Ted Nugent and the Civil War...

Ted Nugent is a Far-Left Democrat and RINO in disguise. Ignore him and his comments about the Civil War. After all, he is the guy who threatened to murder the President of the United States--which is neither Constitutional, Biblical, nor acceptable. By the way, the Democrats started the Civil War (Remember that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, abolitionist Republican; and the exception among Democrats at the time included pro-Union Andrew Johnson) and the KKK (with Nathan Bedford Forrest as one of its founders). Therefore, Ted Nugentbelongs with the Far Lefts and the RINOs who are, essentially, self plants intent on infiltrating and destroying the Republican Party--which many Democrat Southerners also were and intended to do after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. 

Alright, Guys; I Never Alleged This (Some Of My Readers Go Too Far)...

Who the Hell would? Let's not carried away here. Toby Keith verbally abuses children and may be an adulterer, but this claim without substantial and beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof is going too far:

   

Virginia Beach, Virginia arrived from google.com on "The Nicole Factor: I'm Realizing That..." by searching for is toby keith a pedophile?.

01:41:20 -- 13 hours 4 mins ago

Meanwhile, Happy July 4th and use your freedom of speech responsibly, please. By the way, Virginia Beach and others, you will be exposed for ridiculous (unless provable) claims like that Toby Keith is a criminal. 

I'm Realizing That...

The only ones who are upset about allegations about Toby Keith acting in any inappropriate way are his idolizers. Called TK Warriors (instead of, for example, G-d Warriors or Jesus Freaks; since they'd rather fight for Toby Keith than put on the full armor of G-d), they're the kind who treat Toby Keith as G-d or a g-d rather than a human and a public figure. If and when (so to speak) s*** hits the fan, these Toby Keith idolizers are going to have a hard time--because reality is a hard thing to get hit with when you're not grounded in Christ; and reality may turn out to be that Toby Keith is a womanizer and egomaniac, which would not be a surprise, anyway, given videos such as "Stays In Mexico", "Whiskey Girl", and "Bullets In the Gun".

Why I'm Learning To Be More Charitable In My Blog Posts...

Among other reasons:

1. Admittedly, to not get sued
2. Good practice for journalism work--"fair and balanced"
3. To be charitable is the Christian thing to do.
4. "'Vengeance is Mine; I will repay', saith Yehovah."

However, that doesn't mean that I won't report or keep reporting on evidence-backed allegations, facts about public figures and others (e.g., my family and others who need to be called out), and whatever else needs to be exposed and brought to light. For example, this thing with Toby Keith--as I said, Toby Keith had better come clean really fast if he is cheating on Tricia. 

Repost: What Is With Everyone Suing and Prosecuting Everyone Nowadays?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011

What Is With Everyone Suing and Prosecuting Everyone Nowadays?

For example, Dr. Conrad Murray-- who should've lost his license but not been prosecuted. What; are my family going to be prosecuted for my aunt Mary Carole's death in 2008 when she decided not to take her insulin that day and was a determined alcoholic, anyway? We couldn't have done anything about her. And Justin Bieber-- honestly, don't sue the woman. Besides, you, Mr. Bieber, pulled a Herman Cain-- responded to legitimate allegations too late and amatuerly.

Save the prosecution for those like my granddad who ought to be prosecuted for the 2007 malice-murder-intent scenario and Social Security fraud regarding my great-grandmother Mary Trudnak Czarnecki. Save the suing for real discrimination, theft, and other lawsuit-worthy cases. Don't be frivolous or unjust in suing or prosecuting. The Criminal Justice and Corrections System in America is clogged up enough. Also-- as with Mr. Bieber--, why not resolve matters as soon as possible instead of a long time later if you have nothing to hide and something legitimate to contend?

Besides, 1 Corinthians 6 reads in part:

 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? ² Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? ³ Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? ⁴ If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? ⁵ I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? ⁶ But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
⁷ Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? ⁸ No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you dothese things to your brethren! ⁹ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,^[a] nor sodomites, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Second Draft of My Essay for Criminal Justice

In regards to Introduction to Corrections, I still maintain that the class could have been taught with much less book learning and more "chit chat", or engagement of and with the material. Engagement of and with the material would not only have supplemented the book learning, but applied it and made it easier to remember. The field events were a fine application; but the engagement known as "chit chat" would have also helped, and frankly helped apply to the field experience what we learned in class.

I also maintain that Drako did not apply "the punishment fits the crime" first, and the Ancient English did not apply lex talions and wergild first. The Hebrews did, and Genesis 9:6 applies one of the first-- if not the first of the-- Drakon-associated codes. As for lex talions (family justice) and wergild (restitutive sanctions-- e.g., blood money), the Hebrew Torah gives cases in which each are to be applied. For example, if a man accidentally kills another and does not flee to a marked city of refuge allows for lex talions, or if he must make restitution for a baby who he caused to be miscarried during a fight allows wergild.

I respectfully bring to point that I did not like the mockery of Christianity. Being a Messianic Jew and now understanding that (as far as I can tell) you are a Non-Messianic Jew, I fully respect your right not to believe in Jesus. However, I did not like the mockery of, incidentally, what the Quakers themselves based their rehabilitative, reformatory, and penitentiary models on. To them and me, Jesus would not just have been another high for drug and alcohol addicts, let alone one comparable to work and other addictions for the same. I also did not like the "Lazarus has risen" joke regarding Cameron. To me, Lazarus' resurrection was a sacred even and nothing to make light of, let alone to use as a metaphor for Cameron finally coming back to class after car problems.

I myself do not seek to proselytize, but hold strong Evangelical Christian, Messianic Jewish views. As the Quakers did with the views, I apply my views to my life and every aspect thereof, including an Introduction to Corrections class and corrections themselves. On that point, I found the Drug Court to be consistent with a Quaker-Christian view of saving the lost, rehabilitating, reforming, and bringing to penance. As a Messianic Jew, I look forward to seeing the Drug Courts-- and now the Mental Health, Veterans', and other Specialized Courts-- increase in number and effectiveness in decreasing the backlog in the Criminal Justice System.

In conclusion, I learned much about corrections and how to strengthen and apply my views to corrections in Introduction to Corrections, but I still would have liked to engage more with the material to supplement it and the applications of it (e.g., the field trips). I also, as I said, would've liked to see less mockery of Christianity, although I understand your views and certainly do not seek to proselytize. However, as aforementioned, I will do my views as the Quakers did with their views-- that is, apply them to corrections, and learn about other views in light of how to examine and strengthen my own.

Draft of My Reflection Essay For Criminal Justice (It'll Be Easier To Write It This Way First)

In regards to Introduction to Corrections, I still maintain that the class could have been taught with much less book learning and more "chit chat", or engagement of and with the material. Engagement of and with the material would not only have supplemented the book learning, but applied it and made it easier to remember. The field events were a fine application; but the engagement known as "chit chat" would have also helped, and frankly helped apply to the field experience what we learned in class.

I also maintain that Drako did not apply "the punishment fits the crime" first, and the Ancient English did not apply lex talions and weirgald first. The Hebrews did, and Genesis 9:6 applies one of the first-- if not the first of the-- Drakon-associated codes. As for lex talions (family justice) and weirgald (restitutive sanctions-- e.g., blood money), the Hebrew Torah gives cases in which each are to be applied. For example, if a man accidentally kills another and does not flee to a marked city of refuge allows for lex talions, or if he must make restitution for a baby who he caused to be miscarried during a fight allows weirgald.

I respectfully bring to point that I did not like the mockery of Christianity. Being a Messianic Jew and now understanding that (as far as I can tell) you are a Non-Messianic Jew, I fully respect your right not to believe in Jesus. However, I did not like the mockery of, incidentally, what the Quakers themselves based their rehabilitative, reformatory, and penitentiary models on. To them and me, Jesus would not just have been another high for drug and alcohol addicts, let alone one comparable to work and other addictions for the same. I also did not like the "Lazarus has risen" joke regarding Cameron. To me, Lazarus' resurrection was a sacred even and nothing to make light of, let alone to use as a metaphor for Cameron finally coming back to class after car problems.

I myself do not seek to proselytize, but hold strong Evangelical Christian, Messianic Jewish views. As the Quakers did with the views, I apply my views to my life and every aspect thereof, including an Introduction to Corrections class and corrections themselves. On that point, I found the Drug Court to be consistent with a Quaker-Christian view of saving the lost, rehabilitating, reforming, and bringing to penance. As a Messianic Jew, I look forward to seeing the Drug Courts-- and now the Mental Health, Veterans', and other Specialized Courts-- increase in number and effectiveness in decreasing the backlog in the Criminal Justice System.

In conclusion, I learned much about corrections and how to strengthen and apply my views to corrections in Introduction to Corrections, but I still would have liked to engage more with the material to supplement it and the applications of it (e.g., the field trips). I also, as I said, would've liked to see less mockery of Christianity, although I understand your views and certainly do not seek to proselytize. However, as aforementioned, I will do my views as the Quakers did with their views-- that is, apply them to corrections, and learn about other views in light of how to examine and strengthen my own.

A More Specific Example of Frivolous Lawsuits-- re The Papua New Guinean Who I Mentioned....

I am under persecution from HAYRIPITIR1/JLO801. He's threatening me with a frivolous lawsuit. He claims to be simultaneously in Papua New Guinea (as HAYTRIPITIR1), California (as JLO801, on his YouTube profile), and Maryland. His latest threat under his second username:

I ask you nicely to remove the video. since you do not want to do it, that is find with me. Im currently station in Andrews Air force Base in Maryland, since you live in Maryland too that is perfect for me. I will sue you... for violated my privacy. So you think I'm in overseas and not in the State lol we are in the same State. So I gave you 48 hours to get that video remove or i will contact my local police get you arrested. take you to court. read the law about violating person privacyrivacy is the expectation that confidential personal information disclosed in a private place will not be disclosed to third parties, when that disclosure would cause either embarrassment or emotional distress to a person of reasonable sensitivities. Information is interpreted broadly to include facts, images (e.g., photographs, videotapes), and disparaging opinions.surreptitious interception of conversations in a house or hotel room is eavesdropping. See e.g., N.Y. Penal §§ 250.00, 250.05
one has a right of privacy for contents of envelopes sent via first-class U.S. Mail. 18 USC § 1702; 39 USC § 3623
one has a right of privacy for contents of telephone conversations, telegraph messages, or electronic data by wire. 18 USC § 2510 et seq.
one has a right of privacy for contents of radio messages. 47 USC §605

I did nothing wrong. I merely mentioned his name since he commented re a video which I made. Besides, NY penal codes don't apply in MD.

I Should've Mentioned This In My Last Video...

If I sued for all of the times that I've had legitimacy to sue (and I've had plenty, including against Mia Danilowicz for her frivolry-- and I could've easily countersued for her attempt to defame me, misrepresent me and herself, and attempting to stifle legal and acceptable freedom of speech and expression of information), I could've sued.

But I haven't sued? Why? As I mentioned in my last video, a person who brings themselves into a matter needs to deal with whatever arises because of the matter. I, for example, have dealt with Mia-- I've called for any boycott for Marcela "Mia" J. Danilowicz until she gets her act together and starts treating people right. I'm not reaching out to befriend her again and apologize for anything that I may have done-- she added me as a friend in the first place, anyway, then removed me; and I have nothing for which to apologize to her.

Also, suing for selfish reasons is not Christian-- or even good Non-Messianic Jewish-- behavior.

Don't Let Legalistic Grinches Steal Christ-Mass, Chag Mashiach

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (Galtians 5:1, NKJV) If anyone gives you drek about Christmas (Chag Mashiach), Easter (Chag HaT'khiyah Mashiach), etc.; tell them to go do their homework and learn the actual origins, not the origins of what they were alternatives to.

Matters like this have "occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." (Galatians 2:4-5)

Dr. Conrad Murray: Prison Is Enough? Maybe Loing His License Was...

And since losing a license means no income, the taxpayers will be taking care if Dr. Murray, anyway. Prison or welfare? Either way, he'll end up on welfare. So, with Dr. Murray, Michael Jackson already picked his poison (since he was a druggie, anyway). We may as well pick ours-- and not prison. Losing a license was enough for Dr. Murray.

When Legalism Sprouts Up The Most

I notice that Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter are the times when legalism sprouts up the most; all because of what each originally historically coincided with and were in fact meant to be alternatives to-- the Celtic Pagan Fall Harvest, the believed-to-be Sukkot celebration of the Puritans gone wrong and long left un-recelebrated, the Greco-Roman Winter Solstice, and the likewise Spring Solstice.

The Early Church created Christmas as 'Am Yisra'el created Hanukah, both to counter the Winter Solstice. The Early Church also created Halloween and Easter to counter the Celtic Pagan Fall Harvest and Greco-Roman Pagan Spring Solstice.

Thanksgiving is another discussion.

Don't let P'rushim and other legalists streal your freedom to observe alternative-to-paganism, Christ-centered mo'edim v'chagim.

Are Christmas and Hanukkah Pagan? The Answer Is, Based On History and Other Factors...

Christmas and Hanukkah are both not pagan, and were actually created as alternatives to (respectively) the Winter Solstice and a Greek Pagan holiday. Google "Is Hanukkah pagan?", by the way. I once did after someone asserted that it may be or is. I was shocked.

Anyway, Christmas was originally "Christ-mass" or Chag Mashiach, created as an alternative by the Early Church to the pagan Winter Solstice and coinciding pagan holidays. Similarly, Hanukkah-- thought by some to be a late celebration of Sukkot-- was created to replace the celebration of the desecration of the Temple and a dedication to a pagan god. Some Hellinized and other Jews would only go so far in terms of Hellenization and toleration thereof, and would certainly not accept the Temple being destroyed.

Therefore, we have two Winter mo'edim v'chagim which are alternatives to Greco-Roman Pagan holidays.

David Mamet vs. The Anonymous Reform Jew: Who's Right?

David Mamet asserts:


"Any conflict may be stilled by surrender. Reform Judaism, for reasons good or bad, but which, I am sure, seemed good to its various practitioners at the time of implementation, abandoned Yiddish, Hebrew, the Talmud, kashrut, ritual, the Eastern European Jews and currently toys with condemnation of its co-religionaries in Israel. In order to defend what?


"After all the compromises have been made, and the conflict persists, and the will of the people has been broken by a lazy reversion to “the truth must lie somewhere in between,” what remains but the destruction of the Jews?"


The anonymous Reform Jew responds:


"David Mamet’s recent, meandering tirade demands a response, even if cogency permits only a partial rejoinder. So, I will limit myself to where he begins and I where I “live,” with the Reform Movement.


"He accuses Reform Judaism of categorically surrendering “Hebrew, the Talmud, kashrut, ritual, the Eastern European Jews, and currently toys with condemnation of its co-religionaries in Israel.” Thence, Mr. Mamet connects the Reform Movement to anti-Israel sentiment located on a spectrum that spans naïveté and, implicitly, self-hatred.


"In the end, his condemnation avoids facts and invokes, in their stead, inapposite truisms. If “Napoleon taught us the logical end of purely defensive warfare is surrender,” Mamet has yet to demonstrate that Reform Judaism does indeed surrender. He omits the evidence, because it contradicts his argument."


Who's right? The answer is: David Mamet. The anonymous Reform Jew concedes:


"In ritual and halakhic terms, Mr. Mamet offers nothing more than an anachronistic caricature, and in so doing, debases the Jewish communal conversation. Hebrew is a staple in Reform services, as is the millennial tradition of mutual aid. In theory, we are more flexible on matters of halakha than other non-Orthodox movements, but it’s not clear to me that our practice differs all that much. Shabbat services in Reform synagogues are lively affairs. Torah study for adults and religious schools for children flourish, and Reform Jews’ connectedness to Judaism—traditional and progressive—thickens day by day.

"As for our condemnation of fellow Jews in Israel: It is true that we will condemn someone for gratuitous violence, as we did in response to the recent arson attack on an Israeli mosque. And it is true that we will argue with fellow Jews for much less. But Mr. Mamet chooses to overlook the crucial fact that we argue with our coreligionists and, I trust, they requite le-shem shamayim, for the sake of heaven. We struggle with God Himself for the same purpose, namely, to work out the relationship between the sanctity of our Covenant, on the one hand, and the messy frailty of our worldly experience, on the other. Reform Judaism will not apologize for willingly, zealously engaging in that struggle, including both its traditional and modern aspects.

"For the sake of that argument, allow me to concede that it is true that in the nineteenth century, the Reform Movement did begin to take major steps in distancing itself from traditional forms of Judaism. It is also true that a large part of the American Reform Movement was non- or anti-Zionist leading up to 1948. For that very reason, Stephen S. Wise created a Reform alternative, known as the Jewish Institute of Religion, an avowedly Zionist academy. Following Israeli independence, the Hebrew Union College merged with the Jewish Institute of Religion, embracing its Zionism."

In conclusion, David Mamet pegged Reform Judaism well. David Mamet well concludes:

"We are enjoined, “Justice, justice shall you pursue.”

"The question, “What is justice,” is the eternal question of the Jew. The answer, “It is what my group tells me,” is not the Jewish answer."

Reform Judaism goes with URJ, CCAR, and other helping-to-serve-self thinking instead of with Tanakh. Tanakh gives three options-- all 613 mitzvot, Yeshua, or a whole host of tsuris. And Reform Judaism, being Non Messianic, does not have the option to skip any of the 613 mitzvot -- including supporting Yisra'el.

I Know That Shabbat's Today & That I'm Not To Hold A Grudge, But...

Since "Marcela" is trending on Twitter, I'm going to take the opportunity to remind everybody why my cousin Marcela J. "Mia" Danilowicz needs to be boycotted. By the way I didn't even write that Pop-Pop is a murderer when I mentioned him as being related to us; and as I've said, all I did was say that he was an IRS Agent who served tax papers to Nixon (which is true) and that Marcela's our cousin and a fashion designer (which is true).

I forgive and don't begrudge, but I don't pretend that the incident never happened or make the incident a repressed memory or memory to be wiped out of my memory bank. Besides, those posts promoted Mia and said that we're also not related to that Anti Semite Stefan Czarniecki-- and I'm a "fucking psycho"?

I'm not supporting or promoting anyone-- especially any family member-- who treats me and others like crap, and who threatens frivolous and unnecessary legal action against someone. By the way, using a lawyer as a threat is not cool-- our legal system is clogged up enough and has real problems to deal with.

January 6, 2010

Nicole Czarnecki

How Are We Related?

My understanding (given your last name) is that we're related through my great-granddad Czarn(i)ecki's paternal grandmother, Katarzyna Danilowicza Czarniecka. But I'm wondering how we're specifically related through her or her family line. In other words, are we both descended from her (meaning we'd be x-degree cousins or x-times-removed cousins, like 4th or 4-times-removed cousins) or descended from her dad or granddad (meaning we'd be like 5th or five-times-removed cousins)?

I understand that you've seen that I'm looking for Danilowicz, Czarniecki, et. al. relatives (which is why you added me as a friend?); and I'm just trying to (if you will) connect the dots, and I honestly thought that my chances of connecting with a Danilowicz, or Czarniecki, or other cousin who's from or even still over in Poland were probably little to none (especially at this point).

By the way, correct me if any of my understanding is wrong and/or totally missing the mark. Thanks.

Nicole Czarnecki

November 7Sent from Mobile

Marcela J. Danilowicz

Hi you need to delete my name from all of the posts you made on urban dictionary, I cannot have anything like that on the Internet because of work, please do it now or I will contact urban dictionary and my lawyer.

November 7

Nicole Czarnecki

There's no way that I can delete those posts-- I tried to, but I can't. I, with all due respect, see no reason to contact your lawyer. However, I can see reasons for you to contact Urban Dictionary.

Thank you for letting me know about the consequences of the posts ahead of time before any adverse action was taken.

November 7

Marcela J. Danilowicz

Why did you write these posts. You are fucking psycho.

November 7

Nicole Czarnecki

If you feel that way, then you shouldn't have added me as a friend or acknowledged me as a relative in the first. Also, everything that I wrote is true to the best of my knowledge.

Please Help Me With This Stats Project-- And Relatives, Contact Me

First, to the relatives: that I know that our family is meshuga is pretty obvious. I hope that Mia, Pop-Pop, Janet Rozzi, and a whole bunch of others will someday apologize for-- among other things-- not acknowledging our Jewish heritage, and for thinking that kapoesque (i.e., Great-Grandma Gaydos') acts and murderous (i.e., Pop-Pop's) acts are okay to cover up and even defend once found out about.

And Janet, I still don't care that the times were different-- that excuse didn't and doesn't fly. Many relatives died in the Shoah because of your endeared "Grandma"'s actions. I also still maintain that were Jack Feldman and Dad eating kosher as their Jewish digestive systems were made for them to do, they could manage their Chron's without even hospital visits such as Jack endured. I do considerably well with my Irritable Bowel Syndrome because I eat almost-always kosher.

And with all due respect to Great-Grandaunt Aggie and Great-Granduncle Andy, their straying from Andy Rusnak's and Julia Fosko Rusnak's (or at least their Rusnak and Fosko ancestors') paths of keeping kosher set off their Alzheimeric proclivities-- Jewish systems, no mater how much we like it, weren't made to eat treif. By the way, from what I can see in the "Rusnak Roots" cookbook,  Great-Grandaunt Aggie's and Great-Granduncle Andy's generation (which is the Fosko-Rusnak children's generation) are who began straying from keeping kosher.

As for my Stats project (and if Janet and any of the rest of Dad's family who hate me help out, I'll be surprised), please answer "How will/did you spend Thanksgiving?". I answered "With family" (my mom's family, not my dad's-- especially those who hate me). I need at least 49 more people to answer. And some people will be answering after Thanksgiving or perhaps celebrated Thanksgiving early, so I included "did... spend Thanksgiving".

Happy and Kosher Thanksgiving. And for my relatives who want to contact me and talk about anything that I've said re the family or anyone or anything else, send me an e-mail. I can even take hate e-mail-- as I've said, I'm used to family hating me.

I Think That Some Relatives May Be Reading This Blog & Still Won't Contact Me....

I honestly don't bite-- if I don't need to bite, that is. But I bite and fight pretty fairly. I'm not perfect; but I do love and am thankful for my family, even if they don't love and be thankful for me. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."

Great-Grandma Czarnecki was thankful for even the son who intended to rid of her in the most painful way possible-- in a cold hospital with her leg amputated and almost thrown away when she was already dying and wanted to die at home. That's why she "want[ed] to talk about it" to Aunt Mary-- she loved us enough to do that for Aunt Mary and the rest of us (including her great-great-granddaughter Brianna, who was yet to be born at the time. She loved Madison, too; but considered her a step-great-great-granddaughter, as Madison really only is-- through no fault of her own; but she's only Dad's step-- not his biological-- granddaughter, and she'll always be so far.).

As I said on Facebook last night (and after a distant cousin revealed that he's part of one of the crazy branches as well, and to the point where he will take the name of any woman who he will marry), I-- like Great-Grandma did-- talk about our family because I care enough to see our family history exposed to and reformed in the light:

• Luke 12:2-5, NKJV: ² For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. ³ Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops. ⁴ “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. ⁵ But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
 
• 1 Corinthians 4:5: Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.
• 2 Corinthians 4:2:  But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

That's why I do not dread Dad, Pop-Pop, and others who want to silence and our family histories and collective family history-- and that's why I want to thankfully use my gift of the right to free speech and "talk about" our family history.

I Have No Problem Submitting Legitimately-Self-Hating, Israel-Threatening Jews To Masada2000.org...

Being talmidim of Meir Kahane, Masada2000.org often can and do go too far in who they consider Self-Hating, Israel-Threatening Jews-- and sometimes they don't go far enough (e.g., Jack Czarnecki. Excuse me, Masada2000.org; Jack Czarnecki refused to admit that he is Jewish when he was serving tax papers to Anti-Semitic Nixon, and thus refused to take a stand for the Jewish people. Then he later intended to rid of his Jewish Catholic mother, Mary M. Trudnak Czarnecki. Why don't I see "Czarnecki, John 'Jack' on Masada2000's infamous list).

That's why I submit only legitimate candidates. e.g.:

1. PM David Cameron (who got himself de-facto submitted long before I entered the picture),
2. Great-Grandma Gaydos (And if you think that betraying relatives during the Shoah and refusing to help them make aliyah is okay, you must have your head stuck in something.),
3. Senator Barbara Mikulski. I've blogged about her being a Self-Hiding, Self-Despising Jew; and having come from families of Self-Hiding, Self-Despising Jews, I had to go through the schpiel to discover my actual heritage-- and I never would've dreamed in a million years that we are Jews. And I am sick of that there are many Self-Hiding, Self-Despising Jews; especially ones like Senator Barbara Mikulski who refuse to use their power and authority to be open about their Jewish heritage and take a stand for the Jewish people. By the way, most Poles do not have brown hair and brown eyes, which Senator Mikulski does. And she got lucky, too-- I had to get the brown eyes from my (as far as is known) gentile Spanish-Irish-American mom (My dad's family ended up being Olive- and fair-complexioned, non-brown-eyed Ashkenazic Jews; and we were lucky to retain the Olive complexion where we did-- go figure.).

I Could But Won't Be Submitting My Sister to Masada2000's Infamous List (For Right Now)...

I ran into some errors on my computer, which I took as a sign. Meanwhile, I don't see how a Jew with relatives in Tel Aviv who were already betrayed by her kapo great-grandmother (Mary Rusnak Gaydos, whose name I absolutely submitted to Masada2000.org) is okay with betraying her relatives again. Voting for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is an ultimate betrayal of Israel.

What Congressional approval does Ron Paul need to help Israel fight Iran? Isn't blessing Israel more important than listening to Congress? George W. Bush thought so when he declared war against Kabul (Afghanistan and Pakistan, cf. 1 Kings 9:13). George W. Bush blessed the memory of Dana Falkenberg and blessed Dana Falkenberg's people and country when he had Israel's greatest and then-freshly-wounded ally invade Kabul.

Why would Ron Paul ever listen to one Self-Hating Mossad agent and withdraw support from Israel? By the way, Ron Paul could never get away with saying that on FOX News-- Self-Hating Wolf Blitzer let him get away with saying that (as my sister told me. I don't watch or support Anti Semitic, though I'll glance at it from time to time at school since it's on the cafeteria TVs, anyway; and all I see on CNN is Far Leftism and Anti Semitism).

Ron Paul had better not be a Self-Hating Jew-- or Jewish for that matter, anyway-- because he will be particularly cursed if he is:

¹ Now the LORD had said to Abram:

“Get out [Lekh Lekha] of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
² I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
³ I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

The Statute of Limitations For Rape May've Expired for Natalie Wood, But Who Else Has Kirk Douglas Raped?

Back in his day, Kirk Douglas could've easily gotten the death penalty for rape, particularly child and adolescent rape. But then-16-year-old Natalie Wood was afraid to report him, and eventually went to her grave without doing so. But who else has Kirk Douglas raped in his day? He can't get the death penalty for any crimes after Coker v. Georgia (1977) and Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), but ex-post facto applies only as it says that it does-- "ex-post facto-- after the fact". So once Coker and Kennedy came down, Douglas escaped the death penalty for any crime that he committed after each of the respective rulings were made. In other words, once the death penalty for rape was banned, it was banned for the here- or there-after.

But the question remains: since Kirk Douglas raped Natalie Wood and got away with it (before Coker and Kennedy), what did he do after Coker and Kennedy? And even since he got away with raping Natalie Wood, who else did he rape before Coker and Kennedy?

Since they can reopen the Natalie Wood drowning case, they can investigate Kirk Douglas to make sure that he hasn't done anything else since getting away with his own crimes against Natalie Wood-- and there's always probable cause to at least investigate someone who got away with rape once, no matter how long ago the statute of limitations on that particular rape expired.