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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now You Tell Me...

I gave you my own take.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) There are people whom either:

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

or

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

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

Commentary: "Conflate"? And "Plain Meaning"?

How can Kellyanne Conway as a sexual-abuse survivor herself work with an self-admitted sexual abuser? There's no conflating about it. Supporting Kavanaugh and ***** is saying to her own sexual abuser, "What you did to me is okay." After all, you can't knowingly support some unrepentant sexual abusers and not support others at the same time. If you're supporting any sexual abusers with full knowledge of what they did and/or are doing, you are by extension supporting your own if you yourself were and/or are a victim of sexual abuse. Thus, an answer like the following one to a question about your own hypocrisy would be all the more inappropriate and intellectually dishonest:

"Don't conflate that with this, and certainly don't conflate that with what happened to me."

Translation: "Stop confronting me about my hypocrisy, and certainly stop telling me to refrain from revictimizing fellow sexual-abuse victims and survivors."

Meanwhile, in regard to a case that involves hypocrisy concerning non-sexual abuse—namely, "Schreiber v. McCamet et. al." (2018)

• At least Senator Blunt did something right for once during this whole xenophobic, misogynistic, and racist ***** Era, especially since (I guarantee you that) the same ruling would not have been made had the adoptee been a White boy or any girl that ***** and *****ites would consider (forgive the language) a token—and with the Armed Forces not being keen on *****'s plan for a military parade and the adoptee in question being a South Korean and not a North Korean (let alone one whom either escaped from or somehow got special permission to leave North Korea), ***** and *****ites are likely to all the more see adoptee as useless and even detrimental to them. As for Non-White boys, for the same ruling to have been made might've actually been possible given that ***** and *****ites would likely see no value in someone whom they couldn't try to use for a "Women for *****" schtick, especially with the current events at hand—ones that certainly make female voters and to-be voters more of a target voting demographic than male voters and to-be voters.   
• That judge basically just sent a huge (forgive the language) "**** you. I don't care about your military service" to Lt. Col. Schreiber and his family, as well as to other military families, and an "I don't care about your service" to other Armed Forces members and their families.
• The only "plain meaning" there, then, is that the judge would've ruled to let the delayed adoption process continue to go through now had the adoptee been a 17-year-old White boy or Non-White girl whom he found useful for "MAGA" and "America First" ends, never mind that putting America first actually includes letting Armed Forces members whom have served honorably as well as been of good character adopt any child whom wants to be adopted by him or her.

Therefore, "hypocrisy" still means "hypocrisy" just as "is" still means "is" and has a definition around which nobody can get—whether whomever tries to get around it is Kellyanne Conway, a bigoted judge, or anyone else.

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

PPS That I wrote about whomever ***** would nominate and included the following was surprisingly prescient, especially given that I wrote what I wrote in July(!):

"Now-Former President Obama admitted his general disdain for most conservatives as well as most moderate & leaning-moderate people on all sides—and at least he, as far as I know, doesn't have any forcibly-aborted children or sexual-harassment victims in his wake."

Dr. Blasey Ford made her allegations in July, and (as I predicted) Kavanaugh is indeed a ***** sycophant and (as I unbeknownstly-to-myself predicted) fellow sexual abuser of *****. 


(By the way, Julie Swetnick's own indiscretions do not mean that she wasn't sexually abused by Kavanaugh. So, don't automatically assume that he has only two known victims in his wake.)

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.  

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.

#FunnyFriday & #InspirationFromGod: Where's the Beef?

I actually thought of this on Wednesday at the moment that I saw that Special Counselor Mueller "is writing a report" on ***** in the Russian-collusion probe:

Where's the beef? Well, Special Counselor Mueller seems like he b-usted T-rump, whom made himself quite the butt of many a joke—talk about being on a legal hotseat and being a subject of many a comedic toast and roast!—and besides, he treated many a woman worsely than meat, and treated many a man poorly. Treat people as literally less than cows, figuratively set up your career and reputation to be grilled like a steak for everything to come out and be fresh for the fodder picking. The grass was greener in the pastures on the side of Yehovah, I guess, but ***** chose to stall and fatten up his professional and social lives.

On Mitt Romney's Senate Run, Rick Gates' Finalization Of His Plea Deal, Etc.

1. Good. We need a common-sense and #NeverTrump (in other words, a real) conservative, not RINOs or those whom dread Hillary Clinton more than fear God.
2. Good. By the way, the probe that Special Counselor Mueller's conducting is (so to speak) getting down to the wire, and it's only a matter of time before ***** is indicted like his equivalent Netanyahu and his "natural partners" will be by the prosecutors in Israel.
3. On North Korea: South Korea is either trying to trojan horse North Korea in turn or desperate to make peace and/or avoid trouble with Kim Jong-Un, and to pay North Korea for the Olympicsis a bad idea if the latter is the case.
4. On the shooting in Florida: as someone in a Facebook group pointed out, the majority of victims of Jews and the media's hardly covering that. Sadly, that makes sense, as the shooter was a White Supremacist. Also (and forgive if I'm being racist), I think that the media would cover it a lot more if the majority of the victims were Black or Hispanic. Of course half of the media hardly to not at all cover when an Anti-Semitic hate crime has occurred. By the way, the shooter was adopted by a Hispanic family; and whether or not he himself is even ethnically Hispanic or at least has of some Ethnic Hispanic heritage, pulling the "White card" is as racist as if someone pulled an Anti-Hispanic card. Whites can't be blamed as a general rule in this (and quite frankly, I thought that the shooter was Hispanic until the news that he was adopted came out)—point being, a person of any given ethnic group can be a racist and an ethnocentrist, and the Florida shooter was clearly an Anti Semite (Incidentally, I have no idea whether his ex girlfriend or his ex girlfriend's current boyfriend is Jewish, although it wouldn't surprise me if either one of them is and were victimized for that reason—and many abusive people are also racists and ethnocentrists—hateful does and hateful is, and the Florida shooter is clearly a hateful person.).
5. Of course the mental-illness card was pulled by the shooter—the convenient excuse that many mass shooters seems to be that ableist one—and in any case, as I said, the Florida shooter effected the clock to be set back for those of us with mental illness. Besides, he didn't have to shoot anybody even if he really does have Schizophrenia and will be found not even competent to stand trial—those of us with mental illnesses are not inherently evil just because of mental illnesses, and many of us even need guns to protect ourselves from ableist people whom would target and otherwise abuse us. In addition, I have ancestors and other belated relatives whom had Schizophrenia and never even attempted to hurt anyone—in fact, at least two of them were exploited due to their mental illness and other factors.
6. Of course ***** the hypocrite pretends that he cares about anyone with mental illnesses. By the way, my mental illnesses have honestly flared up in part because of an ableist, racist, and otherwise-bigoted and lawless person whom is not being indicted by Special Counselor soon enough being in the White House.
7. The most-dangerous weapons are the brain and the heart, not guns. Furthermore, no amount of gun control will change anybody—only Yehovah can change anybody. As I tweeted:

• ""Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." None of us can ever change without Yehovah, regardless of how much or little #guncontrol there is."
• ""For Thou dost light my lamp; Yehovah Eli doth lighten my darkness. For by Thee I run upon a troop; and by my God do I scale a wall." Indeed, only love can drive out hate & light drive out darkness. Neither #guncontrol nor insincere #thoughtsandprayers drive out hate & darkness."

Dealing With Sheer Libel And Slander As An Author And As A Person Overall

I've decided that I'm going to be more proactive in regards to libel and slander against myself and—when to do so is necessary—libel and slander against others. I have had being libelled and slandered over the years, and I have even confronted paternal and maternal family members over it. In fact, in my new book, I wrote the following about both lies that my maternal grandfather's mother told and a long-standing issue because of relatives whom are libelling and slandering me over it:

"Meanwhile, this alone (as I’m now realizing) helps to explain why I thoroughly and even defensively  explain quite a bit of what I explain—as if getting called “an overall liar” at Sheppard Pratt by a caseworker whom fell for my father’s lies about me wasn’t enough, having Nana Allen throw her younger children and their descendants for a loop really affected me to start laying out every detail of quite a few cases once I found out about being thrown for such a loop—and as if many of my matriarchs and patriarchs on Dad’s side didn’t do enough loop throwing, todah rabah (and their loop throwing was more understandable than her loop throwing, as—as I later read—the Inquisition ended in 1834, whereas increasing Anti Semitism still affects many of my paternal relatives loathe to admit that we’re Jewish—even to the point at which one relative is trying to paint me as an overall liar in regard to what my father’s maternal grandmother did, and notwithstanding that I can neither help what happened or conjure up evidence to fit the narrative of what he wants to believe what happened."

Here's my advice to anyone whom would be tempted to libel and slander others in the future:

1. Remember that even in the era of *****, verbal abuse such as libel and slander is never normal—and that includes what that Mila Kunis did in misrepresenting herself and using Mike Pence's name is not normal, even if the Supreme Court should rule (and there exists a very-real possibility that the SCOTUS will rule) that what Mila Kunis did is a protest that is protected by the First Amendment, despite that she committed misdemeanor-level representation at the very least (and I guarantee that any case against Mila Kunis will be appealed up to the Supreme Court).
2. As I've said, keep in mind I may well sue in certain cases in which I'm libelled and slandered, and I may even press charges of criminal libel and slander against those whom are libelling and slandering me—especially since some of the libel and slander that I've had directed against me has been tantamount to hate crimes and even included threats on my life.
3. If you insist on libelling and slandering others, see how well libelling and slandering others ends up working out for you when at least one of your libel and slander victims does end up suing you and/or having you prosecuted.
4. Remember that if you are especially trying to destroy others' livelihoods and/or reputations when you libel and slander them, you may well destroy your livelihood and/or reputation if your boss decides to fire you and you even end up not being able to find another job (By the way, Mila Kunis could well lose her career over representing herself as Mike Pence if the court of public opinion does not rule in her favor, even if the SCOTUS does.).
5. If you are religious in any way, remember that your religion usually include libel- and slander-prohibiting commandments such as "Do not bear false witness," "Love your neighbor as yourself", and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you work in a religious occupation—e.g., as a priest, rabbi or gabbai, or moderate imam; at a YMCA branch, Jewish Community Center, or a Muslim Community Center; or for a religiously-affiliated 501(c)(3) organization—remember that you could also lose your job due to violating one of the core tenets of your religion. 
6. If you have children and/or others for whom you have to set a good example, remember that libelling and slandering others is not setting a good example.
7. Remember that when each of us dies, he or she will leave a legacy in which he or she probably does not want to include a reputation for having libelled and slandered others.

As for me, while I'm not perfect and without instances of having libelled and slandered others in the past, I have worked hard throughout my entire life to be circumspect in avoiding libelling and slandering others. 

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.

Originally On LinkedIn: I Don't Understand Why Some Professing Christians Don't Understand That...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly ruled in "Kennedy v. Bremerton School District".

Firstly, now-Former Coach Joe Kennedy made his praying an issue when he allowed other students to pray with him and gave them the impression that the Bremerton School District condoned it. Secondly, Former Coach Kennedy was at a public school as opposed to a religiously-affiliated one. The First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments don't allow the imposition or prohibition of any religion; and then-Coach Kennedy could've prayed privately with the students in his office. Thirdly, the United States is still relatively "a free country, [and] you can do whatever you want" within certain bounds.

Fourthly—and most importantly—professing Christians—nominal and actual Christians alike—should expect persecution in even apparently-free countries. If a professing Christian really does believe the New Testament—and as for me, I believe the New Testament and have to ask—didn't Jesus say, for example, "In this world, you will have many troubles; but take heart—I have overcome the world?" and "The Power that is within you is stronger than the power in this world"?

Besides—and I as a Jewish Christian have to say this—I would think that fellow Jewish Christians of mine and gentile Christians would understand that we'd definitely get kicked out of institutions such as public schools today since we got kicked out of batim knesset and the Temple back then.

In conclusion, then:

1. Professing Christians like Former Coach Joe Kennedy need to get used to the facts that the Constitution doesn't give professing Christians to cry foul especially when professing Christians are the ones whom are violating the Constitution,
2. The Bible says that Christians are to expect persecution, and that whining when we get kicked out of places for praying—especially when the people who run those places choose not to just say, "Don't do that again; and just pray privately next time."—does not help—in this case, Bremerton School District chose to not say, "Just pray privately next time—or at least don't give students the impression that we as a school district condone staff- and faculty-led prayer in a way that imposes religion on the students."
3. Since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Former Coach Kennedy's violations of the Constitution, he ought to "[r]ender what is Caesar's unto Caesar, and render what is God's unto God."
4. In other words—and forgive my unprofessional language—buck up, grow up, put away the childishness of crying "Unfair!" when you get rightly punished, and quit being bushot l'otem mi lo Notzrim or shandas far di vas zenen nisht Kristn.

I made this using public-domain pictures and Powerpoint. My point: keep the imposition of religion out of public workplaces, especially if you're Christian and well know that you could get persecuted even for being Christian. 

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".

When I First Got the Fox News Alert Re the Email Chain....

I did not feel like reading about it, since I thought that Donald Trump, Jr. would release a Wikileaks-style (i.e., decontextualized) email chain. Then I saw the "New York Times" article as I was browsing. I read the Fox News article afterwards, and I realize that even newly-hired Tr**pite Cody Derespina can't spin this one. (By the way, I've noticed that the Tr**pite reporters like Cody Derespina put their names on their "hard news" articles, in contrast the objective Fox News reporters whom often—if not usually—just put "Fox News".)

Methinks that Donald Trump, Jr. passed up his opportunity to plea the Fifth on this one. He might as well testify against his father during both the Senate hearings and "United States v. Donald J. Trump"—and he'll have to take a plea deal in "United States v. Donald J. Trump, Jr." if he wants even partial prosecutorial immunity.

"How To Get Away With Sexual [Battery]": Sponsor Bill Cosby's Tour & Set A Bad Example

If nothing else stops you from giving a venue to Bill Cosby's "How To Get Away With Sexual [Battery] Tour, think about young Black men in cities such as Birmingham (which was important in the Civil Rights movement), Chicago (where the American Giants Negro Leagues team was), Detroit (Motown), and Philadelphia (where the Constitution was written). What kind of example does violating the Civil Rights and other liberties and freedoms of women, and spitting in the face of men whom avoided couching any women as "whores" (let alone sexual-battery victims as such) set for young Black men?