Question In Re Congress Impeaching Trump vs Indicting Him

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

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

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

Mandate the Second Amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

A Special Card From Reilly To Mark A Special Annivesary

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.

As Originally Written On Twitter & Modified For Blogger: A Simple Republican Response To the State Of The Union

Those of us who are Republicans do not tolerate or support RINO *****'s willful and deliberate attempts to destroy the GOP, the United States, and republican parties in other countries. We also do not tolerate or support *****'s attacks on the Democrats, from whom he is much further on the Left. We additionally do not tolerate or support a repeat of history in which Neo Nazis and Neo Stalinists can bring about the kind of lawlessness and disorder that ***** seeks to bring.

We therefore support Special Counselor Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, both of whom (by the way) are GOP members whom seek to bring about what GOP Abraham Lincoln discussed in his address at Gettysburg: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

By standing with other Republicans (including Special Counselor Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein), the Democrats whom are willing to work with the GOP, and other American people whom want "one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" (as we pledge to want when we "pledge allegiance to the flag...and to the republic for which it stands"), we can be "a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." 

The United States can have a revival that does not include *****'s idea of what to "make American great again" is. 

As Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, "[W]hen we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""

That is all. Goodnight and God bless the United States of America.

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

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

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

Immigration Court Trends for the USA in 2016

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

An Increase in Matters Received

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

More than 200,000 Matters Completed

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

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

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

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

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

Skilled Workers Choose the United States

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

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

The Language of Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re People With Mental Illnesses Having Guns: Should We Be Sitting Ducks For Ableists?

Some people with mental illnesses actually do need guns. For example, vulnerable people who may well be targeted due to have mental illnesses need guns to defend themselves. As for Tr**p, he actually hates people with disabilities, including those whom have mental illnesses.


Thus, this ableist ploy by Tr**p to demonize people with mental illnesses may well backfire on him when his Tr**pites whom are committing hate crimes may realize that people with mental illnesses will not allowed themselves to have people step on them.

As for me, I wish that I had and could use a gun to defend myself against anyone whom would target me due to my Depression, OCD/Anxiety, and/or ADD alone (and wasn't getting a threat from a "physically fit German American" due to being a Jew with disabilities enough?).


Besides, look at how the Nazis were partly able to implement T4: they made it illegal for Jews in Europe to be armed, and (as I found out via JewishGen) I lost a cousin whom was murdered because she had Schizophrenia:

Lodz Ghetto Hospital Death Records

Searching for Surname (phonetically like) : RUSZNAK 1 matching record found. Run on Sun, 18 Jun 2017 22:55:09 -0600

Name	Address Occupation	Born	Died Cause	Comments	Source List Date Page Line
RUSZNAK, Magdalena	V. Str. 10  Bedienerin	1904 Kaschau	27-Jun-1942  Schizophrenie		Hospital Records 29-Jun-1942 2 54

Lumping in all people with mental illnesses with those such as Adam Lanza, whom refused to get help and whom committed a mass murder-suicide shooting, is wrong and playing right into Tr**p's hands.

A Jewish "Zhang" In China With MRKH? If So, Another Factor In the "Be Fruitful" Mitzvah To Examine Comes To Light

A 23-year-old woman named "Zhang", possibly "Joshua", had a corrective surgery to improve her marital and fertility prospects:

"As time went by, Zhang's parents became more and more worried that their daughter would not be able to date, marry and have children due to her condition. So the family contacted the No.1 Affiliated Hospital of the Medical School of Xi'an Jiatong University for help.
"Zhang was diagnosed with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH), a congenital abnormality characterised by women who have no vagina, womb and cervix...
"A B-scan ultra-sonography revealed that Zhang has no vagina or uterus, but she has functioning ovaries.
"She told the doctors that she had not been able to date any men because of her condition. She also had to turn down many admirers who had asked her out."

As an bat-Anusim, I would not be surprised if she is a Kaifenger Anusit and/or bat-Anusim*. After all, the reproductive aspect of "be fruitful and multiply" is heavily emphasized in traditional Judaism (not withstanding that some did and do focus on the non-reproductive aspects)—and in her case, it may have brought up another issue in Rabbinic halacha: "May one have any corrective or curative surgery that involves grafting a non-reproductive part onto a reproductive part, or would having such be a chillul יהוה in that it would involve l'sachek יהוה?"

*By the way, you will never catching me using "Anus" or "Anusah". If you can't figure out why, you may have never faced the kind of Anti Semitism that I have.

Reilly As A Service Dog & In A Courtroom?!

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

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

אה, לא!

Ah, lo.

"“Nothing will separate us, against our will, from such men and women, whether they live in Israel or in any other country. Universities were born before the nation states; they have reasons that overcome any raison d’état.”"

The comments were good until then. Firstly, nation states were the norm back in ancient days (e.g., Yisra'el/Judaea/"Palestinia"; Roma, Hellas). Secondly, without batim-midrash and similar educational institutions, universities would've been nothing. By the way, that "Israel is part of [Italians'] identity," is drek. With the exception of the Roman, Tuscan, and other Italian remnants, Italy and Israel have nothing to do with each other but the pain that Italians caused Jews over the millennia.

What the Italians have right, though, is this: "going against Israel means going against ourselves". The Italians know that any nation who curses Israel will be cursed in turn, and the Romans down to the modern-day Italians would've gotten nowhere without (among other Jewish groups) sabras, Romani'otim, Sephardim, Italqim (obviously, since Italqim are Italian Jews), and Ashkenazim (including, I'm pretty sure, Pope Yochanahn Sha'ul ben Malka Chanah. Don't believe me? Go search on "Emilia". Also, Kaczorowska could easily be "bat ka'tz u'rov". By the way, Pope John Paul II really helped improve Christian and Jewish, including Jewish Christian and Non-Messianic Jewish, relations.).

The Italian Anti-BDS legislation, then, may be opportunistic and not out of a genuine love for Israel. 

Originally On LinkedIn: Regarding Government And the Workforce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Megyn Kelly: "Conservative" and "A Lawyer" Mein Tuchus!

For anyone whom's wondering, "meir tuchus" means "my butt!" Anyway, no true conservative (Classical Liberal) and lawyer would state that "legal" inherently means "should be legal":

1. As far as the SCOTUS being the final arbiters of the law, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of inherently-illegal doctrines such as "Ferguson v. Plessy" and, before that, "Sanford v. Scott". The former was not overturned until 1955 (when "Brown" was fully cleared for implementation), and "Scott" en de facto was never overturned until Jim Crow ended, despite that the end of the Civil War ended it en de jure. 
2. DOMA was in force from the Clinton Administration until just relatively recently in the Obama Administration. 
3. Legalizing same-sex marriage risks religious freedom within certain contexts. For example, why should an Orthodox rabbi be sued by a couple whom he refuses to marry when he believes that the Flood came because of same-sex marriage in part (which the Talmud does state)?

By the way, speaking of rabbis, one'd think that Orthodox rabbis such as Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs would be helpful during this time of Anti-Jewish and Anti-Christian intolerance—although he's not at all tolerant of either Jewish Christians or gentile ones, or any Orthodox Jew whom even tolerates Christians (despite how Christianity as Noahidism is viewed).

This Is A "No Duh!" Action To Take

Taxing the American Internet user would be absolutely detrimental.

Pass the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act!

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

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

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

Afghan Buddhas & China, Jerusalem & the SCOTUS, &c.

In the same way that people are outraged over China's handling of Afghanistan's ancient Buddha statues and other Buddhist architecture, people would be more outraged about Jerusalem being stepped on by the SCOTUS and other (unintentional and intentional) Anti Semites if the Government of Israel held to the "Declaration of Establishment".

In other words, the SCOTUS and others, instead of doing what is right, are saying to Netanyahu and Agudat Yisra'el, "Why should we care about Jerusalem when you all are stepping on it, anyway? After all, you arrest an American oleh for eating a ham sandwich!"

By the way, I told you that Netanyahu and Agudat Yisra'el were trying to sell Israel to the "Palestinians"—you don't for example, propose an "establishment of a confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing the territory of Israel, as well as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" if you do not want a "Palestinian" state.

An Open Letter To Everyone Whom Has And/Or Could Harass And Bully Me For My Beliefs, Etc.

The non-underlined text is in regards to what prompted me to write this letter to a specific person. The underlined text is specific and general, as I have had others similarly harass and bully me in the past:

My belief in Yeshua is not relevant to the subject of homosexual acts as to how that the treated in the Torah, which is a common ground for both Messianic and Non-Messianic Jews. I even told a fellow Messianic that proselytizing is unacceptable and intolerable. Your attempt to embarrass me for my beliefs is a violation of the Facebook TOS as well as Torah.

Per the Facebook TOS alone:

1) "We respect other people's rights, and expect you to do the same.
You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law. 

"We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement or our policies."

2) "Posting things that don't follow the Facebook Community Standards (ex: threats, hate speech, graphic violence).

Using Facebook to bully, impersonate or harass anyone.

Abusing Facebook features (ex: sending friend requests to a lot of people you don't know). Overusing features could make other people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. As a result, we have limits in place to restrict the rate at which you can use features. Learn more about these limits." 

(See https://www.facebook.com/help/216782648341460?sr=6&query=bullying&sid=1rADp0ucHJnhvsEHg)

3) "We don’t tolerate bullying or harassment. We allow you to speak freely on matters and people of public interest, but remove content that appears to purposefully target private individuals with the intention of degrading or shaming them. This content includes, but is not limited to: "

4) "Content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is not allowed. We do, however, allow clear attempts at humor or satire that might otherwise be considered a possible threat or attack. This includes content that many people may find to be in bad taste (ex: jokes, stand-up comedy, popular song lyrics, etc.)." (What Facebook considers hate speech)

If you attempt to embarrass or shame me again, I will look into having charges for cyberbullying, hate crimes, and civil-rights violations pressed against you.

Stubborn Yemenim, And An Even-Worse Israeli Government

According to Ynetnews:

The Jews living in Yemen - most of whom had the opportunity to leave for Israel or another country, but refused – face an approaching danger from the advancing rebel forces, who have repeatedly made statements against Israel.
"We don't want to leave. If we wanted to, we would have done so a long time ago," Sanaa's chief rabbi Yahya Youssef said in February.

So, many of them are doing what G-d warned against through Yirmiyahu (cf. Yirmiyahu 8:1-7). By the way, for The Jewish Agency for Israel and the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs to focus on those of us who Agudat Yisrael doesn't consider Jewish enough and would still like to go home to Israel would be nice, especially since (as YNet reports), "The Foreign Ministry and the Jewish Agency have been in an ongoing state of frustration over the refusal of Yemen's Jews to leave".

If they can and won't leave Yemen, perhaps they'd like to give the aspiring olim among them and us "not-Jewish[-enough]" Jews their opportunities, since they won't take them. Then again, Netanyahu and his government may not allow that to happen, since that might actually bring in Yehudim and others whom would vote Likud, Agudat Yisra'el, etc.. out of office.

A Poll For Represent.Us's Baltimore Branch (Large Version)

Public OpinionPoll Results

Shema Kolainu, "Shema, Yisra'el", and Us People With Disabilities (Originally On LinkedIn)

Note: I will not be surprised if LinkedIn deletes this post, though. Nonetheless, I could not sit there and just be silent. 

'Im kol kavod l'Doqtor Weinstein (with all respect to Dr. Weinstein), this pretty much goes to my point. People blame people with disabilities for bad attitudes (I have experienced this from even my own family.) and act like we're at fault when we don't get hired by (excuse my language) ablelisits (which is, as I found out, what we call those who hate us because of our disabilities).

Besides, given that Dr. Weinstein founded Hear Our Voices - Shema Kolainu, he should know how Adonai tested our hearts in the desert to see how able people would treat people, let alone kohanim, with disabilities (I, by the way, am mainly a Patrilineal Jew who, although I do have some Jewish heritage on my mother's side, knows that I am descended from Ashkenazi Levites and kohanim; and this, hopefully richly, colors my commentary on YouTube, etc..):

And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 17 Speak unto Aaron, saying: Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath any thing maimed, or anything too long, 19 or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed, 20 or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or that hath his eye overspread, or is scabbed, or scurvy, or hath his stones crushed; 21 no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire; he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not My holy places; for I am the LORD who sanctify them. 24 So Moses spoke unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel. {P}

The attitude that the able people among us came out with was not only unmerciful; it was also abysmally discriminatory. This kind of attitude, even in modern Western (read: Judeo-Christian) countries still prevails figuratively in many aspects, including in the workforce:

"8 And when ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it no evil! And when ye offer the lame and sick, is it no evil! Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts."

In fact, three examples of this attitude are demonstrated in two ABC News "What Would You Do?" episodes. One portrays how a woman who is "slow of speech" (as Moses described himself in Torah) is persecuted by ablelists. Two other examples (which I was seeking when I found the first) show how deaf people are slyly rejected by human-resource managers and how parking spaces are regularly taken by ablelists (and even my now-estranged father called out a woman who took an accessible parking space when he and I were at, as I initially recalled, a Blockbuster one time; and I recall that to this day. Needless to say, he was not thrilled when she was parking in the space just to return a video, as I remember. She didn't take it from me. Still, she disadvantaged my compatriots with disabilities. By the way, that was a long time ago.). 

Sadly, this attitude has not changed from Biblical Times to allegedly-Judeo-Christian Times. This is despite how Adonai "desire[s] mercy, and not sacrifice" and even with laws such as the American With Disabilities Act—and so much for "one nation under G-d, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."