Commentary: Yes, She Was Around Him. What May Have Happened If She Weren't May Have Been Worse. Ask Salma Hayek, For Example

With Harvey Weinstein finally being held to account for the various rapes and other acts of sexual abuse that he committed, so, too, are his victims being held accountable...for being abuse victims.

For example (and being a survivor of childhood abuse, although thankfully not childhood sexual abuse, I had to reply when one person held Harvey Weinstein's victims accountable for something that they did not do):

Look more closely at the pictures. Rose McGowan and Meryl Streep, e.g., are clearly not comfortable being around Harvey Weinstein.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) January 6, 2020

A common fallacy is, "If (s)he's around him (her), (s)he must not really be being abused." Many abuse victims stay around their abusers because they are Stockholmed and/or they dread what might happen if they don't.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) January 6, 2020

Being an abuse victim is not a choice or in any other way something that an abuse victim does. After all, for instance, nobody chooses to be sexually abused or have their kneecaps broken, let alone have their taken altogether for that matter (as if rape isn't its own form of murder):

"“He told me he wanted to kill me,” Hayek told Winfrey. “He said to Julie Taymor [the director of ‘Frida’], ‘I am going to break the kneecaps of that ‘c-word’.”" (Brackets in the original)

"I had brainwashed myself into thinking that it was over and that I had survived; I hid from the responsibility to speak out with the excuse that enough people were already involved in shining a light on my monster. I didn’t consider my voice important, nor did I think it would make a difference...

"I don’t think he hated anything more than the word “no.” The absurdity of his demands went from getting a furious call in the middle of the night asking me to fire my agent for a fight he was having with him about a different movie with a different client to physically dragging me out of the opening gala of the Venice Film Festival, which was in honor of “Frida,” so I could hang out at his private party with him and some women I thought were models but I was told later were high-priced prostitutes.

"The range of his persuasion tactics went from sweet-talking me to that one time when, in an attack of fury, he said the terrifying words, “I will kill you, don’t think I can’t.”" 

Even Salma Hayek fell for the "Since I was around him, I wasn't really being abused" fallacy in light of all that, however:

"I had to say yes. By now so many years of my life had gone into this film. We were about five weeks into shooting, and I had convinced so many talented people to participate. How could I let their magnificent work go to waste?
"I had asked for so many favors, I felt an immense pressure to deliver and a deep sense of gratitude for all those who did believe in me and followed me into this madness. So I agreed to do the senseless scene."

She recognized this:

"It was soul crushing because, I confess, lost in the fog of a sort of Stockholm syndrome, I wanted him to see me as an artist: not only as a capable actress but also as somebody who could identify a compelling story and had the vision to tell it in an original way."

With the fallacy being, "(S)he wasn't being abused by him (her), or else she wouldn't be around him (her), the actual case is, "(S)he continues to be around him (her) because (s)he's Stockholmed and/or in dread of what (s)he might or will do."

If Rose McGowan's, Meryl Streep's, and Salma Hayek's cases don't convince you of that, look at the cases of Jerry Sandusky's victims (whom were male victims of a male abuser and, even though they are survivors, will never fully recover from what was done to them in this lifetime—and what sexual-abuse victim, especially any rape victim, ever really recovers from the abuse that she or he has to endure?).

If not even the cases of Jerry Sandusky's victims convince you, look at those of Michael Jackson's victims (notwithstanding that the cases of Wade Robson and one other person are apparently questionable). If not even those cases convince you, go back to looking at cases of male-against-female abuse and start with the case of Andrea Constand (By the way, yes, Bill Cosby also abused children, as then-teenager victims of his were obviously teenagers and obviously therefore children—and one of them was Nicolle Rochelle, whom was actually a preteen when she first had to be around him).

Either way, your choice to believe or disbelieve sexual-abuse (and other abuse) victims whom continue to be around their abusers will not change the fact that sexual-abuse (and other abuse) victims continue to be around their abusers because they've been Stockholmed and/or threatened within every inch of their lives by those whom'd they'd otherwise gladly escape. 

Question In Re Congress Impeaching Trump vs Indicting Him

Does to #impeachTrump instead of #indictTrump play into his by giving him #25thAmendment rights that he as an #illegitimatePOTUS does not deserve?

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) September 25, 2019

Commentary: How To Repeal the Second Amendment & Still Have the Right To Bear Arms

Mandate the Second Amendment.

• Change the language from "right" to "mandate".
• Emulate Switzerland, though go a lot further:

1. Switzerland "allows [its] citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned." The United States needs to require that each of its citizens who are registered to vote—including those who are registered at 17—and all  citizens as well as legal residents who are at least 18 years old to own at least one firearm except for if he or she has a criminal record or has a legitimate religious objection to owning a gun. 
2. A person who has a mental illness should not automatically be banned from owning a gun, either—in fact, people with mental illnesses are more likely to be victimized and in need to defend themselves than to victimize and harm others.
3. Swiss "men between the ages of 18 and 34 deemed "fit for service" are given a pistol or a rifle and trained." Each American man who is registered with the Selective Service and fit the previously-mentioned criteria (i.e., has no criminal record or legitimate religious objection to owning a gun) needs to be given one firearm and training upon registering with the Selective Service.
4. Swiss "gun owners who want to carry their weapon for 'defensive purposes' also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license." That should be a given in terms of what both Swiss and American citizens and legal residents should be trained to do. However, the United States needs to require that each its citizens and legal residents who fit the aforementioned criteria openly carry one weapon at all times for defensive purposes.

In conclusion, the United States needs to essentially mandate the Second Amendment by having a stronger amendment with language such as the following:

"The mandate to bear arms, with the People being the well-regulated militia on the domestic front, shall not be infringed. To this end:

1. Each citizen of the United States who is registered to vote (including those who are registered at 17) as well as each citizen and legal resident who is at least 18 years of age, has no criminal records, and has no legitimate religious objections to the bearing of arms shall be at all times required to possess at least one firearm and openly carry said firearm on his or her person. 
2. He or she is to possess said firearm for the defense of self and the defense of others as well as other lawful and legitimate purposes such as sustenance provision (namely, the hunting of game or the humane killing of an animal that he or she might raise for sustenance).
3. He or she is to openly carry said firearm on his or her person in public at all times for especially the defense of self and the defense of others.
4. If the citizen or legal resident in question is a man who is registered with the Selective Service, he shall be given one firearm and training in the lawful and proper use and handling of firearms upon registering.
5. A citizen or legal resident shall not be denied the ownership or use of a firearm merely because of any mental illness and/or any other infirmity that he or she has unless he or she can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and with probable cause to be prone or otherwise liable to commit unlawful and/or other unnecessary violence with any firearm due to his or her illness or infirmity. In fact, given that those with such illnesses and infirmities are in fact more than likely to need firearms for the defenses of selves and for self sustenances due to their vulnerable condition, the Congress of the United States shall take into account the needs of self defenses and self sustenances of people with mental illnesses and other infirmities when it enforces this provisions of this article with legislation pertaining thereto and in light thereof.
6. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Now You Tell Me...

I gave you my own take.

Which of the following needs to come first: 1) Re-outlawing of #abortion? 2) Overturning "Coker" (1977), which would automatically overturn "Kennedy v. Louisiana" (2008)? 3) #Reforming of the #foster and #adoption system? 👶🏽🤰🏽👩‍👦👩‍👧👪👨‍👩‍👧⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏽‍⚖️🗳️❓🇺🇸📜📰📺💻

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) May 20, 2019

PS I'll RT this poll and mention Congress members in the RT in order for them to see this poll, too.

Commentary: Punish The Babies & Reward The Rapists. In Other Words...

Continue to follow a highly-dangerous precedent as well as set more-dangerous precedents.

It's not a "war" to not punish the baby for what the father (and in cases such as those of Mary Kay LeTourneau, mother) did. It is a "war", however, to not call for the overturn of "Coker" (1977) and "Kennedy v. Louisiana" (2008), both of which ended the death penalty for rapists. It's also a "war" to not call for the reform of the foster and adoption systems. 

Iranian court rules 11-year-old girl who was raped must carry baby to delivery and—Wait wait sorry.

CORRECTION: In 2019 America, Ohio Republicans are forcing an 11-year-old girl who was raped to carry to delivery  😳

GOP war on women & girls must end nowhttps://t.co/KuKRUMQIdr

— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) May 12, 2019

If anyone is calling for a "war on women & girls", it is those whom punish baby girls (and boys) for what their fathers (and mothers) did (and Mary Kay LeTourneau was a child rapist, as her now-soon-to-be-ex husband, Vili Fualaau, was 12 when she first became pregnant by him). It is also those whom affirm the "Coker" (1977) and "Kennedy" (2008) rulings as well as those whom refuse to reform the foster and adoption systems (in which children routinely experience abuse, including sexual abuse).

Thus (and as common sense can tell one, anyway), many whom call pro-life efforts "war"  are either enablers of rapists and other abusers—whether they mean to or don't mean to be so—or even rapists and/or other kinds of abusers themselves. In this case, I assume that Counselor Rashid is an unintentional enabler of rapists, since he at least wants for rape victims (including surviving rape victims) what the rapists don't want:

1. Recovery (though does a rape victim ever really recover from rape; and does she or she ever really survive, even if she or he isn't physically murdered)
2. Justice (and rape is all but physical murder)
3. Hopeful futures

Those who are deliberate enablers of rapists and who are even rapists themselves, of course, call for the rape victims (including the second-generation rape victims, the forcibly-conceived children) to be punished by having the rapists get off scot free and the babies punished in their fathers' (and mothers') places, all while the raped mothers (and fathers) are also punished by having to live a life of Hell on Earth (Again, does a rape victim ever really survive and recover from rape?).

Think, then, unless you call those whom are trying to punish the rapists instead of their victims (including the second-generation victims whom are the rape-conceived children) "war" mongers, then. Think as well unless you end up unintentionally enabling rapists (As the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions;" and enabling rapists by punishing their victims is its own kind of Hell on Earth). Think even more unless you leave rape-conceived and other children in the foster and adoption systems in the shadows of those unreformed systems.

Thus, redirect your thinking to fighting against rape culture as well as against foster-and-adoption system brokenness—is, that for justice for rape victims and abused children within the foster and adoption systems.

How To Downplay Ableism & Sexual Violence Against Especially Women With Mental Illnesses: Be Like the "Boston Globe", Among Others

With the none-too-surprising allegations against Dr. Keith Albow coming out in the news, Dr. Ablow reminds us of two facts:

1) Those with disabilities, such as mental illnesses, are more likely to be victims of sexual and non-sexual abuse than the general population is.

2) There are people whom either:

a)  go into the mental-health field and become ableists & abusers of those with mental illnesses

or

b) went into the mental-health field to exploit people with mental illnesses in the first place

The "Boston Globe", meanwhile, harbors that same kind of ableism against especially women with mental illnesses, as their the headline is misleading & should be something like, "‘I own you’: Prominent psychiatrist accused of raping patients and sexually exploiting other patients in other ways".

As for Andrea Celenza, she is among those whom also harbor those sentiments. Even though she clearly does not care to admit that, her statement obviously has those glaring sentiments in it:

"Andrea Celenza, a Lexington psychoanalyst who interviewed the women and reviewed their medical records as an expert witness hired by the plaintiffs, said in a letter filed with the lawsuits that Ablow’s behavior in the case of the New York woman “was sadomasochistic, anti-therapeutic, and constitutes a perverse use of his status and power.” The former patient said that, during their seven-year sexual relationship, Ablow persuaded her to get his initials tattooed on her arm."

Also:

"Celenza, in her letter to the women’s attorney, said Ablow’s alleged sexual misconduct with the Minnesota woman amounted to “the most egregious violation” of the American Psychiatric Association’s ethical code. “These behaviors are grossly unprofessional and unethical,” she said, adding that they “represent the worst and most damaging kind of abuse” in a therapeutic setting. 

If she did not actually agree with Dr. Ablow and the "Boston Globe" themselves, each of letters would contain unequivocal statements that Dr. Ablow's behavior was unethical as well as immoral, illegal, and unfaithful to the Hippocratic Oath, sadistic (not "sadomasochistic"), abusive in general (not just "anti-theraputic"), and general as well as specifically-ableist sexual abuse and non-sexual abuse (not "constitutes a perverse use of his status and power", as "constitutes a perverse use of his status and power" implies that his victim had some amount of complicity in what he did as well as that it "[only] constitutes" and isn't wholly a categorical abuse of status and power).

As for society in general, it needs to ask itself how and why it enables, outright encourages, and outright engages in—as NAMI calls ableism for what it is—ableist "discrimination, not stigma". After all, society affects and effects ableism to increasingly prevalent and severe as it, for example:

1. Tries every damned way to get around the ADA and HIPPA
2. Uses people with disabilities in of themselves as targets of "jokes" and other thinly-disguised abuse
3. Making light of disabilities by coining terms such as "libtard" as well as classifying evils such as sociopathy and narcissism as mental illnesses—which, by the way, sociopaths and narcisstics love, as it enables them to abuse especially people with real mental illnesses by affecting them to not be taken seriously when they seek mental-health treatment.
4. Ultimately affecting and effecting the creation of ableists from people such as Dr. Ablow all the way to the typical man (usually man, though sometimes woman) whom has a child with a disability and thus ableistically abandons and/or otherwise abuses his (or her) family (and yes, abandoning your family because you don't want a child with a disability is abuse).

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.)

As Weird As Apologizing For Being Vicitimized Online Seems....

I have to apologize when someone spoofs me since I put my e-mail address out there, notwithstanding that I don't put it out there so that people can be jerks & affect communication between me and others. I apologize if anyone has received any suspicious emails from my address. I discovered that somebody has been spoofing. As I tell a "dogter" and a furniece of mine, some people are just not very nice.

***** Fatigue Is One Thing That Demonstrates That...

Maya Angelou was wrong. People may remember what you said, what you did, and how they felt—even if they don't remember the exacts of everything that happened and/or unless they either can't remember or have chosen to repress all of the bad memories because of how painful they were.

With the United States being fatigued by *****, Americans and others within the United States will be too tired and too overwhelmed from having to deal with the ***** Dictatorship to remember everything that *****. In fact, ***** (like other sociopaths and narcissists) is trying to tire and overwhelm America to the point at which it will forget everything that ***** said, did, and made it feel (like other sociopaths and narcissists try to do their victims). Part of *****'s trying to make America forget what he said, did, and affect it to feel is gaslighting, since gaslighting involves trying to get a victim to buy into at least one revisionist history of some kind—whether it's the individual history of the victim, the individual history of the abuser, the relational history of the victim of the abuser, or any other kind of history which somehow involves the victim and/or the abuser, and whether or not the abuser engages in trying to get a victim to buy more than one revisionist history.

With *****, a few examples that involved gaslighting included that:

1. Even America wasn't broken, although it needed a tuneup. ***** propagated that America needed to be made "great again".
2. ***** raped his now-long-since-ex husband and blackmailed her into changing her story twice.
3. ***** had Julian Assange willingly hack, decontextualize messages from, and release decontextualized messages from Hillary Clinton's and others' email accounts.
4. *****, as a RINO, supported the Hillary Clinton campaign until he could throw under the bus and try to convince others that he's a Republican.

Meanwhile, America has already forgotten the fourth example and seems to already forget that the second example fits the profile of a #MeToo movement; and it can't keep up with the number of racist (especially Anti-Semitic), sexist, xenophobic, and other bigoted attempts to apparently "make America great again" that ***** has made. It also can't keep up with who else ***** has as support—and according to the latest implications made by Pamela Anderson herself, ***** has Pamela Anderson has one of his supporters since she seems to be (even if implicitly) confirming the rumors that she is dating Julian Assange. 

As for me, that's part of why I'm tired of *****—can't the Republicans and decent Democrats in the House and Senate have ***** removed from office, and then a special prosecuter have **** prosecuted already?

Does Erick Erickson Have Something To Hide? Where Are Jews Besides Myself Calling Out Haredim, Meanwhile?

A certain Erick Erickson is defending "The Pence Rule", and people are understandably mad:

If more men adopted the Pence rule, there’d be fewer awful stories of harassment and abuse. But the left denounced the Pence Rule. It’s not about the what Pence would do. It’s about creating a non-threatening environment for both him and employees.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) November 16, 2017

Of course, people who victim blame like that usually have something to hide, which I made very clear:

I seriously hope that if a woman in your family ever had to be alone with a man, you would not blame her if something happened to her. Or is there even something that we need to know about you, meanwhile? Men who are victim blamers usually have something to hide.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) November 17, 2017

Meanwhile, many others were more generous and the point that Cheri Jacobus made:

the Pence rule punishes and discriminates against women.  So no.  Maybe stop making men's bad behavior or fear of bad behavior something women have to keep paying for.  Just. Stop.

— Cheri Jacobus (@CheriJacobus) November 16, 2017

Despite this, as far as I know, I was the only one whom brought up the Haredim:

I agree with @CheriJacobus. Blaming women for men's bad behavior is tantamount to what the Haredim and Islamists do.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) November 17, 2017

To see no other Jew bring up the Haredim is disturbing, especially since sexual abuse is replete and prevalent within the Haredi community. As, for example, the 2⅓-year anniversary of the death of Faigy Mayer is coming up, have we learned nothing? After all, at least some Haredim could even be charged with second- or third-degree murder for Faigy Mayer's suicide, not to mention her sister Sara's subsequent one which will have occurred two years ago on this coming November 22^nd (and I have said that any sexual abuser that affects any of his or her victims to commit suicide ought to be charged with first-degree murder).

Had the Haredim not abused Faigy and Sara, let alone other women, for decades, both women might still be alive. In fact, Faigy Mayer wrote the following in what could retrospectively be considered her suicide note (and given multiple accounts of what Haredi children have endured over the years, you can imagine what Faigy and Sarah endured given that Faigy wrote this about what grown women have endured):

"The austere lifestyle my people face of arranged marriages, strict segregation of the genders, the wife shaving her head, the couple having sex with the wife wearing a bra in the complete dark (hole in the sheet, anyone?) but still producing 13 children generally throughout her lifetime..."

By the way, don't be fooled about the head shaving: contrary to the bubbe meise that women would shave their heads a day before their respective weddings to avoid rape by soldiers in the European armies, the head shaving was a mechanism that the Haredi men instituted to control and humiliate women, and put them at the mercy of their husbands whom could dehumanizingly treat them if they wished to do so.

As for Sara Mayer, she endured that exact kind of dehumanization, both within her father's house and her eventual-ex-husband's house:

"'[Her suicide] was a family mental-health and abuse issue on top of being forced into marriage with her first cousin,' the source said, recalling how the union was annulled just months later.

"'Ever since [her marriage], she has been in and out of mental hospitals,' the source explained. 'She had been coerced by her mother’s side of the family’’ to marry her cousin. 'She married the son of the mother’s sister.'

"Growing up, some relatives 'kept calling her retarded, ugly, etc. We didn’t know this until later,' the source said."

Notice, too, that her father did absolutely nothing to stop it—and keep in mind that Haredi women are at the mercies of their fathers until they go into their husband's household—and to make this all the worse, the anniversaries of the deaths of Faigy and Sara come on the heels of the so-called "Coalition of Jewish Values" being founded by Haredi supporters of ****** *****.

In conclusion, then, one has to wonder what Erick Erickson is hiding in light of the kind of victim blaming that he did and that is no different from what either Haredim or Islamists do, and therefore not only the following example of comparisons of Erick Erickson's victim blaming to Islamist victim blaming applies—and as I said, many people brought up this point without bringing up the Haredim:

Erick, are you actually promoting a theory that men have no self control so must be segregated from ladies? That is also the longstanding thought in Saudi Arabia.

— Alexandra Halaby (@iskandrah) November 16, 2017

PS If one really thinks about sexual abuse as a crime, they also have to think of it as a gender-based hate crime when it occurs against women—after all, sexual abuse against women and girls is usually committed by men (e.g., Roy Moore) and boys (e.g., the Higdon in "Higdon v. State") whom think that they can objectify women and girls. 

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!) 

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. 

Abuse Is Never "Normal Stuff", Even In the ***** Era

"I'm beginning to think you...crucified your father for normal stuff!"

Without going into details about what affected that statement for whatever reason, I will say that I was appalled when someone said that to me—abuse is never "normal stuff", and all kinds of abuse are out of the norm—at least in a reasonable and decent society, abuse is (relatively, anyway) out of the norm.

No society in this world is going to be entirely reasonable and decent. After all, as Thomas Hobbes observed, life is short, nasty, and brutish; and "kings and persons of sovereign authority, because of their independency, are in continual jealousies and in the state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another, that is, their forts, garrisons, and guns, upon the frontiers of their kingdoms, and continual spies upon their neighbours: which is a posture of war. "

That nonetheless does not cause any kind of abuse to be "normal stuff", regardless of whether it's the kind of abuse that I endured from my father (which at least, thank God, was never sexual abuse) or the following examples of abuses that others have endured:

1. The "casting couch"—Harvey Weinstein's and others' victims did not want (let alone ask) to be sexually harassed and abused; and they shouldn't have to choose between careers and being abused, between silence to avoid further abuse and between speaking out and enduring further abuse, or between anything else and abuse. Having to choose between anything and abuse, by the way, is being put in an abusive position.
2. The "condolence" call that Myeisha Johnson received. What ***** stated was basically, "Your husband knew why he signed up, and we can never repay him or any other American military member whom sacrifices his or her life for the United States; so I'm not even going to try to repay what I can."
3. The follow up to the "condolence" call. Especially Myeisha Johnson did not need libel and slander against her; and Representative Frederica Wilson did not need the libel and slander, either.
4. The threats of racist and sexist violence against Congresswoman Wilson—as I said, abuse is neither normal nor in the norm in a reasonable and decent society, which is not the kind of society which Congresswoman Wilson's abuser would like to bring back.

In conclusion, then, only abusive societies have ever treated, ever treat, and will ever treat abuse as normal and normalizable. 

Why The Eagles May Be The New Football Team For Whom I Root

1. Embarrassing the U.S. internationally (i.e., in the United Kingdom) was wrong (and that goes for the Jaguars, too). 
2. I have paternal roots in Pennsylvania (and regardless of whom likes it or hates it, Jewish roots where my ancestors felt safer as Anusim in the U.S. than as Anusim or open Jews in Europe. As a Jew, then, I have to ask fellow Jews and others to remember that we'd all have to kneel if every persecuted group had to kneel—even WASPs aren't exactly as White as they'd like to think. Besides, one of the great Phillies players was Jewish—his father and one of my great-great-grandmothers were maternal siblings through Anna Haszlinsky Uszinskyova nee Jasova.). 
3. On the note in Point Two: if any group should be kneeling, Jews should be. However, regardless of our various beliefs—as a Jew is a Jew regardless of whether he or she is religiously traditionally Jewish, Buddhist, or something else—many (if not most) of us have been able to recognize that the "Judeo-Christian" country that the U.S. is often actually not has been—at least up to this point—one of the Diaspora safehavens for Jews and allies of Jews compared to multiple countries throughout history.
4. This is (as I recall) another loss in a row for the Ravens since the Ravens-Jaguars game (Divine Justice against the Ravens for being ingrates?).
5. I might root again for the Ravens when I see the Ravens players kneeling for the Baltimore Police and not Freddie Gray or other criminals, such as the toadie of a certain late priest—since they're kneeling for one criminal, they're kneeling for other criminals.

Quick Polls Re Fame & Notability, and...Well, Is There An Appropriate "Gate" Name For The Hollywood Sexual-Harrassment Scandal?

With all that's coming out of the entertainment industry, would (or do) you still want to be famous and/or notable? #news #polls #Hollywood

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) October 18, 2017

Is there an appropriate name for the current scandal in Hollywood, such as "Harveygate" or "Miramaxgate"? #news #polls #names #scandals

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) October 18, 2017

"Other" can be an answer like "Something like 'Miramax' is appropriate enough [or "explains it all", etc.]", as you might elaborate in a follow-up tweet. 

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.

Three Examples Of "Sorry (Not Sorry. I'm Trying To Cover My A**.)."

1. Colin Kaepernick: at least Colin Kaepernick admitted that his only motive for standing for "The Star Spangled Banner" in the future is to be readmitted into the NFL (which he will likely not be after his girlfriend's racist meme re Ray Lewis, anyway).
2. Harvey Weinstein, whom's actually not even sorry—and he just got fired from his own company!
3. Dove^®—they're sorry that they got caught sending a "Black is dirty; White is clean" message (as, by the way, I tried to explain to my mother and reexplain after she watched a YouTube video of another person saying what I said—and I don't care whom the third person was. She could've been another White person for all that I know, given Dove's racism.).

One My Age, At Least One Slightly Older, At Least One Slightly Younger, And One A Decade Younger Than My Mother: aka, the Mary Kay LeTourneaus Of Today

As someone once asked, "What is wrong with them?" Just on the Fox News website today, one can read about (among others) a 27-year-old ex teacher (whom's my age), two 29-year-old ex teachers (whom are the age which I'm going to be in two Januarys from now), a 25-year-old ex teacher (whom's as old as at least one of my cousins), and a 51-year-old ex teacher (whom's only a decade younger than my mother)!

If for no other reason, not misrepresenting my generation and the Late Baby Boomers is enough of a reason for these four women (among others) not to be raping students (all of whom should be charged with first-degree rape, since one can guarantee that authority figures like them would not have taken "No" for answers—especially given that compatriots of theirs have not taken "No" for answers, with those compatriots threatening their victims academically and in other ways).

By the way, one of the ex teachers claimed that she's in a sexless marriage in order to justify raping one of her students—and imagine how her husband feels either way, and especially if he is not withholding any marital rights for her or unable to fulfill certain marital duties due to a disability and/or another medical condition. As for her student, he could affect the prosecutor to bring first-degree attempted murder charges against her, since her rape of him effected him "to attempt suicide":

"The student allegedly told his mother and a nurse at the hospital that he loved his teacher and took the mixture of medicines to attempt suicide, Seacoast reported. 

"Lamontagne told the student she hadn’t had a sexual relationship with anyone for two years. Court records reportedly indicate she is married and has children."

As for two of the other ex teachers, the 25-year-old raped two of her four victims in one given "visit" at her residence and the 51-year-old has grandchildren—for whom she clearly set a bad example!

Meanwhile, didn't these ex teachers learn lessons from the Mary Kay LeTourneau case—which ultimately ended up not going well for the soon-to-be-divorced-twice and soon-to-be-divorced-from-her-victim ex teacher? The Millennial ex teachers should've certainly learned, as they are peers of Vili Fualaau and were growing up during the time that he was being raped; and the Late Baby Boomer ex teacher should've learned how life works out for rapist teachers from her rapist peer and compatriot. To these ex teachers, though, never mind even that Millennials and Baby Boomers—let alone teachers whom are Millennials and Late Baby Boomers—generally followed the news about the Fualaau-LeTourneau case and learned from it.

Tr**p Trying To Cover His Own Trail...I Mean, Trace And Recover Ivanka's And Jared Emails

Once again, another "Can Congress remove Tr**p from office already?!" happening has occurred:

"The White House is investigating officials’ use of private email accounts to conduct government business, it has been reported.Of particular interest is a private email domain potentially used by Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner, it is said....

"The White House probe could take several weeks or even months to complete as officials are searching for all emails sent or received about government business, Politico reported. "

With all due respect to Congress, how is removing Tr**p from office and having him prosecuted so hard?

Did Facebook Really Have To Wait Until The Murder Of Heather Heyer To Enforce Their Own TOS?

"Facebook does not allow hate speech or praise of terrorist acts or hate crimes, and we are actively removing any posts that glorify the horrendous act committed in Charlottesville."

Facebook surely has allowed other violations of their TOS for a long time, though:

"The company initially had allowed the page but decided as the event neared that it no longer met Facebook’s community standards because it was associated with “hate organizations.”

"The company said that it wants people to use Facebook to challenge ideas and organize peacefully, but draws the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups."

How Facebook fails to enforce its own TOS and "draws the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups" is beyond me. A mutual exclusivity exists between allowing "when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups" and "draw[ing] the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups.

Facebook has to either enforce its TOS to protect everybody against all hateful individuals and groups or not have a TOS at all. After all, Facebook shouldn't even have "allowed the page".