about it...

1) People often wonder if John Bolton is Jewish, and Michael Bolton has Russian-Jewish roots.
2) "Fox & Friends" recently had a guest whom condemned Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's flippant & Anti-Semitic comments in strong terms, and (frankly) nepotism did help Peter Doocy.

So, **** is again making "Toe the line" threats & Anti-Semitic digs. Translation of each:

1. This one is self-explanatory, as John Bolton has condemned Russia & (among others) Iran in the past (and remember that Russia and Iran are allies).
2. "He's just like his son, anyway, and only got there because of connections." 

The Anti-Semitism-wrapped threats may also be digs at Former SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, with him trying to again disguise intentional verbal abuse as dementia, which Forner Justice Day O'Connor just disclosed that she has; and he thus trying to undermine the seriousness of what people like her suffer. The comments in reply to the tweet that affected my threat of tweets, @maggieNYT's tweet re his misattribution of names, prove my point (and others' point) for me, even if he isn't targeting Fmr. Justice Day O'Connor in particular (and if you read about gaslighting and other forms of non-physical abuse, you will read that abusers try to disguise abuse as symptoms and signs of neurological, intellectual, and other mental disorders). Those who really suffer dementia are thus being exactly as he wanted them to be: degraded by the commenters (among others) whom are making light of it and/or being thrown off by him (and don't think that other people aren't doing that).

In conclusion, therefore (and forgive the unprofessional terminology), **** self redemonstrated that he is an Anti-Semitic, ableist, and otherwise-cruel SOB (and "B" does not "b***h", might I add).

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.

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.

PS Many voters and many to-be voters whom have read all of this probably have an increased desire that the October Surprise is that Special Counselor Mueller indicts *****—I know that I do after just reading about the continuing hypocrisy of ***** and his supporters. 

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.)

Commentary: Why Does Yehovah Give Us Yom Teru'ah In the Middle Of the Year, and Rosh HaShanah In the Spring?

1. "1 And Yehovah spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: 2 'This month shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you." (From Exodus 12, JPS 1917)
2. "3 And Moses said unto the people: 'Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand Yehovah brought you out from this place; there shall no leavened bread be eaten. 4 This day ye go forth in the month Aviv." (From Exodus 13)
3. "And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have a holy convocation: ye shall do no manner of servile work; it is a day of blowing the horn unto you." (Numbers 29:1. This might look familiar 🙂.)
4. "And on the tenth day of this seventh month ye shall have a holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls; ye shall do no manner of work;" (Number 29:7)
5. "Then shalt thou make proclamation with the blast of the horn on the tenth day of the seventh month; in the day of atonement shall ye make proclamation with the horn throughout all your land. 10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. 11 A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you; ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of the undressed vines." (From Leviticus 25)
6. "The spirit of Adonai Yehovah is upon me; because Yehovah hath anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the year of Yehovah's good pleasure, and the day of vengeance of Eloheinu; to comfort all that mourn; 3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them a garland for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the mantle of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called terebinths of righteousness, the planting of Yehovah, wherein He might glory." (From Isaiah 61)
7. "And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the wayfaring man in the broad place of the city; and the old man said: 'Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?'" (Judges 19:17)

Ken...anachu tovim? Anachu tovim achshi'av?

Ken. Anachu tovim. Anachu tovim achishi'av.   

So, why the long drash of verses here? Well, to answer the question as to why Yehovah give us Yom Teru'ah in the middle of the year, and Rosh HaShanah in the spring:

1. If for nothing else, Yom Teru'ah marks the middle of the year to both prepare us for the next year—especially if the year is the Shanah HaYovel—and have us thank Yehovah that we've survived the year so far—see especially Passages 3-6.
2. Yom Teru'ah and Yom Kippur help us reflect on the year so far, where we're going and where we've been in terms of walking with Yehovah, and what we can do differently with the rest of the year and with the coming year—see especially Passages 2, 6, and 7. Also note how Yom Teru'ah parallels with Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur with the picking out of the Pesach lamb (See Exodus 12:3-17), and Pesach with Sukkot (ibid.).
3. In light of Yom Teru'ah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot being times of reflection (since—remember—we should, if we can, dwell in sukkot during Sukkot to remember that we were strangers in Egypt—not to mention gerim v'toshavim like Avraham, Yitzchak, v'Ya'akov Avoteinu. Thus, no day of the year is unto our ourselves—every day is to Yehovah and thus for what we might do to both glorify Yehovah and to help others (and glorify Yehovah in doing so). See especially Passages 3-6.

There are other reasons as well. Meanwhile, these are the three main reasons: preparing for the rest of the year and the coming of the next year, stopping to take stock of where we're going and where we've been, and renewing our commitment to Yehovah and to helping others commit and recommit to Yehovah. 

PS:

1. I wasn't afraid to change the euphemisms "The LORD", etc. to "Yehovah", nor "Abib" to the more-correct "Aviv".
2. In full disclosure, I'm a Jewish Christian and see additional reasons as to why Yom Teru'ah is in the middle of the year and Rosh HaShanah in the spring, although I think that everyone can agree on the reasons that I cited above—regardless of what each of us believes about Yeshua (Jesus)—thus, I think to cite the reasons that I cited is sufficient.