Keeping Mitzvot Is Causing Others To Stumble? Since When?

Truth may absolutely hurt, but.... For example, a friend asked why some consider him or her to be part of the Hebrew Roots and/or Sacred Movement cults. I replied, "To be fair, I think that they're just being honest. To want to keep all 613 mitzvot (some of which are in contradistinction to the New Covenant) is one thing, but to tell others to keep Torah lest they be pagan or not living for Yehovah is another." Now, do I--for example--keep at least some of the 613 mitzvot? Yes. For example, I do try to wear my tallit every day, and I looked up (for a lack of better wordage) tallit etiquette and answers to questions that I had about wearing a tallit (Remember that my family were and are Anusim.). But am I going to tell others to wear a tallit? No.

In fact, someone bluntly told me the followi

ng after I answered his question about whether I'm Messianic, and asked if he wanted a Messianic to further support his business: "It sounds like you are asking me in good faith, with pure intentions and not just trying to pick a fight, so I will be straight with you. I have struggled with that question for a while, and have not achieved crystal clarity. To be honest, I would prefer not to sell a tallit with tzitzit. I don't see why a Christian, regardless of their enthusiasm for biblical practices, needs kosher tzitzit. However, if a Christian is really serious, really wants to keep the mitzvah of tzitzit, is willing to take the trouble to learn to tie the tzitzit and spend an hour doing it, then I don't really have any grounds to object."

So, trying to keep all 613 mitzvot, including the mitzvah l'tzitziyot, may actually even cause Non-Messianic Jews to stumble. In other words, if you're going to keep the mitzvot that are still valid under the New Covenant, don't be legalistic lest cause anyone to stumble with them.

Fair Use Covers Of "Should've Been A Cowboy" (Yes, Toby Keith, FAIR USE!)

This is what one can do when he or she has time to pass in the UMBC laundry room and just gone listening to "Should've Been a Cowboy"--a song from when Toby Keith was still (as we Jews like to say) b'haderech l'tzedek (on the righteous path. Now, Toby Keith is--and has long been--b'haderech l'zara [on the wicked path]). Vote for which cover you like--these are public only on my blog, and unlisted on YouTube (and Toby Keith, don't you dare sue me: read Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976--and you've stolen from at least Robert Earl Keen, so you'd have hutzpah to do anything to me).

In other words, leave your comments on this blog and/or (if you can) on the videos themselves.

My Law of Return For Medinat Yisra'el

"17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:

"“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”" (From Genesis 15:17-22)

Also--for example--. if Ethnic Syrians can have Syria (per the 1947 refounding of Syria), why can't all Ethnic Jews have Israel first?

Therefore, if only Medinat Yisra'el elected someone who could affect the Law of Return to allow Patrilineal Jews (including Messianic Jews, who are allowed but not under the Law of Return) and Matrilineally-Jewish Messianic Jews--and all other Ethnic Jews. In other words, the Law of Return should give all Ethnic Jews priority, then gerim tzdukim (since gerim tzdukim are equal to Ethnic Jews, but Israel is first supposed to be for the Jew), then the gentiles.

By the way, the 2009 [Correction: 2008] case came down to this: The Levy Supreme Court allowed Patrilineally-Jewish Messianic Jews to make aliyah, but not under the Law of Return. In other words, they sneakily got around it. They said, "You can return, but you can't become citizens under the Law of Return"--which the Talmudists at Wikipedia reveled in, and they hate Messianics there.

Toby Keith May Be A Song Stealer As Well...

He already got into trouble for "I Love This Bar" because he stole an idea. While nothing is new under the sun and one can't copyright ideas, one should at least try to credit the one from whom he got a very-specific manifestation of an idea. For example, he took a manifestation of an idea that Robert Earl Keen had, tweaked it a bit, and tried to make it his own--viz. "Bullets In the Gun".

I even read somewhere that he once said that he can't read sheet music, and the interviewer asked him what he does about publishing his songs, etc. in sheet-music form. After hearing the "Bullets In the Gun" controversy (hearing both songs as well--viz. REK's and "Bullets In the Gun", too) and reading that, I began to believe that Toby Keith is an idea stealer if not an outright song stealer. Listen:





Are at least the lyrics and the idea behind them all too similar too you?

Repost With Updates: Allegations Don't Just Come Out of Nowhere...

I have updated the following post to put emphasis on key points. I also want to add, by the way, that celebrities are not beyond accountability and that evil people include those who would allege that James Holmes is Jewish just because he is a serial murderer. Mr. Holmes listed himself as agnostic, by the way. Anyway, to the post:






In terms of, for example, allegations against Toby Keith, people don't just wake up one day and say to themselves, "I'm going to claim that Toby Keith's a _____." You can fill in the blank with whatever you want; but in terms of the allegations that Toby Keith's an abuser of some kind, a cheater, or even an Anti Semite, those kind of serious allegations don't come out of nowhere. For two of the aforementioned allegations, by the way, even I was able to find evidence of those claims.

As for claims like those of Casey Anthony, there are evil people like Casey Anthony who will take real-life situations (be they general or specific) and claim that they have experienced them. For example, Casey Anthony took April Whalen's story about April's son accidentally drowning and claimed that it was her own story regarding what happened to Caylee. She also knew that she could get sympathy by falsely claiming that the unknown dad of Caylee was actually the (as she claimed) incestuous pedophile George Anthony, since real victims of sexual abuse (at least when they come forward and are believed) get the sympathy that they deserve.


You can be a Toby Keith "Warrior" (troll) or pro-Casey Anthony, but I and others do not just (so to speak) blow serious claims out of our buttholes; but those of us (like Johns Island, who just arrived on my blog by searching "toby keith cheating") who ask legitimate questions and assert legitimate allegations don't, as I said, don't just blow these things out of our buttholes.

What Nudniks the Martin Family Are!

I read this article--how disgusting of the Martins!

Martin's mother and father watched the interview and appeared on "Fox & Friends" Thursday morning. His mother and father both said Zimmerman's apology appeared insincere and were troubled that the man accused of killing their son considered it all "God’s plan."

"I don't understand what he was thinking by saying it was God's plan that he murdered our child," Tracy Martin, the teen’s father said. "I really don’t understand what God he worships because it’s not the same God that I worship."

Sabrina Fulton, Martin’s mother, also appeared angered by the comment.

"Why would God have him kill an unarmed teenager?" she asked. "It makes no sense."

How can the Martins live with themselves--twisting what a man meant? Sabrina, you're right, by the way: you worship a way different G-d than George Zimmerman worships. Your G-d is probably who you and your race-baiting buddies call "Yashahrali" or whatever you call him. George Zimmerman's, my, and quite a few others' G-d had George Zimmerman save his own life from your pothead, nudnik son who didn't have the decency or common courtesy to identify himself to and ask for directions from George Zimmerman when he was wandering around the neighborhood during a rainstorm, and with the neighborhood being one that wasn't his normal residence--if you're lost, you ask for directions and identify yourself if need be. 

My Take On the George Zimmerman Case...

So we know and/or can infer from the "Hannity" interview (and other reports) that, among a plethora of other things:

1. Trayvon Martin was indeed on top of and beating up George Zimmerman.
2. George Zimmerman's lie detector and other tests indicated "No Deception Indicated".
3. Witness #9 claimed both racism and molestation.
4. Trayvon Martin, again being on top of George Zimmerman, was reaching for his belt. So, he was either going to beat George with his own belt or even rape him (and criminals, perhaps especially if and when they're drugged--e.g., on pot--will do things like that. Remember the pothead who stripped himself and ate the homeless man's face off?).
5. Trayvon, at 17, was out shopping alone in the first place (and didn't ask his dad or his dad's girlfriend, or someone else with a car to take him); would not even ask George Zimmerman for directions or even take his hood off for a minute to identify himself, and tried to pick a fight with George Zimmerman.
6. George Zimmerman was going to Target when he noticed Trayvon.
7. Trayvon was reasonably profiled among other Black men, and among White and Hispanic men--many of whom had been involved in (as I believe that George Zimmerman himself stated) "a string of burglaries".
8. George Zimmerman once helped, among the kids whom he tutored, a homeless Non-White man.
9. Trayvon Martin was suspended from school and (as I implicity brought up before) a pothead.
10. George Zimmerman didn't mean to follow Trayvon Martin--he was going in the same direction to get to his own house or the neighborhood club to meet the police.

In conclusion, the racist Martin Family and Benjamin Crump, "Reverend" Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and others have a hard, long look to take at the troublemaking 17-year-old that their beloved Trayvon Martin was. 

Allegations Don't Just Come Out of Nowhere...

In terms of, for example, allegations against Toby Keith, people don't just wake up one day and say to themselves, "I'm going to claim that Toby Keith's a _____." You can fill in the blank with whatever you want; but in terms of the allegations that Toby Keith's an abuser of some kind, a cheater, or even an Anti Semite, those kind of serious allegations don't come out of nowhere. For two of the aforementioned allegations, by the way, even I was able to find evidence of those claims.

As for claims like those of Casey Anthony, there are evil people like Casey Anthony who will take real-life situations (be they general or specific) and claim that they have experienced them. For example, Casey Anthony took April Whalen's story about April's son accidentally drowning and claimed that it was her own story regarding what happened to Caylee. She also knew that she could get sympathy by falsely claiming that the unknown dad of Caylee was actually the (as she claimed) incestuous pedophile George Anthony, since real victims of sexual abuse (at least when they come forward and are believed) get the sympathy that they deserve.

You can be a Toby Keith "Warrior" (troll) or pro-Casey Anthony, but I and others do not just (so to speak) blow serious claims out of our buttholes; but those of us (like Johns Island, who just arrived on my blog by searching "toby keith cheating") who ask legitimate questions and assert legitimate allegations don't, as I said, don't just blow these things out of our buttholes.

When You Hang Around Jose Baez...

Your brain cells have to go down a bit--or perhaps take a break. Either way, I don't know how Geraldo Rivera could and did form a friendship with Jose Baez, and I don't know how Jose Baez sleeps at night--I couldn't sleep after sneaking an extra shot of Irish Cream for my coffee on Friday (I was up at 7:00 on Saturday confessing to my mom, and I just got the cold on Friday--I needed the sleep, but I couldn't sleep.). How does Jose Baez sleep knowing that Casey Anthony is a murderer who was not sexually abused by her dad?

If nothing else, doesn't he know how Johnnie Cochran died? How much more will a man who was complicit in infanticide die a terrible and horrible death? I couldn't sleep just knowing that brain cancer would be the least of my problems. Also, how does Jose Baez sleep knowing that a man who was complicit in pedophilia--Joe Paterno--just died of cancer? As I asked, how much more will a man who was complicit in infanticide die a terrible and horrible death--though pedophilia and infanticide are almost equally (if not as equally) horrible? 


The difference with pedophilia and infanticide is this: the pedophilia victim wishes that he or she is dead, or may even end up dead (whether, such as in the cases of JonBenet Ramsey and Jessica Lunsford, the pedophilia is accompanied with infanticide; or the pedophilia affects the suicide of the victim); whereas the infanticide victim (assuming that he or she does not have pedophilia with which to also deal) is dead.


On that note, what is Jose Baez's claim that Casey Anthony is a victim of pedophilia going to do to real pedophilia victims? For instance, the claim will affect real pedophilia victims to not come forward for dread that they will not be believed or at least stood up for--case in point, Joe Paterno did not stand up for Jerry Sandusky's victims; so one can imagine how a false claim of pedophilia made by an acquitted murderer's attorney will affect other pedophilia victims to be disbelieved and left unspoken for.


In conclusion, I--feeling guilty for even taking an extra shot of Irish Cream and being unable to sleep--cannot imagine how Jose Baez--a man who represented and helped acquit a murderer by claiming that she she was molested as a child, and who will affect real victims of pedophilia to not come forward--sleeps at night. I also cannot imagine how he sleeps at night with a more horrible death than the deaths of Johnnie Cochran and Joe Paterno hanging over his head.


I also can't imagine how and why Geraldo Rivera could and did form a friendship with Jose Baez.

Alcohol, Freedom Of Speech, And My Blogger Audience (aka, A Disclaimer)

Per my last blog entry, I had a total idiot find my blog with an example of the 1st Amendment gone absolutely awry this 4th of July. Please use your freedom like alcohol: responsibly. Alcohol and freedom of speech have health benefits, and libertarians and anarchists are like alcoholics: they don't know when to stop. By the way, I expose even my audience when they're total idiots unless they can prove their idiotic claims.

If you care to read my last entry, you will see that someone from Virginia Beach engaged in (unless provable beyond a reasonable doubt) heinous libel, slander, and perhaps even criminal mischief. To allege that even a public figure is involved in illicit activity without proof crosses the line of what one can legally say about public figures.

Whoever Virginia Beach is, as far as I know, they're lucky that I don't have the power to trace their IP address and report them for alleged criminal mischief. In conclusion, don't ever make a claim that even a public figure is involved in heinous and criminal activity unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, like Virginia Beach, you're like a libertarian with free speech comparable to an alcoholic with alcohol: you don't know when to stop and you're going too far. 

My Reaction To the Obamacare Ruling

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

Jeremiah 23:24

New King James Version (NKJV)

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

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

Ezekiel 18:1-4

New King James Version (NKJV)

A False Proverb Refuted

18 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, ² “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

³ “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.

⁴ “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repost: "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" and Credibility Issues

The credibility issues lie with the Sandusky family (e.g., Jerry and Dottie Sandusky), the defense team, and others on the Sandusky side. Firstly, Dottie Sandusky is doing what abusers and deniers of abuse commonly do: try to turn the issue of credibility on the victim and lie about what happened. For example:

Part of the defense strategy is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong, but Dottie Sandusky was unable to say with much precision how often certain boys would stay in the couple's State College home. She said one of the boys, called Victim 10 in court records, she did not know at all.

She described Victim 1 as "clingy," Victim 9 as "a charmer" and Victim 4 as "very conniving, and he wanted his way and he didn't listen a whole lot."

Victim 9 testified last week that he was attacked by Jerry Sandusky in the basement of the ex-coach's home and cried out for help when Dottie Sandusky was upstairs. She, however, said the basement was not soundproof and she would have been able to hear shouting if she was upstairs.

Dottie Sandusky, who isn't charged in the case, also said the visiting boys were free to sleep upstairs if they wanted to. The accusers have said Jerry Sandusky directed them to the basement, where they allege he sometimes molested them.

Secondly, the defense team is trying "is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". The defense first stated that the abuse victims had a financial motive and were outright liars, but now they're acknowledging that something did happen--although they're saying "that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". Thirdly, why would Dottie Sandusky smile about a matter like this? In whichever way the case ends up going, Dottie Sandusky has and should have no reason to smile. Fourthly, would you blame the victims for saying things like the following, if they really did even say what they are alleged to have said?

Witness Joshua Frabel, who lived next door to Victim 1, recalled that the young man's mother said she had just heard Sandusky molested her child and that she would end up owning Sandusky's house.

"She had said about, when all this settles out, she'll have a nice big house in the country with a fence, and the dogs can run free," he said.

He added that Victim 1 told him: "When this is over, I'll have a nice new Jeep."

The mother took the witness stand to deny it, and Victim 1 denied it last week during his testimony.

Jerry and Dottie Sandusky owe their lives to those victims, and the victims were nice enough to not bring a class-action civil suit in addition to bringing criminal complaints against them. Too bad that "Kennedy v. Lousiana" (2008) overturned the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Fifthly, and in conclusion, the defense went really low to use a brain-damaged Iraq War veteran for sympathy--and using someone who didn't directly know Victim Four and who is cognitively and otherwise cerebrally damaged is not a smart move, anyway; since she may not even be able to understand what is really at stake in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky". 

Followup Re "Louisiana v. Mississppi" (1996) And Catholics Protesting Simmon's Execution...

As far as I know, I usually don't follow up blog entries like this; but did you notice a couple of points? For example, my friend talked about the "religion of Catholicism". So, he or she has words which testify against him- or her-self. He or she made my points:

• [I have] made the distinction between Evangelical and Non-Evangelical Catholics several times. Evangelicals of any denomination or even spin off (e.g., cult) believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, and B'rit Hadashah) as confirmed at Yavneh and Nicea and in its original languages and Holy Spirit-guided translations. Evangelicals are among Catholicism, Mormonism, Unitarianism, Lutheranism, and any other denomination and cult that you might like to name.

• To make the distinction between Evangelical (true, actual) and Non-Evangelical (nominal, in-profession-only) Christianity is imperative because Christianity is too often defined by the Non-Evangelical sects (e.g., Catholicism, Mormonism, Unitarianism, Lutheranism). 
Catholicism has been explained; Mormonism is obvious; Unitarianism does not believe Deuteronomy 6:4 and John 14:6, and Lutheranism is Anti Semitic.

• For people who are upset, let me explain something to you: let yourselves be upset. The truth needs to spoken when, for example, Catholics are protesting the execution of a rapist, kidnapper, and murderer named Gary Simmons. You talk about me judging, and you didn't even ask about the context. Besides, you know that I've spoken about this in the past. What should surprise or anger you now? Don't like the truth or seeking the truth? Don't be my friend. Simple.

• [I speak] the truth only because I love people. If I didn't love people, I'd shut up and let people go to Hell or be severely misguided.

Point One doesn't need to be elaborated on. Point Two can be explained with "The Book of Mormon" and "On the Jews and Their Lies". Point Three can be elaborated on by many of my past blog entries, and so can Point Four. My friend can get as pissy and huffy as he or she wants, and so can anyone else; but I'm perverting leading a quiet and peaceable life into shutting up when the blind are being led into a ditch, the deaf don't hear the alarms going off or whatever else they need to hear, and the mute don't have a voice. 

Re "Louisiana v. Mississppi" (1996) And Catholics Protesting Simmon's Execution...

Catholics protested outside of Gary Simmons' execution, and author Jewell Hillery took that part out:

Posted: Jun 20, 2012 9:03 AM EDTUpdated: Jun 20, 2012 7:36 PM EDTBy Jewell Hillery - bio | email

That Wolfe was collecting drug money doesn't matter: two wrongs don't make a right, even though Wolfe was (so to speak) playing with fire. I opined two, among other, points:

• Don't these Catholics get the concept of nefesh l'nefesh?

• [I don't] get why Catholics are so opposed to the legitimate death penalty when they illegitly used the death penalty for years--e.g., the Inquisition. Then again, I do get it--Catholics (not counting Evangelical Catholics) are hypocrites.

One of my Catholic friends in particular was pissed. I'm censoring his or her name to be generous, but this is how the conversation went; and I daresay that he or she is either remiss or stupid in that he or she doesn't know his or her own religion's doctrine, and that he or she would be remiss and foolish to try to school me again:

Nicole Czarnecki

4 hours ago near Baltimore · 

• doesn't get why Catholics are so opposed to the legitimate death penalty when they illegitly used the death penalty for years--e.g., the Inquisition. Then again, I do get it--Catholics (not counting Evangelical Catholics) are hypocrites.

   ·  ·  · Share

  • Jorge Alberto Escudero likes this.
  • • 
      

      [Friend] Whoa there. That's wrong. Just because a small group of Catholics did that in the past doesn't give you the right to judge Catholics today. And the official church stance isn't against the death penalty if you read the catechism. You could also make the same argument for protestants today. And only the more vocal liberal catholics are so opposed.

      4 hours ago via mobile · 
    • 

      Nicole Czarnecki As I said, I excluded Evangelical Catholics--those who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible in its original languages and Holy Spirit-guided translations. And it was no small group, which was part of why reformers such as Jan Hus and John Wycliffe showed up.

      4 hours ago · 
    • 
      

      [Friend] But you still say Catholics in general are hypocritical?

      4 hours ago via mobile · 
    • 

      Nicole Czarnecki Yes. Not Evangelical Catholics, though.

      3 hours ago · 
    • 
      

      [Friend] Wow. You are very judgmental of my faith. I will let it go though and pray that life experience will teach you differently. There is much you don't understand about the beautiful religion of Catholicism.

      3 hours ago via mobile · 
    • 

      Nicole Czarnecki I understand too much about it.

      3 hours ago · 
    • 
      

      [Friend] You are trying to instigate people today. One day you will learn the truth. In this life or the next.

      ...
    • 

      Nicole Czarnecki 

      I'm not trying to instigate anything, with all due respect... And I come from a long heritage of Catholicism, Jewish and gentile. I was baptized Roman Catholic, raised English-American Catholic (Episcopalian), have Catholic relatives (Roman, Byzantine, and English-American), went to a Byzantine Catholic Church at family reunions (St. Nicholas in Swoyersville), used to defend even Non-Evangelical Catholicism as a legit denomination of Christianity, and went to University of Notre Dame of Maryland. I learned the hard way.

"Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" and Credibility Issues

The credibility issues lie with the Sandusky family (e.g., Jerry and Dottie Sandusky), the defense team, and others on the Sandusky side. Firstly, Dottie Sandusky is doing what abusers and deniers of abuse commonly do: try to turn the issue of credibility on the victim and lie about what happened. For example:

Part of the defense strategy is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong, but Dottie Sandusky was unable to say with much precision how often certain boys would stay in the couple's State College home. She said one of the boys, called Victim 10 in court records, she did not know at all.

She described Victim 1 as "clingy," Victim 9 as "a charmer" and Victim 4 as "very conniving, and he wanted his way and he didn't listen a whole lot."

Victim 9 testified last week that he was attacked by Jerry Sandusky in the basement of the ex-coach's home and cried out for help when Dottie Sandusky was upstairs. She, however, said the basement was not soundproof and she would have been able to hear shouting if she was upstairs.

Dottie Sandusky, who isn't charged in the case, also said the visiting boys were free to sleep upstairs if they wanted to. The accusers have said Jerry Sandusky directed them to the basement, where they allege he sometimes molested them.

Secondly, the defense team is trying "is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". The defense first stated that the abuse victims had a financial motive and were outright liars, but now they're acknowledging that something did happen--although they're saying "that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". Thirdly, why would Dottie Sandusky smile about a matter like this? In whichever way the case ends up going, Dottie Sandusky has and should have no reason to smile. Fourthly, would you blame the victims for saying things like the following, if they really did even say what they are alleged to have said?

Witness Joshua Frabel, who lived next door to Victim 1, recalled that the young man's mother said she had just heard Sandusky molested her child and that she would end up owning Sandusky's house.

"She had said about, when all this settles out, she'll have a nice big house in the country with a fence, and the dogs can run free," he said.

He added that Victim 1 told him: "When this is over, I'll have a nice new Jeep."

The mother took the witness stand to deny it, and Victim 1 denied it last week during his testimony.

Jerry and Dottie Sandusky owe their lives to those victims, and the victims were nice enough to not bring a class-action civil suit in addition to bringing criminal complaints against them. Too bad that "Kennedy v. Lousiana" (2008) overturned the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Fifthly, and in conclusion, the defense went really low to use a brain-damaged Iraq War veteran for sympathy--and using someone who didn't directly know Victim Four and who is cognitively and otherwise cerebrally damaged is not a smart move, anyway; since she may not even be able to understand what is really at stake in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky". 

Repost: "Illegal Alien" Is Not A Pejorative

Besides, as a descendant of illegal aliens (Julian and Aleksjondria "Alexandria" Chernetski, and their son Antoni "Anthoy" Chernetski), I have more of a stake in the matter than Geraldo Rivera. Indeed, his dad was Puerto Rican (given U.S. citizenship in 1917, and born when Puerto Rico had been a U.S. territory for 17 years), and his grandmother Tillie Krivel Friedman was a legal immigrant from her Diasporan home of Canada. What does Geraldo have to worry about? Also, while not all illegals are Mexican or otherwise Hispanic (case in point, as my great-great-grandparents were Ashkenazim Anusim), most illegals are Mexican and otherwise Hispanic. Meanwhile, the Irish were not the first illegals. Don't believe me? Search Ancestry.com-- you'll find the New York and other port manifests of plenty of Irelanders, that of my great-great-great-granddad John Thomas Farrell.

Furthermore, Sections 8 and 9 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution have always provided for legal immigration:

1. Section 8 - Powers of Congress
   The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excisesshall be uniform throughout the United States;
   To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
   To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
   To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States...
2. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

In conclusion; as a descendant of Jewish illegal immigrants who has more stake in the illegal immigration issue than the descendant of Puerto Rican Cruz Rivera and legal immigrant Tillie Krivel Friedman, I speak to Geraldo Rivera and to others to say that "illegal" and "illegal alien" are not pejoratives.

"Illegal Alien" Is Not A Pejorative

Besides, as a descendant of illegal aliens (Julian and Aleksjondria "Alexandria" Chernetski, and their son Antoni "Anthoy" Chernetski), I have more of a stake in the matter than Geraldo Rivera. Indeed, his dad was Puerto Rican (given U.S. citizenship in 1917, and born when Puerto Rico had been a U.S. territory for 17 years), and his grandmother Tillie Krivel Friedman was a legal immigrant from her Diasporan home of Canada. What does Geraldo have to worry about? Also, while not all illegals are Mexican or otherwise Hispanic (case in point, as my great-great-grandparents were Ashkenazim Anusim), most illegals are Mexican and otherwise Hispanic. Meanwhile, the Irish were not the first illegals. Don't believe me? Search Ancestry.com-- you'll find the New York and other port manifests of plenty of Irelanders, that of my great-great-great-granddad John Thomas Farrell.

Furthermore, Sections 8 and 9 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution have always provided for legal immigration:

1. Section 8 - Powers of Congress
   The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excisesshall be uniform throughout the United States;
   To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
   To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
   To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States...
2. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

In conclusion; as a descendant of Jewish illegal immigrants who has more stake in the illegal immigration issue than the descendant of Puerto Rican Cruz Rivera and legal immigrant Tillie Krivel Friedman, I speak to Geraldo Rivera and to others to say that "illegal" and "illegal alien" are not pejoratives.

Repost: Moshe Looked To Torah Shel Brit Chadashah, and Legalistic "Messianic Judaism" Is Not Jewish

"Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a person sins unintentionally against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which ought not to be done, and does any of them, if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish as a sin offering..."

Those who insist on keeping all 613 mitzvot make the blood worthless ("For it is impossible for those who...fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.", as Hebrews 6 partly reads.). They like to play pick-and-choose mitzvotwhile under grace, since they cannot possibly go to the Temple and offer akorban l'kippur.

Besides, "the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.", as Hebrews 10 partly reads.

To advocate that keeping all 613 mitzvot while under grace is a mitzvah, is a sin. Legalism is sin, and "if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?"