The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.

Google+ Badge

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

My Photo
My blog is "The Nicole Factor" on Blogspot, my Facebook page "Nicole Czarnecki aka Nickidewbear", and YouTube and Twitter accounts "Nickidewbear."

Nickidewbear on YouTube

Loading...

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

There was an error in this gadget

Search This Blog

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Whether Reilly's A Dogocrat Or Repuplican

Even though "Momma" is a Republican, Reilly's not a Repuplican. Reilly is also not a Dogocrat. In fact, Reilly is apupthetic insofar as politics—although puplitics is another discussion. 

Like all—or at least manypuppies, whether puppies or adult puppies ("dogs"), Reilly would be pupthortarian if she could get away with being pupthortarian. She certainly would not be libertarian—or nibertarian?—since she is definitely a jealous type—and she doesn't like when Camille or any other puppy gives anyone else (whether human, canine, or non human and non canine) nibbles and kisses. 

Perhaps because Reilly is gregarious (as opposed "even though she's gregarious"), she would demand "num nums", treats, toys, belly rubs, scritches, and whatever else she would demand on her schedule. While "Momma" grants that jealously like Reilly has doesn't exactly qualify Reilly to be gregarious according to Merriam Webster, "Momma" also grants that Reilly's love of being the center of attention comes from her gregariousness. 

Reilly is, if nothing else, a Jewish-Maltese-Frankish Pupmerican.


Maybe Edwin Landseer's Poodle subject is an ancestor of Reilly.



By the way, Camille actually has not had to go to the vet so far.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Selling Public Land Back To the States?! Oh No; Not the 10th Amendment—And Not Jobs And Volunteer Opportunities!

Receiving a letter from the Trust For Public Lands, an apparent Constitutional Conservative in my family angrily expressed how she agrees with the Trust For Public Lands about the fact that—as she learned—Congress voted to allow the federal government to alleviate some of the national debt sell some public lands back to the states. She, in other words, agrees with the TFPL that the public lands should stay with the federal government and not be used for mining, forestry work, or other environment-affecting work.

As I told her, that she's upset mad that a Republican Congress did the following baffles me:

  1. Return natural resources to the U.S.—after all, we've had to import because of not being allowed to mine, use lumber, frack, etc.. By the way, she complains when houses are left abandoned all while she excoriates Congress for leaving public land unabandoned—what irony!
  2. Create and recreate jobs in the U.S.—people such as aspiring and out-of-work miners, carpenters, environmental consultants, and professional foresters will be able to have jobs and careers!
  3. Create and recreate volunteer opportunities for, for example, retirees, stay-at-home parents, students and interns, and those whom are unable to work but can volunteer—for example, a widowed retiree who's living with her homeschooling daughter can go on tree-replanting volunteer trips with her daughter and granddaughter when the granddaughter has to go on school trips. After all, the widowed retiree doesn't want to just languish inside the house all day—she wants to help her granddaughter become a Sierra Club or Conservation International intern-to-be-employee.
In conclusion, I find myself baffled that an apparent Constitutional conservative disparages Congress for giving public land back to the states and creating opportunities for the aspiring and current American workforce and volunteerforce. 

Thursday, June 16, 2016

אה, לא!

Ah, lo.

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

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

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

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

Friday, January 22, 2016

Re The Tomb Of The Unknowns And Blizzard Jonas

As a family member of American military members, I cannot get behind that there are soldiers whom are guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns in this weather. I'm pretty sure that the Unknowns would want their modern-day compatriots to be safe, warm, and alive if they can be.

The Unknowns died for their country  and not so that their compatriots would risk hypothermia and thus ending up under their own tombstones. The best way to honor the Unknown Soldiers, then, is to let the soldiers whom guard their term get to a safe and warm place unless they are called to serve with the National Guard, Arlington FD, Arlington PD, and other personnel whom need to be out in the snow. 

Friday, March 27, 2015

Stubborn Yemenim, And An Even-Worse Israeli Government

According to Ynetnews:

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

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


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

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

I'm Not the Only One Kvetching About Netanyahu

As if PM Netanyahu's rebuttal to MK Livni did not already reek of dictatorial language:

"Prime Minister Netanyahu is the only leader in the world openly leading the struggle against the signing of a dangerous deal that will turn Iran into a nuclear-threshold state. Tzipi Livni is mistaken and misleading Israel’s citizens. Instead of supporting the prime minister in the big process of stopping a nuclear Iran, Tzipi is busy with personal insults and small politics. In complete contrast to what she says, the legislative initiative to apply additional sanctions on Iran has not been abandoned. Ten Democrat senators announced today that they will support passing more sanctions if Iran does not abide by the required clauses for a general agreement.”

No wonder, then, that I called PM Netanyahu "Manhig Yakar"! I and others saw trouble a long time ago. Why didn't more people see trouble? For example, giving 86% of the West Bank away should've been a huge sign that Netanyahu is a haredi posing as a chiloni! He "has [even] expressed support in principle for a Palestinian state"! 

Isn't that a clue that he, like many other Haredim, believe that the current Medinat Yisra'el is a treif medina?! Also, Agudat Yisra'el, the party in control, opposes Medinat Yisra'el


Next, in 1905, came Reb Judah Aryeh Leib Alter's eldest son, Abraham Mordecai Alter (1866-1948), who was perhaps the most influential of all Gerer tsadikim. He was nicknamed "Imrei Emet" (Speaker of Truth). Under his leadership the Gerer court reached its height of influence, gaining a reputation of excellence throughout the Hasidic world. Imrei Emet was also among the founders ofAgudat Israel , a conservative anti-Zionist religious political party that stepped into the difficult and diverse political world of the 20th century, articulating their view of what the essentials needs were for Jewish survival in Poland.

Ding! Ding! Is a bell ringing now?! David ben-Gurion let himself be a self-hating pawn! If there is any conspiracy going on, the conspiracy is on the part of self-hating/Anti-Semitic Haredim to dismantle Medinat Yisra'el until whom they believe to be Moshiach would come!

They shall be carried to Babylon, and there shall they be, until the day that I remember them, saith the Lord.1  And R. Zera?2  — That text1 refers3  to the vessels of ministry.4  And Rab Judah? — Another text also is available:3  I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, [that ye awaken not, nor stir up love,5  until it please]'.6  And R. Zera? — That7  implies that Israel shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a wall.8  And Rab Judah? — Another 'I adjure you'9  is written in Scripture. And R. Zera? — That text is required for [an exposition] like that of R. Jose son of R. Hanina who said: 'What was the purpose of those three adjurations?10  — One, that Israel shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a wall;8  the second, that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel that they shall not rebel against the nations of the world; and the third is that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured the idolaters that they shall not oppress Israel too much'. And Rab Judah? — It is written in Scripture, That ye awaken not, nor stir up.11  And R. Zera? — That text is required for [an exposition] like that of R. Levi who stated: 'What was the purpose of those six adjurations?12  — Three for the purposes just mentioned and the others, that [the prophets] shall not make known the end,13  that [the people] shall not14 delay15  the end,13  and that they shall not reveal the secret16  to the idolaters'.
By the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field.17  R. Eleazar explained: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, 'If you will keep the adjuration, well and good; but if not, I will permit your flesh [to be a prey] like [that of] the gazelles and the hinds of the field'.

As for Netanyahu, Artuz Eser surmises:

[W]ith the current poll findings[,] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could form a 68 member governing coalition by joining forces with Jewish Home, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Kahlon, Yishai and Yisrael Beytenu. Opposition leader Isaac Herzog would be harder pressed to form a government, having to rope in both the ultra-Orthodox and Yesh Atid to form a fragile ruling coalition of 61 seats.
This is why Amir Hetsroni wrote:

What does Israel have to offer? It is easier to find kosher meat here and there is more variety of synagogues. To young people, Israel also offers the dubious pleasure of devoting two or three years of your life to the army.

Sounds tempting? Perhaps to Netanyahu and Benett, but not in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of Israelis who desperately search their family vaults for a proof that would grant them EU passport and not long ago took part in the popular Olim LeBerlin (“ascending to Berlin”) protest that expressed a wish to immigrate to Europe. Perhaps, Israel is a case wherein what looks nice from a distance is less attractive when you take a close-up shot.

By the way, that the Haredim are drying up Israel's economy may explain the low wages, etc..


Sunday, January 25, 2015

Ted Bauer, Insularity, and Industries—Including the Technology and News Industries

With dread about the electrical grid being struck and Luddite sentiment, Ted Bauer's article about the technology industry is relevant. After all, many industries indeed become like the technology industry—"insular", monopolized, hegemonic, nepotistic, and oligarchical. For example, where in the news-reporting world is one going to find a muckraker who's willing to expose many under-the-radar matters anymore? As has been noted in many different ways, many people want complacently-sensationalistic soundbites and graphics from "trusted" veteran reporters (whether or not they are actually trustworthy and willing to produce work that at least meets journalistic standards).

One example is with regard to PM Netanyahu, Congress, and the President of the United States. Very few reporters, analysts, commentators, and other news-connected figures would care to bring up, let alone report, that PM Netanyahu is actually violating Section Three of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution by addressing Congress without first having President Obama convene the House and/ore the Senator. When one commentator/analyst and one journalist (the former being Baruch Maoz and the latter being Geraldo Rivera) did bring that point up, they were sorely lambasted (Geraldo Rivera in particular and directly was lambasted. Anyone who concurred with Baruch Maoz was through whom the lambasters attempted to excoriate Pastor Maoz.).

The "report to support Netanyahu and Congress" line was expected to be toed. Never mind that the Constitution should have been brought into the reporting of PM Netanyahu's addressing Congress without being received by the President.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

My Own Response To the SOTU Address of 2015

"Mr. President, with all due respect, I must sadly sum up your address as the following: promises with catches, at-maximum-half truths, and simply outright lies. I should also remind you that the Constitution states, 'He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union'. As I read that statement, I do not find it to mean, 'He shall at an annual interval give to the American people and his compatriots in the American government a self reaffirmation of his worldview and his Executive governance in light of the worldview.'"

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Sterling or Kerry: Whose Comments Are Worse For the U.S.?

This answer was originally for Sodahead, and quickly evolved into a blog entry:

Sadly, a Jewish guy making racist comments about Blacks is nothing new. Unfortunately, there is a whole lot of Jewish-Black animosity; and that stretches back to Biblical times (cf. Song 1:5-6, Jeremiah 13:23, Amos 9:7-9, Numbers 12. For Talmudic references, see Sanhedrin 108b, for example. I guessed that a reference would be there; but when I saw it...just wow!

(Incidentally, it gives me an idea of why my Crypto-Jewish granddad, who was born in Sugar Notch and had parents from areas where Blacks hardly resided [i.e., Lipsk, Poland and Hanover Township, PA], had negative attitudes about people whom he had hardly ever seen when he was growing up. In other words, he had a pretty-nasty pre-conceived idea about Blacks; and let me tell you, his paternal grandma came from an Orthodox—if not Haredi—Litvak family; so, the Talmud and Talmudic ideas were nothing new to him. His paternal granddad was a farmer, but he still could've studied the Talmud. Both were extremely literate, however, and certainly passed on Talmudic ideas to their son and grandson.

(I have no clue about his maternal grandparents; but I will say that his mother, who I knew briefly, did not have a racist bone in her body.).

Kerry's comments, on the other hand, bring Genesis 12:1-3 and other p'sukim into play. Let's just say that a self-hating kohein endangers everybody—himself, klal Yisra'el, and everyone over whom he has authority (and let me tell you, a Secretary of State carries some degree of authority to some extent).

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Closing Thought For the Night: Affirmative Action and Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson (Originally To Have Been a Facebook Page Post)

Think about this: Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, an African-American man of Puerto Rican descent, had to overcome ethnic discrimination (including ethnic stereoptying), for example. Nobody just gave his Ph.D. to him because he was a Black man who'd been presumptuously asked if he wanted to be an athlete.

Why, then, should other Blacks and Hispanics be unfairly favored or unfavored? Dr. Tyson had to work to get where he is today, even though Affirmative Action became part of the law when he was 14 years old. He stated:

"Interestingly, when I applied to Cornell, my application dripped of my passion for the study and research of the Universe. Somehow the admissions office brought my application to the attention of the late Dr. Sagan, and he actually took the initiative and care to contact me. He was very inspirational and a most powerful influence. Dr. Sagan was as great as the universe, an effective mentor." (PBS NOVA, "A Conversation With Neil Tyson")

Before that, "Neil attended the Bronx High School of Science and passionately studied astronomy.  He made a name for himself in the astronomy community by giving lectures at the age of 15." (Parle Magazine, "Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson – The Prodigy Astronomer")

Dr. Sagan didn't look at Neil Tyson because he was Black. He looked at him because he was intelligent, studious, and driven to work hard.

As someone quoted Dr. Martin Luther King here, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." And that's what the to-be Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson was judged by.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

A Favor That I Need From Howard County And Those Connected To It

As I've stated, I grew up in Columbia, Maryland—where the tragic murder-suicide at the mall happened (I didn't really talk about that before because I wanted to wait until time passed as much as possible and some normalcy was restored.). Once again, I am connected to my Diasporan hometown (though I hope that I may make aliyah in my lifetime). As such, I need a favor from fellow Columbians, and others in and connected to Howard County (Native Americans and Diasporans of all other peoples)—that is, I need you to get the word out about Maryland State Senator and Howard County Executive candidate Allan Kittleman.

As I discussed last night (and notice that I stated that as I discussed last night), President Obama's language sounds ignorant of the lesson that we read that Moshe (z"l) learned from Yitro (z"l) in Yitro (cf. esp. Shemot [Exodus] 18:13-26). On the other hand, the opposing idea of devolution and localization parallels Yitro's suggestions to Moshe.

Jews and Christians (including Jewish Christians like myself) will understand this if and as they read this week's Torah reading. Remember that Jews and Christians are to declare G-d's glory to the nations (cf. Yeshayahu 66:18-21), and part of that glory is devolution and localization. After all, what did G-d (B"H) command as the second-most important commandment to sum up Torah (cf. Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31)? "[Y]ou shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." (Vayikra [Leviticus] 19:18b, NKJV) Either way, G-d commanded this through Yeshuawhether one believes in Jesus (Yeshua) simply as a great rebbe or a talmid l'talmud raba, or Adonai Mishichenu Himself!

Loving one's neighbor, therefore, is a mitzvah rabah, and it inherently excludes burdening one's self and others with forms of big government. As stated in Parashat Yitro:

13 And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. 14 So when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?”15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. 16 When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws.”17 So Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you do is not good. 18 Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself. 19 Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. 20 And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. 21 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be thatevery great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this thing, and God socommands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.”24 So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 26 So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves.


Nonetheless, as aforestated, President Obama's language sounds ignorant about this. Thus, President Obama—who swore that he'd "act on [his] own" if he would have to do so—makes himself sounds as though he is willing to unnecessarily burden himself and the American people. In contrast, the late Former President Ronald Reagan (z"l) took a lesson from Yitro and devolved and localized government.

So, what does any of this have to with the favor of which I asked fellow Columbians, and others in and connected to Howard County (Native Americans and Diasporans of all other peoples)? It has to do with that:
  1. There are many Jewish and Christian (and Jewish Christian) voters in and connected to Howard County. For example, you might be a member of Congregation Beth Shalom (and if you are a member, you should already know that it's in Columbia); or you might be a friend of a congregant of Emmanuel Messianic Jewish Congregation (in Clarksville). On the other hand, your friend's friend might attend Christ Episcopal Church (in Columbia); or you yourself might attend Harvester Baptist Church (in the Howard County seat city, Ellicott City).
  2. Jews and Christians (and Jewish Christians) are among the largest voting groups in any given election.
  3. At least quite a few Jews and Christians (and Jewish Christians) would agree with the lesson that Moshe learned and that the late Former President Reagan took from Yitro. Also, what Former President Reagan stated about Hispanics is true for Jews: "They're Republicans; they just don't know it yet"—and a Massachusettsan Reform Jew (who is a counterpart to quite a few Jews in Howard County) can teach us that as well.
  4. As far as I know, Senator and County Executive candidate Allan Kittleman agrees with the very-Jewish, very-Christian, and Reaganite policies of devolution and localization.
  5. In contrast to Senator and County Executive candidate Allan Kittleman, President Obama (who is the current leader of the Democratic Party) believes in an-inherently unJewish, unChristian, and unReaganite policy of centralization and statism. Meanwhile, Senator Kittleman's rival candidate, County Councilwoman Courtney Watson, is part of President Obama's party—and the party line at the local, state, and federal levels is the line of centralization and statism.
  6. Howard County must not give in to a party line and policy that goes against the Judeo-Christian lines and policies that have made Howard County a great county, and the United States a great county, over the past century and sixty-three years.
Therefore, I urge everyone who is connected to Howard County in any way, shape, or form to get the word out about  Howard County Councilwoman Watson's (and President Obama's) rival in the Howard County Executive election, Maryland State Senator and Reaganite Allan Kittleman.



Thursday, January 23, 2014

My Own Open Letter To Democrats

Firstly, let me disclose that I have Democratic family members. Also, I don't hate Democrats, regardless of the fact that some hate me—in fact, I am to love them; since I am to love my enemies, Democrats and Non Democrats alike. Secondly, love is part of why I am writing this open letter. I have a friend on Facebook who publicly wrote that he has "[a] special message coming tomorrow especially for the liberals and [D]emocrats. Unfriend me or delete me as you wish." For the liberals and Democrats in my own life, I invite you to do the same if you wish to do so. However (as I'm quite sure that my friend does not want his liberal and Democratic friends to do), I do not want my liberal and Democratic friends to unfriend me. Nonetheless, as a friend (and again, out of love), I will speak the truth to you (and other liberals and Democrats).

Let me start by saying that I am a cousin of Delegate Steven Deboy (D-Baltimore) and a granddaughter of the late retired IRS Agent Jack Czarnecki (an ardent Democrat whose mother, of blessed memory, was a Clinton Democrat). So, right off the bat, you know that I have every reason to be a Democrat—and I don't know what more reason I have to be a Democrat if being a cousin of a Democratic state delegate and the granddaughter of a Jewish Democrat who served tax papers to a viciously-Anti-Semitic Republican isn't reason enough. Besides, my granddad probably secretly shared the sentiments against me that Geraldo Rivera once told Senator Eric Cantor that his mother expressed against him—"What's a nice Jewish boy doing being in the Republican Party?" (or something like that—too bad that I can't find a clip of it. In my case, it would be "Jewish girl"—and my granddad hated me for other reasons as well, and he made that quite clear in his obituary when he listed his stepgranddaughters before he listed my sister and me.)

Also, Delegate Deboy's and my patriarch John T. O'Farrell, Sr. served in the Civil War as a Confederate—and if you know history like I do, you can reasonably ascertain that Pop-Pop Farrell (who dropped the "O'" from his name to assimilate, although he was quite proud to be Irish) was not a Republican. By the way, he lived in Richmond and Atlanta; and those were Dixiecrat bastions. As for Pop-Pop and his mother, they both fell for the lie that Jews have to be Democrats—and that Roman Catholics do, too. 

Remember that Pop-Pop was an Anusi v'ben-Anusim, and that Great-Grandma was both a bat-Anusim and Believing Jew—and if she was pressed, she probably would have confessed to being Jewish. In my own experience and from what I understand, I have rarely known about and/or known a more-honest and -loving person. She wasn't given a choice over what was in her obituary, by the way—had she been able to write her own obituary, she probably would have "talk[ed] about it". After all, those were her exact words to my Aunt Mary about how Great-Granddad treated her and other matters—"No, no; it's okay—I want to talk about it.

From people who knew exactly what they were doing (e.g., Pop-Pop Farrell and Pop-Pop Czarnecki) to people who just never thought about questioning what they were doing (e.g., Great-Grandma—since she didn't have the time and strength to do so), plenty of people in my family have lived the lie that certain people—usually, Non-WASP people—are supposed to be Democrats (After all, even the Civil War Era's Southern United States had plenty of Non-WASPS—for example, Irish Catholics like Pop-Pop Farrell and Jews from the Non-Messianic Judah Benjamin to Messianic Levite David Levy Yulee. By the way, as far as I know, Judah Benjamin and David Levy Yulee are not related to me in any way other than we can all trace our family lines back to Ya'akov ben Yitzchak avinu—they're just examples of Non-WASP Southerners who fit the "Non WASPs are not supposed to be Republicans" stereotype.).

Why they bought into the lie is something for which each of them have been or will be held accountable. Nonetheless, and as I said, I will speak the truth in love. After all, as Paul wrote down concerning my own people in general, so I quote concerning especially the Democrats among my family and friends—whether or not they are of my people—"For I speak to you [outsiders]; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the [outsiders], I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them." (NKJV, emphasis in the original)

Of course, the original wording in Romans 11:13-15 was "Gentiles". In this letter, I am replacing "Gentiles" with "outsiders" to refer to those who are not among my family and friends—since I want to speak to the Democrats on the outside as well, especially if they are among my own people (who actually are among my family, anyway, since all of the families of Israel are within the family of Israel).

Now that I have disclosed my Democratic family background, the caveat that I don't hate Democrats (much to the chagrin and disappointment of some Non Democrats, I can ascertain), and my at-least-basic knowledge of history, let me get to the letter. The letter is simply this, or can at least be summed up in this—as if the background isn't part of the letter(!):

I do not understand why a person who at least aspires to be—if he or she is not already—a well-informed and wise person of integrity would ever be a Democrat. After all, what kind of knowledge and wisdom could ever affect an upstanding United States citizen to join a party that was first led by a man who signed off on what led to the Trail of Tears? I just do not see how an American could intelligently and wisely support a political party that holds up Andrew Jackson as a good man and politician. 

In the same vein, what kind of knowledge and wisdom could ever affect an upstanding United States citizen to join a party that supported every evil from slavery to Jim Crow, to the Holocaust? Besides, men like Representative Walter Cohen of Louisiana (an African American and a kohein about whom I encourage you to Google) and my cousin Tibor Rusznyak (a Holocaust survivor of blessed memory) had lived through the evils that Rousseauian Liberals (in contrast to Lockean, or Classical, Liberals) enabled, supported, and/or outrightly caused. Because of having done so, they were Lockean Liberals (Republicans). 

In fact, that African Americans such as Representative Cohen were generally Republicans until Barry Goldwater foolishly decided to vote against the Civil Rights is well known, and (as I myself learned fairly recently) Representative Cohen was also not an anomaly among Jews in his day—in other words, Jews were generally Republicans in the 19th Century, and they somehow got (as the saying goes) off the derech after the 19th Century. For whatever reason, that fellow Jews like Tibor Rusznyak had experienced the horrors of Rousseauian Liberalism in its most-extreme form  (e.g., Fascism such as National Socialism) and applied their experiences to their political lives did—and apparently still does—not matter to them. By the way, the other forms of Rousseauian Liberalism in its most-extreme form include Communism, as—for instance—Lockean (Classical) Liberals Gabby and Anna Hoffman, daughters of Communism survivors, can tell you—and I encourage you to follow them on Twitter and Facebook.

In conclusion, I do not understand how an American who aspires to be or already is a learned and wise person of integrity could ever be or a Democrat. After all, how would he or she be able to knowledgeably and wisely vote for any Rousseauian Liberal in good conscience? Since the acts of being a Rousseauian Liberal and voting for Rousseauian Liberals are inherently lacking in knowledgeability, wisdom, and integrity, an American who is a Democrat gives the impression that he or she is uninformed and/or unintelligent, foolish, and of bad character. This is because he or she seems to be a supporter of the kind of racism, Anti Semitism, and all other manners of evil that Rousseauiann Liberals such as Andrew Jackson and other Dixiecrats, and Adolf Hitler and other National Socialists (whose names and memories God will surely wipe out unless they ever repented) enabled, supported, and/or outrightly practiced (and let me assure you that very few Nazis and Nazi supporters have ever repented or truly repented, or they would have turned themselves in to the Nuremburg, Jerusalem, and Hague authorities).


Wednesday, November 20, 2013

President Barack Obama And His Executive Mandate: Is He Fulfilling The Tenets Of It? (Originally For Class)

So, is President Barack Obama fulfilling the tenets of his execute mandate—in this case, his mandate to be the United States head of state and head of government? The unabashed and clear answer is “No.” Even today, headlines such as “Second wave of health plan cancellations looms”[1] and “White House braces for doctor dump”[2] make clear that he cannot fulfill his self-proclaimed mandates regarding the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). Along with that come headlines such as “How low can it go? ObamaCare poll numbers drop—again”[3].
The headlines unpartisanly make clear that the popular-vote and electoral-vote winner of the 2012 Presidential Election and the then-incumbent President of the United States. Per the CBS-taken poll that was cited in “How low”, “While Republicans are united in their opposition to the health care law, the latest numbers reflect new skepticism among Democrats and independents.” The poll further reflects, “Obama has been facing criticism from his own party for both the failures of HealthCare.gov as well as cancellation notices that have gone out to those on the individual market whose policies did not make the cut under ObamaCare's new standards. The president last week gave insurance companies a one-year extension, allowing them to re-offer those out-of-compliance plans.”
What, then, is President Obama’s mandate? Obviously, it is to be an effective head of state and government, and chief executive who can win and keep the hearts and minds of his constituents and fellow public servants. According to Ansolabehere et. al., “Government touches the life of the ordinary citizen most directly in his or her interactions with bureaucratic agents-at the Department of Motor Vehicles when obtaining a driver's license; in filing one's income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service; at the recruiting center when enlisting in one of the armed services; at the Board of Elections when registering to vote.”[4] Furthermore, “The
bureaucracy is the administrative heart and soul of government. It is where the rubber meets the road-where the policies formulated, refined, and passed into law by elected officials are interpreted, implemented, and ultimately delivered to a nation's citizens. ”[5]
            With ObamaCare, President Obama clearly has not “ultimately delivered [his policy] to [his] nation [read: state]'s citizens”. Despite that Obamacare was indeed “formulated, refined, and passed into law by elected officials[;] interpreted, [and] implemented [to take full effect in 2014]”, it was immediately and has further become controversial and scandalous legislation. Therefore, the ObamaCare scandal (“ObamaGate”? “CareGate”? “Health-Care Gate”?) alone shows that Obama is not fulfilling his mandate as the chief United States state and government executive.
            This to say nothing of IRSGate, which involved the IRS that is supposed to “[touch] the life of the ordinary citizen most directly in his or her interactions with bureaucratic agents-at the [IRS when he or she files his or her] income tax return with [them]”. Instead, with President Obama’s allowance and/or command, the IRS busied themselves witchhunting non-Far-Left individuals and being the inquisitors regarding potential and established non-Far-Left 501(c)3s and 501(c)4s, and other non-Far-Left organizations that must be established or maintained with IRS permission or approval.
            This also says nothing of what happens “at the Department of Motor Vehicles when [one is] obtaining a driver's license [or attempting to do so]”. For one who follows the news, he or she may know that President Obama and Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland are ideologically and partisanly aligned—since both are Far-Left Democrats. If President Obama is influenced by Governor O’Malley—who made sure that “Maryland became the 13th state to either issue or announce it will soon be issuing driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants”[6] —he may get ideas—and scary ideas. After all, he made RomneyCare’s core concept a national concept when he took it from a Massachusetts-state one—to give all citizens who were residing in the certain territory and could or did not have private insurance government-funded healthcare. He made take the ideas of Maryland, “Connecticut, Utah, California, North Carolina, Illinois, Oregon, Colorado, Rhode Island, Nevada, Washington State, Washington D.C., New Mexico and Vermont”[7], and make them a national idea—and without putting citizens and legal immigrants first.
            In conclusion, President Obama is failing miserably at fulfilling his mandate to be the United States head of state, head of government, and chief executive—even to the point at which he has gravely upset his constituents. “Now we are seeing the President's poll numbers plummet. His approval rating of 39% is evidence that Americans have turned sour on him. For a very long time, even when voters did not agree with his policies, his personal likeability remained strong. They viewed him apart from his policies; that is no longer the case. Now, Americans are not liking his policies and they are not liking him very much either.”[8]



Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Response to John Kingdon’s "Agendas", Chapter One (Originally A Short Paper For Class)

As far as I am concerned, John Kingdon raises many factors. For one matter, he raises the parallels between Presidents Jimmy Carter and President Barack Obama—each of whom has been called “the worst president in [United States] history”. For another matter, he raises the question of why the federal government ultimately should count at all—that is, he provokes me to ask, “Why, for example, do we not have a top-down government? Did that not work under President Ronald Reagan? What was the Army Corps of Engineers doing by repairing the Lock and Dam 26 at the Mississippi River in Alton, Illinois, anyway? Should not the residents of Alton be willing to do that? After all, World War Two vets and others were willing to (if you will) raise Hell to get the World War Two Memorial open in Washington, D.C.. I even tweeted that the Obama Administration ought to let the veterans and other volunteers maintain the World War Two Memorial; so, I would apply the same logic to the Lock and Dam 26 at Alton.”
Also, mental health was not even discussed by the government until a localized, New York City reporter at ABC News stole a key to expose the New York State-run institution of Willowbrook (page 15). For mental health to be discussed at more than at 5% rate by even 257 people in the federal government, a city-bound lawyer turned journalist had to be the voice for horribly-underrepresented, mentally- and physically-disadvantaged constituents in Staten Island. Even then, the second hub for the federal government after Washington, D.C. (New York) was really disregarded until one of its denizens, the lawyer-turned-journalist denizen, became a voice for other denizens. That journalist, by the way, caused a ripple effect and did more in terms of policy for the disabled altogether than even 237 federal health and transportation workers could do or wanted to do. Thanks to that journalist, the impetus for writing and implementation of policies such as HIPPA and the Americans With Disabilities Act came about.
Speaking of localized denizens and top-down government, the Carter and Obama presidencies did indeed influence local movements to spring up. With Carter, the Reagan Republicans mobilized the winning votes for the 1980 Presidential Elections. With Obama, the Tea Party gave the U.S. House of Representatives back to the Republicans.
Both presidencies also involved the “Lion of the Senate”, the now-late Edward “Ted” Kennedy. Both times, Senator Kennedy pushed for healthcare reform, succeeding in his goals with his affects on Obamacare—whereas compromise was involved with involved in his pushes for healthcare reform during the Carter administration.
This does not mean that the Carter, Obama, and Kennedy healthcare reforms were good, though—they were actually deforms. They also contributed to hazardous economic effects, including uncertainties that birthed gas-station lines for Carter and a to-be debt-ceiling default for Obama during his government shutdown—which, by the way, should have been an opportunity for a lesson from the late Senator Kennedy for President Obama. The question, therefore, remains thus: ““Why, for example, do we not have a top-down government?”
“Top-down” obviously means devolution, deregulation, and faith-based initiatives as President Reagan and President Bush 43 promoted. I have argued that the government would not be involved if the communities were. President Reagan and President Bush 43 gave this a chance to happen by involving, for example, the faith-based initiatives and top-down (“trickle-down”) economics. Lessons were clearly taken from Reagan and Bush when the government attempted to block off the World War Memorial, and the community of World War Two veterans and United States military supporters stood up and told the government to reopen the memorial. The lessons summed up to that the government will either be uninvolved or even back off if “we the people” will truly be a “government for the people by the people”.
In conclusion, Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 43, and Obama along with Senator Kennedy taught movements such as the Reagan Republicans, the Tea Party, and the World War Two Memorial reopeners how to get involved and mobilize for top-down devolution, deregulation, and capitalistic economics—so that such as Presidents Carter and Obama might truly back off and perhaps even reverse their disasters or at least compromise on them (like the late Senator Edward Kennedy compromised on Carter healthcare, although he did not think that he had to do so on ObamaCare—and, boy, was he proven wrong when the Tea Party sprung up and mobilized; and he would hopefully see that he was all the more wrong now that the U.S. is ~$17 Trillion dollars in debt, close to falling, and angering many of its veterans). They—including Senator Kennedy in their group—should have, of course, learned from a local New York lawyer-turned journalist at Willowbrook in Staten Island—who affected at least some other 5% of the 237 federal health and transportation workers to change their tone on mental (and even physical) health really quickly.

Perhaps they can take these lessons and apply them the next time that a lock and dam—perhaps the one at the Mississippi River in Alton, Illinois—breaks—in other words, let the residents at and near the dam site fix the lock and dam instead of letting or having the Army Corps of Engineers come and fix them.

Monday, April 29, 2013

We Have To Stand Up To These Leftist "Professors", And...

I'm helping start the standing up to these "professors"--who are really being indoctrinators and dominators! Let's stand up, give examples of what we choose to stand against, and (if we have to and can do so without getting sued) even name names! Rightists and Moderates--Conservatives and Middle Roaders--stand up and fight back!
Taken from Timothy W. Stanley's blog (Oops; do I need a full bibliography? ;-) )


Students in the world, unite!

Friday, April 26, 2013

A Flash To Dad, One Of My Mom's Brother's, and Granduncle Jim All In One Man's Face

He definitely looks at least a little like Granduncle Jim (Why the good brothers got the more-Jewish looks is beyond me. I think that Pop-Pop is not as recognizably Jewish as his two living achim tovim. Then again, maybe it's not beyond me: since they love and seek Yehovah, they got the features of our people more--and, if the AncestryDNA tests are anywhere near accurate, why Dad got a small amount of Jewish atDNA.). I also see one of my mom's brothers (and let's be fair that, that could come from the Siedenburg-Mueller Pundts, and he does have Mom-Mom's nose; but Grandddady could well be Jewish through "John McCoy"--I am still looking). I also saw Dad (and maybe I should Kaddish for Dad, too; but I feel more sorry for the man now than angry at him anymore--after all, e.g., he did take the DNA test and check with Grandma to see if any known relatives in Boston are okay).

By the way, RIP, Granddaddy--I'll meet you someday.
I found this picture of Pop-Pop on Ancestry. He looks so much like Judah "Jude" here (I hate that Shelley and Judah's dad named him after his dad, and that his dad kept the name "Jude" in the first place, by the way--using that name after the Shoah [and both of us were born in the '90s] is not smart. And I guess that my name being "Nicole", since St. Nicholas was an Anti Semite, is a bit of a problem, too.).

This is my mom's brother's photo that he contributed to the family tree. I should get some more photos from him (Hint, hint to a certain uncle.) and Mom.


Friday, January 11, 2013

Are "Palestinians" Really Refugees? Actually...

Since a refugee is an internally- or externally-displaced person who is unable to reside in his or her country of nationality or citizenship, because the country persecutes him or her based on his or her "race" (ethnicity, nationality, ethnos), religion, "nationality" (citizenship), social-group affiliation, or political opinion; Jews in Gaza and the West Bank are internally-displaced refugees. The Arab ("Palestinian") governments are persecuting them within Israel--specifically, the parts which are misnominally called "The Occupied Territories". The Jews (Israelis, Israelites) are persecuted based on citizenship (Israeli), ethnicity (Israelite), religion (particularly Jewish and Messianic Jewish [Jewish Christian]), political opinion (Zionist), and social-group affiliation (with other "settlers", reclaimants).


In conclusion, therefore, the Israelis--not the "Palestinians"--are refugees; and the "Palestinians" are the occupiers of Israeli land. 

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

My Law of Return For Medinat Yisra'el

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

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

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


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


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