The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.
Powered By Blogger

The Nicole Factor

Search This Blog

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

My About.Me Page

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

Talk To Me on Fold3!

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

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.

Thursday, June 28, 2012