Why I Started A Change.Org Petition Asking Congress to Impeach Biden

PS Not just I need to be involved in calling on Congress to impeach Biden and impeach Biden now. 

Final Commentary For 2019: The Recent Attacks On Jews Have Had Nothing To Do With Religious Bigotry...

They instead have had everything to do with ethnic bigotry. With the desecration of matzevot in the Žilna, Slovakia-area town of Rajec to the stabbings that happened in Monsey, New York (all with the ablestically-pulled "He has a mental illness" card to literally add insult to injury—despite that the attacker had bleach on his clothes) among the recent series of Anti-Semitic hate crimes, one can conclude only that those who have both hurt the living and attempted to disturb the rest of those whom have gone on to the 'olam haba are motivated by ethnic bigotry, not religious bigotry, against Jews. As World Jewish Congress Chairman & CEO Ronald S. Lauder stated, those who fire rockets into Israel "don't care what synagogue [their intended victims] attend." In fact, they don't care if they attend any synagogue at all!

One could be as nontraditional a Jew as, for example:

1.  A San-Francisco-residing Atheist Jew whom is a card-carrying member of Freedom From Religion and also a member of the LGBTQ+ community, despite that his or her parents were and are active members of Daly City's Egyptian Karaite community whom never thought that their son or daughter himself or herself would be anything but a devout Karaite
2. A Jewish Christian/Messianic Jew/Jesus-believing Jewⁱ of any given background
3. A Cochini Jew whom's a HindJew (Jewish Hindu) raising his or her kids in an interfaith (or intermovement/interdenominational¹) HindJew-BuJu home with his or her Kaifeinger Jewish spouse whom is a devout BuJu.
4. A Muslim Lemba Jew whom was able to make aliyah and is living with his or her Muslim Ethiopian Jewish partner in a sort of common-law-marriage arrangement, since he or she can't marry her or him for whatever reason.
5. A Cochini-Kaifenger Jew whom's in a HindJew and lives with his or her Muslim-BuJu partner, whose one parent was a Muslim Lemba Jew and whose other parent was an Ethiopan JuBu 
6. A Cherokee Jew whose Black father is a pastor in a Baptist church and whose mother practices Native American traditional religion, and whom identifies the most with his or her African-American heritage as well as practices a syncretic form of Baptist Christianity and Native American religion
7. An asexual Afro-Cherokee-Egyptian Jewish American whom practices a syncretic form of Baptist Christianity, Native American traditional religion, and Karaite Judaism, much to the dismay of each and all of his or her grandparents, each and all of whom also are dismayed that the grandchild in question has chosen to neither marry nor even have children through surrogates or by adoption.
8. A transgender sibling of the decidedly-single multiethnic-and-multifaith cisgender Jew whom is mentioned above, and whose own religious persuasion is ambiguous.

One could also be as traditional as, for example, the rabbi whom a hateful man attempted to murder on Hanukkah.

The point is, then, that any one of the kinds of Jews listed above and every other kind of Jew could be targeted by Anti Semites—none of whom care about our individual or shared religious beliefs and practices, sexual orientations and gender identities, or intra- and inter-ethnic lineages—or any other individual or shared factors but for our Jewish ethnicity.  

ⁱ Or however you identify yourself if you're a Jew whom believes in Jesus. I myself choose "Jewish Christian" to make unambiguous "ethnically Jewish and religiously Christian" and thus leave nothing to open to discussions, questions, debates, or word games by Anti-Messianic ("Anti-Missionary"/"Counter-Missionary") individuals and groups.

¹If one looks at the histories of Hinduism and Buddhism, they'll see that Buddhism could be called "Reform Hinduism" in at least some respects

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! 

Twitter Thread: Trumpism, Bernism, And a Slippery Slope

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

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

Continued on Twitter...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary: Why I Don't Intend To Watch the Democratic Debates

1. 25 candidates for POTUS in the same party at one time is called one thing: overcrowding the boat, which will eventually sink it. To rock the boat and run for POTUS is one matter. To, (whether deliberately or inadvertently) overcrowd the boat especially on rough-enough seas, let alone when you have the same basic ideas as everyone else on the boat, is another.
2. Some of them really aren't running for POTUS, anyway. To those not really running for POTUS, with all due respect and seriously, please get off of the boat and vie for what you really want in some other way—you can get power, 15 minutes of fame, a chance to be the running mate of the ultimate nominee, another idea for a way to continue to speak out against Trump, or whatever else in another way.
3. While I can bipartisanly work with those whom are at least being honest in remaining on Trump's real ship in continuing to speak out and support Special Counselor Mueller, I—as I covered on a Twitter thread—am a Republican for a reason—and, for example, to have "Medicare for All" and exclude everyone but "people of color, women, and immigrants" (as Ben Jealous implied that he wanted to do) in the name of progressivism isn't it (and people like him are increasingly becoming representative of the Democratic Party, as they claim to want to include all groups while they even go as far as to embrace radical movements such as "Black Lives Matter", radical feminism with free-for-all abortions, and even the Abolish ICE movement in quite a few cases—and which, might I add, is no better than turning ICE into a Neo Gestapo, as abolishing ICE altogether instead of reforming it would also hurt asylum seekers and other legal immigrants as well as DREAmers). Besides, I've seen how RINO Trump is still the far-left Democrat that he ever was—and the Neo-Tammany Hall type at that—and is trying to destroy the GOP—I'm not, so to speak, going to jump the ship on which I currently sail and jump onto the ship of the person whom's trying to destroy the ship on which I'm riding. 
4. I'm waiting to see who the Republican nominee is, and I'm certainly doing another write-in vote if Trump ends up being the nominee after all—and especially if after Special Counselor Mueller testifies and Congress decides to not to allow him to indict Trump, I'm doing a write-in vote. I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary last time, and I'm not voting for RINO Trump or an open Democrat this time—and I skipped some ballot questions last time because I wasn't sure whether the Republican in question was a Trumpite RINO or an actual Republican.

In conclusion, then, for me as a Republican to watch an overcrowded boat be at risk for sinking, anyway, while some of the 25 different people on the boat go for spotlight grabs would be a waste of my time, and especially because the boat is Trump's real boat, anyway.

¹PS ICE is absolutely being turned into a Neo Gestapo when it's depriving children and vulnerable adults as well as every other immigrant at detention centers of basic hygiene items, dignity, and other human rights, not to mention because a xenophobic illegitimate POTUS is currently in charge of ICE. Besides, as I've said, the immigrants are the figurative guinea pigs for Trump's real goal—to target especially Jews (myself included) and build a wall to keep us in more than keep others out—and his roundups are also practices for his real aspirations.

So in re detention centers being turned into modern-day concentration camps, AOC is right—and I as a Jew surely am not jumping onto a ship whose Alt Right (Modern Far Left in re nationalist socialism) wants to murder me on one hand, and whose Far Left on the other hand wants a "two-state solution" (basically, for the State of Israel to be destroyed—as if Anti-Zionist and Haredi-posing-as-chiloni Netanyahu and the Agudat Yisra'el-Shas-Likud-UTJ-Yisra'el Beitenu coalition aren't doing that enough, and even trying more to do so than the "Palestinians" are).

Now You Tell Me...

I gave you my own take.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary: Assuming That DePaul's Like Notre Dame Of Maryland, They Will Support The Anti Semites

Assuming that DePaul is very-traditionally Catholic, it will support the Anti-Semitic students and persecute Dr. Hill. I as a student learned this the hard way when I went to Notre Dame of Maryland University (still then the College of Notre Dame of Maryland) for a time, and I left it for good reason when I did (and why Yehovah, ב״ה, allowed it to become a university is what only He knows, and it became a university within a year after I left. I suspect, though, that NDMU will be another case of the arrogant being exalted by Yehovah only to be humbled by Him.).

In my case, I was a student whom was persecuted by an Anti-Semitic professor and the administration (and I will name names, too: I have no problem speaking up about whom persecuted me). I was even set up by the campus religious director, Melissa Lees, after I confronted the religious studies professor, Dr. Weiss, on his Anti-Semitic remarks—literally, she promised to defend me in a meeting with the administration only to have sided with them in the first place, as became clear when I got into the meeting room. I'm not kidding when I say that Dr. Weiss' remarks were Anti-Semitic, either, and four that still stick out are the lies that: 

1. We stole Passover from the Syrians
2. The Exodus didn't happen and that it was "an ancient peasant rebellion" as opposed to an actual exodus from slavery
3. "It's possible" that "the prophets [were] inspired by the Devil" (a student actually asked if the prophets could've been, and the professor actually answered, "It's possible").
4. Matthew knew that Jesus was born in Nazareth and wrote that he was born in Bethlehem to advance his narrative, anyway

In other words, Dr. Weiss, Melissa Lees, et. al. perpetuated and encouraged these three among other Anti-Semitic canards that are rife within traditional Catholic institutions:

1. That we're thieves
2. That we're liars and perpetual victim-card players
3. That we're demonic and do demonic things in the name of God 24/7 

Meanwhile, someone in a Facebook group asked the following question (which can be publicly seen), and this is why I even wrote all of this in the first place: 

"Funny they are being ugly and racist re Jews but that is okay and doesn't seem to threaten any of them. Do they not have any Jewish students? I would find their attitude threatening and racist. Why is that allowed!" 

As I replied to his or her question, "[m]y guess is that any Jewish students who are part of their student body either are self hating or are being persecuted like the professor is"; and "any Jewish students that have spoken up against Anti Semitism at DePaul, then, have probably been in the same position that I was in when I went where I went."

I didn't name Notre Dame or Dr. Weiss or Melissa Lees in the group, as I didn't want to try to make the thread in re Dr. Hill and DePaul about me. At the same time, I almost left this commentary as a comment in response into comments such that "the school needs to support the professor". So, I decided to turn what was going to be a clearly-too-long comment into this warning—essentially, that
one has to either understand or learn the hard way that Catholic Anti Semitism like that at DePaul is as Catholic Anti Semitism that Dr. Weiss, Melissa Lees, et. al. taught at NDMU, is as Catholic Anti Semitism anywhere and everywhere else:

1. It is sadly not a "paradox", despite one commenter's giving of the benefit of the doubt: it is run-of-the-mill Pseudo-Christian Anti Semitism that Non-Evangelical (Non-Christian) Catholics still perpetuate. 
2. It is the kind of Pseudo Christianity that caused my father's family to hide and deny our heritage, and I learned the hard way that Non-Evangelical Catholicism is indeed a cult. 
3. It is what Martin Luther harbored: when he said that he never wanted to leave the Catholic Church, he meant that he never wanted to leave it; and he harbored its Pseudo-Christian Anti Semitism until his dying day (Besides, Luther was an opportunist and wanted to steal the work of the real reformers—Hus and Wycliffe—to make himself look like a real reformer—and were he a real reformer, he would've been a martyr like Hus was and even like Wycliffe was, as the persecution that Wycliffe endured fatally wore down his health.)

Commentary: To A Certain "Condor" Who Wrote A Non-Apology "Apology" Letter

Drek like the following does not fool people like me:

"I did not expect the paper to be taken seriously as I thought the students at North County who read the letter would be able to recognize it as a simple practical joke. The forged letter that was being distributed around school got more attention than I initially thought and I did not think it would cause any publicity. I was wrong for distributing those papers around the campus, I should have been more considerate of those who may have been deceived by the letter. I am sorry for any lost productivity due to time spent on the investigation and for causing any confusion among my fellow peers."

You as well as I and everybody else know that what you as an accomplice in a sexual-assault and hate crime did is exactly what you did—commit a sexual-assault and hate crime. You were wrong for being involved in threatening to have students violated in such a manner as well as for aiding and abetting your perverted and bigoted friends, and people like you and your fellow hate propagators especially do not deserve the benefit of the doubt 80 years later.

You as well as I and everybody else know that you caused way more than "lost productivity due to time spent on the investigation and...confusion among [your] fellow peers." While I myself do not know either you or your peers, I know for a fact that common sense and statistics (including the abysmal ones for your county in re sex crimes alone) certainly bear out that you and your accomplices caused at least one of your peers psychological harm (and let me assure you that PTSD and Depression, for example, have no element of harmlessness).

You shouldn't, then, be allowed to get away with your non-apology "apology". You frankly shouldn't even be allowed to graduate until you write an actual apology letter and agree to take some initiative such as doing volunteer work for an organization that works to combat sexual assault & battery and/or for a Jewish organization that works to combat Anti-Semitic and other hatred. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Sharon (@SharonWillow54) April 5, 2019

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

— Bb 🇺🇸 🇺🇸🌟 (@babbdbd) April 6, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll On Twitter: "Should FoxNews fire those such as Ann Coulter, Tomi Lahren, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson?"

PS This poll surprisingly received quite a few responses already!

Should @FoxNews fire those such as Ann Coulter, Tomi Lahren, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson?

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) December 13, 2018

PPS:

My thinking is this: if enough people #answer this #poll & give @foxnews an #idea of whether those such as Ann Coulter are assets or liabilities to them, maybe they & @newscorp will be forced to take action in re Ann Coulter & their other controversial employees & contributors. https://t.co/TBTTXUOSZ9

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) December 13, 2018

Is Fox News Getting The Courage To Confront ***** And Take Back Control Of Itself?

My response to the following tweet would have been an RT and a thread that followed it, though I figured it would fit better as a commentary than a Twitter thread.

Fox News actually did? Now, if only Lachlan Murdoch would finally get the ko'ach to tell Trump, "You don't run Fox News. The news is the news, not your propaganda medium. Fox News reports the news; and by the way, as even you acknowledge isn't 'fake news', "You're under investigation by Special Counselor Mueller. I have asked, then, that every reporter (including every anchor), commentator, and analyst at Fox and every other News Corp journalism organization cooperate with Special Counselor Mueller's probe; and "I will be testifying in the probe and requesting that those such as Sean Hannity be brought forth as witnesses to testify."

So, to summarize today's ad action: @CNN, @NBC, @FoxNews and @Facebook have all rejected an ad by the *President of the United States* because they consider it racist. Amazing.

— Paul Farhi (@farhip) November 5, 2018

PS Didn't I tell you that many at Fox News are afraid of ***** and the *****ites there? If you didn't believe me (and, I'm sure, others whom had noted that), you should believe Gabriel Sherman (and I was asking that "Didn't I tell you?" question as I was reading his recent article.

(I will say, though, that I was surprised that even Roger Ailes of all people was a #NeverTrump type, and he was cut from the same cloth as ***** in many respects

(PPS I wish that I could censor *****'s name in the "Never *****" hashtag.).

Commentary (Originally a Series Of Tweets): Yeah; ***** Is That Evil.

So, ***** called John Bolton & Steve Doocy other names at least twice recently. Is that another sign that he might actually have dementia, then? It is tempting to think that ***** has dementia, but:

1. An ancestor having it doesn't necessarily mean that he'll have it. 
2. Calling John Bolton & Steve Doocy what he called them was a deliberate attempt to degrade them & those by whose names he called them (and notice that he also used "Mike" and "Pete", instead of "Michael" and "Peter", which is very patronizing and disrespectful on his part).

It is tempting to think that Trump has Dementia, but: 1) An ancestor having it doesn't necessarily mean that he'll have it. 2) Calling John Bolton & Steve Doocy what he called them was a deliberate attempt to degrade them & those by whose names he called them. Think about it... https://t.co/F8FyFLvfWn

— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) October 24, 2018

Think about it...

1) People often wonder if John Bolton is Jewish, and Michael Bolton has Russian-Jewish roots.
2) "Fox & Friends" recently had a guest whom condemned Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's flippant & Anti-Semitic comments in strong terms, and (frankly) nepotism did help Peter Doocy.

So, **** is again making "Toe the line" threats & Anti-Semitic digs. Translation of each:

1. This one is self-explanatory, as John Bolton has condemned Russia & (among others) Iran in the past (and remember that Russia and Iran are allies).
2. "He's just like his son, anyway, and only got there because of connections." 

The Anti-Semitism-wrapped threats may also be digs at Former SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, with him trying to again disguise intentional verbal abuse as dementia, which Forner Justice Day O'Connor just disclosed that she has; and he thus trying to undermine the seriousness of what people like her suffer. The comments in reply to the tweet that affected my threat of tweets, @maggieNYT's tweet re his misattribution of names, prove my point (and others' point) for me, even if he isn't targeting Fmr. Justice Day O'Connor in particular (and if you read about gaslighting and other forms of non-physical abuse, you will read that abusers try to disguise abuse as symptoms and signs of neurological, intellectual, and other mental disorders). Those who really suffer dementia are thus being exactly as he wanted them to be: degraded by the commenters (among others) whom are making light of it and/or being thrown off by him (and don't think that other people aren't doing that).

In conclusion, therefore (and forgive the unprofessional terminology), **** self redemonstrated that he is an Anti-Semitic, ableist, and otherwise-cruel SOB (and "B" does not "b***h", might I add).

Commentary: Masochist, Liar, Or Revictimized Victim? And What Is Jesus To Many "Christians", Anyway?

Dr. Blasey Ford is one of the following: a liar, a masochist, or a revictimized victim—and there is nothing else that one conclude. Which, though, is Dr. Blasey Ford? Let's look at it this way:

1. Most masochists aren't going to go as far as to claim to have been threatened with rape, let alone to go out of their ways to endure everything from defamation to threats because they claimed that they were almost raped.
2. Most liars are going to act like Casey Anthony—whom slandered her father and her brother by claiming that they sexually abused her—as well as those like Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas (whose claims of enduring a "high-tech lynching" can, with everyone looking back, be compared to Bill Cosby's claims of enduring a "public lynching"), Bill O'Reilly, and Brett Kavanaugh (whose behavior reminds me of that Bill O'Reilly when the Ailes scandal broke and when the accusations against him were investigated and reinvestigated).
3. Given, then, that even most masochists would not try to endure what Dr. Blasey Ford had to endure, and that Brett Kavanaugh acted like (among others) Casey Anthony, Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas, and Bill O'Reilly (especially Bill O'Reilly), one has to intellectually-honestly conclude to Dr. Blasey Ford is a revictimized victim of sexual abuse.

So, then, what about Jesus? Dr. Blasey Ford is certainly not Jesus—and nobody else but Jesus is Jesus—although she certainly was defamed and threatened especially in His name. The ones who defamed her in His name, then, stated that they basically don't consider Jesus to be Lord, and they're willing to go as far as to make Him out to be a lunatic and/or a liar by claiming that He as the Lord would ever command anything contrary to what He commanded.

By the way, as I've said before, this is an example of why many Jews don't believe in Jesus and why those of us that do ended up not knowing that we're Jewish until much later: with the Jesus that those like Dr. Blasey Ford's persecutors being presented as the Jesus of the New Testament, Jews are going to not believe in Jesus and/or not be openly Jewish—and many of my own ancestors did both. Also by the way, nobody who supported Brett Kavanaugh can truthfully claim to love Israel—though if he or she can actually truthfully claim to love Israel, he or she will have to do teshuvah for supporting a man whom is associated with Anti-Semitic D****d *****, went out of his way to help make sure that Julie Swetnick's claims were not investigated, and helped to try to discredit sexual-abuse survivors as pawns of George Soros¹².

In conclusion, any self-identified Christian who supports Brett Kavanaugh will either have to face that they called Jesus a liar and/or lunatic when they called Dr. Blasey Ford a masochist and/or liar or hear that they never really were Christians³, not to mention that even many Christians would rather victims and survivors of sexual abuse work with openly-Non-Christian and other openly-Non-Judeo-Christian-values than so-called "Christian" and other "values" ones that are not Christian or other values-beholden organizations at all¹.

¹Concerning the ones whom are working with Soros-affiliated organizations, they at least know that Soros doesn't really value them although they can still get their message out. They also know that many "Christian" and other "Judeo-Christian-values" organizations who should be helping sexual-abuse victims really aren't Christian or otherwise self beholden to Judeo-Christian values. They'd rather thus work with openly-dishonest organizations than trying-to-disguise-themselves-as-honest ones.

²This isn't to mention that those who support Brett Kavanaugh and D****d ***** have the same kind of thinking that affected acts of Pseudo-Christian Anti Semitism, such as the pogroms and the Holocaust—in which quite a few gentile women were also affected, and in which even some Jewish women probably participated and many gentile women certainly participated (and in regard to women whom did survive the pogroms and the Holocaust, I can imagine that they recall how they were treated by fellow women whom should've been helping them as they see and hear how fellow women are persecuting Dr. Blasey Ford and Julie Swetnick

(By the way, don't think that those like George Soros aren't actually helping the types like Brett Kavanaugh and D****d *****—George Soros even told Steven Kroft that he considered the Holocaust "fun"—and by the way, compare George Soros' attitude with that of Alex Kurzem: Alex Kurzem did not consider the Holocaust "fun".

³As well as face that they took the bait of Brett Kavanaugh, D****d *****, and George Soros for whatever reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary: Imagine If...

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

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

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

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