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

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

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! 

Twitter Thread: Trumpism, Bernism, And a Slippery Slope

Everyone has the same minimum wage➡️ the same benefits, including the same type of health care➡️ an earnings cap➡️ a benefits cap➡️ certain kinds of professions in which one may work and/or employ others➡️ the same education, with types of schools & degrees chosen by the state...

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) July 22, 2019

Continued on Twitter...

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).

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.

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.)

Commentary: Raising the Red Flag Re *****

I and quite a few others told everyone this for a reason! If you don't believe us, believe someone who worked with ***** when he says that and is a takes-one-to-know-one type!

Bing-*******-o! If someone who worked with Trump says that and is a takes-one-to-know-one type, listen! https://t.co/T67JoRPBPm

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) April 6, 2019

Also, again, the narcissist and sociopath who first convinced the psychiatrists that narcissism and sociopathy are mental illnesses either is or was (depending on if he's still alive and) sitting back laughing!

Meanwhile, ***** is sitting back and laughing: "Look at these idiots. They really think that I have Dementia or some cognitive issue. Well, **** them. 'I don't play games,' I said. Oh yes I do. Of course I was projecting & acting like everyone else plays games.

"If they don't want to catch me at my game, they won't hold me as accountable as they should; and it's even better that my father did have Dementia: I can use my family history to fool them."

Think about that. He has fun lying, he has fun watching everyone go loopy over all his lies. It’s all a big game to him, AND HE’S GETTING AWAY WITH IT ALL.

— Sharon (@SharonWillow54) April 5, 2019

no - it's not joking or needing translation @Scaramucci - it's emotional abuse and dangerous

— Bb 🇺🇸 🇺🇸🌟 (@babbdbd) April 6, 2019

As for his IQ, it definitely is high; and sociopaths with high IQs are like particularly cunning, calculative, and frightening, especially when they try to look unintelligent to attempt gaslighting.

For example, even his recent comments about "Judge Flores": he knows the actual judge's name and acted like he doesn't to demean "Little Miss Judge Flores". Just ask "Miss Nicole" or "Miss Nick", among the plenty of other "Miss" types that I apparently am—and the memories of my grandfather calling me that have never gone away, even though he's now been deceased for six years this December, and he was not a nice person at all!

And give in to him demeaning her as "[Little Miss] Judge Flores"? Read between the lines: he's trying to pass her off as a sympathy pawn just because she's a Hispanic girl, and he is a xenophobic misogynist and child hater.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) April 6, 2019

If nothing else, at least take it from a survivor of childhood abuse (with even some of it being physical, though at least thankfully not sexual). As I explained, with a few of the tweets shown here:

He doesn't. He's xenophobically and sickeningly calling the child essentially the judge and sees her as a proxy for the actual judge.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) April 6, 2019

He's doing it maliciously. Trust me; he's calling the child the de-facto judge in all of this. His thinking is essentially, "If it weren't for Little Miss Judge Flores, the judge wouldn't have ruled in her favor."

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) April 6, 2019

He knows. He's essentially saying, "Little Miss Flores was the de-facto judge." He is xenophobic and hates children, wants to think that the actual judge ruled in her favor because she's a Hispanic child.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) April 6, 2019

Nope. Sociopathy. Trump is essentially saying, "Look at Little Miss Judge Flores, a Hispanic child. That's why the judge ruled in her favor: because she's a Hispanic girl." Keep in mind that he hates children, Non-White people, and girls and women.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) April 6, 2019

He could. He's accomplishing his goal: making himself look unintelligent to avoid accountability for being a xenophobic misogynist and child hater.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) April 6, 2019

He could. He's accomplishing his goal: making himself look unintelligent to avoid accountability for being a xenophobic misogynist and child hater.

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) April 6, 2019

As I've said, that's the only reason that I'm glad that I went through childhood abuse and dealt with other narcisstic-sociopathic abuse: that is, I can see right through people like ***** because of what I've endured!

Re A Matter About Which I've Posted On Facebook And Twitter In the Past Few Days

Since the time is sadly closer, I might as well just say it: my mom's mom has metastasized Lung Cancer that metastasized to her liver and bones, and she was admitted to the hospital a week ago tomorrow. They thought that Pneumonia and Shingles were the cause of her severe pain (and, oh man, was she in pain when I talked to her the night before!). They ran tests on Friday only to find that a spot on her liver and (as she told me) something "on the lungs", and then (according to one of my uncles or aunts) the "really bad" tests results showed that she has cancer that they somehow caught way too late.

She is under hospice care and has only days to weeks to live; and my own hope, truth be told, is that she dies on New Year's Eve if she has to go so soon, since that is my late maternal grandfather's (her first husband's) birthday (She even requested to be buried with "something of his" that he had passed down to their children when he passed away in 1974; and that was the first time that she was widowed, by the way 😢. She remarried in 1979 and was widowed again in 2004. She's also had other losses and sufferings throughout her 91 years, and now she has to endure terminal Lung Cancer 😢.)

Please pray that she goes in her sleep (since that what's she wanted) and/or surrounded by loved ones when she goes. She is sleeping more and more lately as well as eating and drinking less due to severe pain. She has been ready to go for a long time, even before her Lung Cancer diagnosis.
PS To loved ones (family and friends): please call and/or visit her if you can; and please pray for her. Also, as she once told my sister, "Never start smoking" (although she knows that Michelle would never smoke), and she quit cold turkey at 77 years and after 55 years of smoking. She even mentioned something about it to Mom today.

PPS May Yehovah comfort us among the mourners of Tzion v'Yerushalayim, and may her memory be for a blessing when & after she passes. For those whom want her Hebrew name, meanwhile, since she is of Jewish ancestry (although she does has gentile ancestry as well): Miriam Eliora bat Yochanahn Chaim* v'Miriam Margolit**. ***

*(ben Gdaliya ben Binyamin Yochanahn v'Natan'elah)

**(bat Yochanahn Toma v'Eliora)

*** Her dad (his everyday name having been John Carroll Pundt, z"l) was a son of George August Pundt (z"l) and Jewish especially on his paternal grandma's side (And her Hebrew name would've likely been Natan'elah bat Shlomo v'Amalia was she given one. Her everyday name was Dorothea "Dora" Lehr Pundt the daughter of Frederich and Amalia Gunther Lehr.). As for her maternal heritage, I'm pretty sure that she had Crypto-Jewish heritage on at least her mom's paternal grandfather's side, which is another discussion for another time.

Also, I've done family and other research; so:

• Even though she is religiously Catholic (as were her parents), she in my opinion (especially since she believes in a Jewish man as the Messiah) should have the honor of her Hebrew name (notwithstanding that she knew most about her Irish and German heritage, and nothing about her Jewish heritage until I found out about it and brought it up. Her dad, from what I understand, did know about it and never told her about it, which is a long discussion.).
• I could not find a suitable Hebrew equivalent for "August" or for her maternal grandmother's middle name, "Agnes". Her father's Hebrew would've likely been "Binyamin Yochanahn" for "William John", and his mother was an Elizabeth Müller Pundt the daughter of a Johann Conrad Müller and Margarete Siedenburg Pundt, both of Jewish ancestry. Again, long discussion.

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: Rick Gates Just Did In Paul Manafort, Although Paul Manafort Ultimately Did In Himself & Helped To Do In Others

As I'm writing this, it's only seconds after I got the news alert that Rick Gates admitted to doing criminal activity at Paul Manafort's behest. So, Rick Gates essentially proved Special Counselor's case: that D****d ***** used Putin as his puppet to get himself illegally into the White House. This isn't to account for *****'s tweets in which he ultimately trapped himself and because of which Special Counselor Mueller ultimately had to do nothing to pull the Jenga® block out of his tower.

Try to build a ***** Tower in Moscow if Putin is willing to be used as your puppet, meet at ***** Tower HQ with your puppet's puppets to conspire to steal data and change others' votes, and commit a whole litany of other crimes, catch yourself right in your own trap in which Special Counselor Mueller and others knew that you would catch yourself.

Moral of the story: always follow the real rule of law and act ethically and morally, and you won't find yourself in legal, ethical, and moral conundrums.

PS The real rule of law always includes ethical and civil disobedience, and "civil disobedience" includes taking actions such as recording conversations about paying someone to silence her about your affair with her—so what Michael Cohen did was civilly disobedient even if it was illegal per se. 

Commentary: Imagine If...

You boss had extremely-serious allegations leveled against him or her. Imagine if those allegations included that he or she used someone within a competing organization to help him or her become the CEO by taking actions such as helping to intimidate union members whom voted on behalf of other employees—including the board of directors—and hacking their computers to change their logged votes. Imagine if the BoD wanted to investigate him or her, and he or she tried to use the legal department with the organization to stop the investigation that the BoD asked HR to undertake. Imagine if he or she also slandered, libeled, and endangered his or her apparent employees and colleagues, the BoD, and HR.

That is exactly what ***** has leveled against him and is doing, and those allegations are essentially proven by now. He used Putin to help him illegally get into the White House. He and supporters of his threatened the Electoral College and had Russia tamper with ballots. He is trying to get the Justice Department to stop the investigation that Congress asked Special Counselor Mueller to undertake, and he is slandering and libeling those whom don't support him as well as encouraging his supporters to hurt others.

A decent HR department in any given company would sanction such a corrupt and illegitimate CEO as well as turn him or her into the police, and ask the BoD, union members, and other employees to cooperate with an investigation that the police department and a DA would undertake. In this case, Special Counselor Mueller is closer to indicting ***** every day and needs the support of all of the American people to continue investigating him.

By the way, keep in mind that the all-employees-as-members BoD and union as well as the general workplace are the American people in the analogy.  

Why A "Government Shutdown" By ***** Would Not Be A Government Shutdown

This isn't even like last time—it's far worse. If the threat of a government shutdown becomes a reality, it won't be only three days. We'll also no longer have a republic as we know it. Think about this:

1. *****'s definition of "great people" is far different than the definition of "great people".
2. "When Mexico sends its people" (emphasis mine): he's going even as far as to allege to Mexico is involved in a conspiracy to send illegal immigrants, and he's saying "When Mexico sends its people"—not anything like, "When some people illegally emigrate from Mexico"—and he sees all Mexicans as inherently evil.
3. He met with his puppet Putin in Helsinki, in notoriously-Nazi-collaborating Finland—and this isn't to mention what one of his shills wrote in the CIA Factbook (Incidentally, one can tell what known ***** supporter John Schnatter also thinks of Jews when they read the exact wording that I quoted in my open letter to him and *****.). He also invited him to the White House, and he has a relationship with a Putin ally and another notorious Anti Semite: Kim Jong-Un.
4. He has a "Secretary of Education" whom is taking actions such as rolling back the ADA¹.
5. He supports Anti-Zionist, Haredi-supporting, and currently-being-investigated Prime Minister(?) Benjamin Netanyahu—and speaking of which, you have to wonder if "Bibi" was legally elected, as (for example) the coalition of Shas, Agudat Yisra'el, and allies of Shas and Agudat Yisra'el have no problem intimidating others (and, being as sexist as they are, they certainly had no problem pathetically trying to intimdate the Women Of the Wall at the Kotel recently—they even went to try to drown out Torah and siddur readings with whistles and blarings of loudspeakers). Also by the way, Agudat Yisra'el began as an Anti-Zionist party in the Diaspora and now runs institutions such as the Interior Ministry in Israel—and this has become increasingly so with Netanyahu's Likud as the majority party in the Knesset.
6. He has literally threatened a war with Iran (another Putin ally, might I add)—and the United States certainly does not need a nuclear war right now, much less at all.
7. He has either allowed or even made the NPS give White Supremacists a permit to rally outside of the White House.

Those are just examples, by the way—and more reasons why Special Counselor Mueller's indicting of ***** as soon as possible is imperative. 

¹PS That I found about its 28^th anniversary in an email and even had to make a card partly to raise awareness about it is pathetic—and ableism seems to be even increasing in society.

Commentary: With All Due Respect, Nobody "Misspoke", "Pushed" You, Or Threatened "Extortion"...

You said what you said. You did what you did. You spoke for yourself, and you did the action of speaking. You sat in that Helsinki palace with Putin, and you called African Americans a racist name and brought up how many of them were mistreated for God knows what reason—"role playing" definitely wasn't it, and everybody saw right through that—everybody's (or at least my) guess is that you were trying to intimidate African Americans.

This tweet, by the way, becomes absolutely suspect in light of that: 

We will work with the players and league to find a positive way forward. Open to ideas from all. Except neo-nazis — 🖕those guys. (3/3)

— Papa John's Pizza (@PapaJohns) November 15, 2017

Are you? "Role playing" to prove that you're not racist makes your tweet sound like a classic "I am and I'm trying to pretend that I'm not" excuse. You also supported the person whom claims that he "misspoke" at Helsinki, whose the same person whom has called countries like Haiti "****hole countries", might I mention—and what does that say about what you really think of anyone of African descent?

I hasten to additionally mention that whom you supported met Putin in Helsinki, the capital of a notorious Nazi collaborator during World War Two, and about which the CIA Factbook currently says the following:

"During World War II, Finland successfully defended its independence through cooperation with Germany and resisted subsequent invasions by the Soviet Union - albeit with some loss of territory."

Meanwhile, you still won't cooperate with Special Counselor Mueller, and you somehow made time to assure that the CIA would write a pro-Nazi entry in its apparent factbook well before you met with Putin in Helsinki (and everybody can see that you illegally head an executive branch to whom the CIA answers in part).  You also projected by calling Former CIA Director John Brennan "treasonous". 

Both of you claim to be Christian, by the way. I'm pretty sure that you know, then, that Jesus told everybody:

"For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light."

Especially if you really are actually Christian, you know that Special Counselor Mueller (so to speak, and I suppose literally) has your number—you may as well at least call him and set up a time to sit down with him so that you can explain why you've done what you've done, besides that you've been among "men [whom] loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." The same goes for you: you may as well sit before your former company's CEO, shareholders, and other involved parties and state that you really messed up and exposed a really-ugly side of you.

After all, what's the holdup if you really believe that "he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God"? David, the legitimately-appointed king of Israel whom raped Bathsheba and murdered Uriah, had to turn himself in both to Nathan (since kings were as subject to Torah as anybody else, and Nathan was appointed as a prophet and counselor to David by God) and to God—and you're surely not better than David.

You've already ruined your legacy. The Trump™ brand is no longer respected, if it ever even was anything besides well known—since "well known" is not inherently synonymous with "respected". The Papa John'sⓇ brand doesn't even have the original "Papa John" associated with it in any way but for the "Papa John" nickname.

You're also looking at jail or prison time as well as more lawsuits than you've had in the past, anyway. Special Counselor Mueller is likely to indict you any day, and either he or someone else will definitely sue you on behalf of the United States Government and all Americans. One of your former employees or colleagues may press hate-crime charges against you, and someone will definitely sue you for defamation.


In conclusion, then, you might as well do what's right after you've—as the expressions go—burned so many bridges and had everything for which you actually worked go up in flames: try to make the amends that you need to make.

"If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."

"[C]ome to the light" to which your actions have already been brought and own up to them. Accept a plea deal that Special Counselor Mueller and your defense team work out for you after you've talked to him. Sincerely apologize to your former employees, colleagues, investors, and customers for even being racist, let alone supporting a racist and then using racist language that you tried to couch as something other than what you were really thinking.

Even when you're serving jail and/or prison time and/or once again facing litigation, you can still have others say about you, "At least he [or, as opposed to "he", an understandably-supplied noun] owned up to what he did—albe after a long time!"¹



¹As for Putin, incidentally, I have no idea who will prosecute and/or sue him—perhaps the UN will, and there is definitely a litany of cases that the ICC can make against him, and the U.S. could sue Russia in the ICJ—and as for Finland, they still rightly have to live with being a Nazi-collaborator state.

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

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

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