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. 

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).

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!

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: "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.  

Why A "Government Shutdown" By ***** Would Not Be A Government Shutdown

This isn't even like last time—it's far worse. If the threat of a government shutdown becomes a reality, it won't be only three days. We'll also no longer have a republic as we know it. Think about this:

1. *****'s definition of "great people" is far different than the definition of "great people".
2. "When Mexico sends its people" (emphasis mine): he's going even as far as to allege to Mexico is involved in a conspiracy to send illegal immigrants, and he's saying "When Mexico sends its people"—not anything like, "When some people illegally emigrate from Mexico"—and he sees all Mexicans as inherently evil.
3. He met with his puppet Putin in Helsinki, in notoriously-Nazi-collaborating Finland—and this isn't to mention what one of his shills wrote in the CIA Factbook (Incidentally, one can tell what known ***** supporter John Schnatter also thinks of Jews when they read the exact wording that I quoted in my open letter to him and *****.). He also invited him to the White House, and he has a relationship with a Putin ally and another notorious Anti Semite: Kim Jong-Un.
4. He has a "Secretary of Education" whom is taking actions such as rolling back the ADA¹.
5. He supports Anti-Zionist, Haredi-supporting, and currently-being-investigated Prime Minister(?) Benjamin Netanyahu—and speaking of which, you have to wonder if "Bibi" was legally elected, as (for example) the coalition of Shas, Agudat Yisra'el, and allies of Shas and Agudat Yisra'el have no problem intimidating others (and, being as sexist as they are, they certainly had no problem pathetically trying to intimdate the Women Of the Wall at the Kotel recently—they even went to try to drown out Torah and siddur readings with whistles and blarings of loudspeakers). Also by the way, Agudat Yisra'el began as an Anti-Zionist party in the Diaspora and now runs institutions such as the Interior Ministry in Israel—and this has become increasingly so with Netanyahu's Likud as the majority party in the Knesset.
6. He has literally threatened a war with Iran (another Putin ally, might I add)—and the United States certainly does not need a nuclear war right now, much less at all.
7. He has either allowed or even made the NPS give White Supremacists a permit to rally outside of the White House.

Those are just examples, by the way—and more reasons why Special Counselor Mueller's indicting of ***** as soon as possible is imperative. 

¹PS That I found about its 28^th anniversary in an email and even had to make a card partly to raise awareness about it is pathetic—and ableism seems to be even increasing in society.

Commentary: With All Due Respect, Nobody "Misspoke", "Pushed" You, Or Threatened "Extortion"...

You said what you said. You did what you did. You spoke for yourself, and you did the action of speaking. You sat in that Helsinki palace with Putin, and you called African Americans a racist name and brought up how many of them were mistreated for God knows what reason—"role playing" definitely wasn't it, and everybody saw right through that—everybody's (or at least my) guess is that you were trying to intimidate African Americans.

This tweet, by the way, becomes absolutely suspect in light of that: 

We will work with the players and league to find a positive way forward. Open to ideas from all. Except neo-nazis — 🖕those guys. (3/3)

— Papa John's Pizza (@PapaJohns) November 15, 2017

Are you? "Role playing" to prove that you're not racist makes your tweet sound like a classic "I am and I'm trying to pretend that I'm not" excuse. You also supported the person whom claims that he "misspoke" at Helsinki, whose the same person whom has called countries like Haiti "****hole countries", might I mention—and what does that say about what you really think of anyone of African descent?

I hasten to additionally mention that whom you supported met Putin in Helsinki, the capital of a notorious Nazi collaborator during World War Two, and about which the CIA Factbook currently says the following:

"During World War II, Finland successfully defended its independence through cooperation with Germany and resisted subsequent invasions by the Soviet Union - albeit with some loss of territory."

Meanwhile, you still won't cooperate with Special Counselor Mueller, and you somehow made time to assure that the CIA would write a pro-Nazi entry in its apparent factbook well before you met with Putin in Helsinki (and everybody can see that you illegally head an executive branch to whom the CIA answers in part).  You also projected by calling Former CIA Director John Brennan "treasonous". 

Both of you claim to be Christian, by the way. I'm pretty sure that you know, then, that Jesus told everybody:

"For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light."

Especially if you really are actually Christian, you know that Special Counselor Mueller (so to speak, and I suppose literally) has your number—you may as well at least call him and set up a time to sit down with him so that you can explain why you've done what you've done, besides that you've been among "men [whom] loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." The same goes for you: you may as well sit before your former company's CEO, shareholders, and other involved parties and state that you really messed up and exposed a really-ugly side of you.

After all, what's the holdup if you really believe that "he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God"? David, the legitimately-appointed king of Israel whom raped Bathsheba and murdered Uriah, had to turn himself in both to Nathan (since kings were as subject to Torah as anybody else, and Nathan was appointed as a prophet and counselor to David by God) and to God—and you're surely not better than David.

You've already ruined your legacy. The Trump™ brand is no longer respected, if it ever even was anything besides well known—since "well known" is not inherently synonymous with "respected". The Papa John'sⓇ brand doesn't even have the original "Papa John" associated with it in any way but for the "Papa John" nickname.

You're also looking at jail or prison time as well as more lawsuits than you've had in the past, anyway. Special Counselor Mueller is likely to indict you any day, and either he or someone else will definitely sue you on behalf of the United States Government and all Americans. One of your former employees or colleagues may press hate-crime charges against you, and someone will definitely sue you for defamation.


In conclusion, then, you might as well do what's right after you've—as the expressions go—burned so many bridges and had everything for which you actually worked go up in flames: try to make the amends that you need to make.

"If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."

"[C]ome to the light" to which your actions have already been brought and own up to them. Accept a plea deal that Special Counselor Mueller and your defense team work out for you after you've talked to him. Sincerely apologize to your former employees, colleagues, investors, and customers for even being racist, let alone supporting a racist and then using racist language that you tried to couch as something other than what you were really thinking.

Even when you're serving jail and/or prison time and/or once again facing litigation, you can still have others say about you, "At least he [or, as opposed to "he", an understandably-supplied noun] owned up to what he did—albe after a long time!"¹



¹As for Putin, incidentally, I have no idea who will prosecute and/or sue him—perhaps the UN will, and there is definitely a litany of cases that the ICC can make against him, and the U.S. could sue Russia in the ICJ—and as for Finland, they still rightly have to live with being a Nazi-collaborator state.

Of Course, Conservatives Can't Trust *****'s Supreme Court Nominee (And Of Course Can't Trust *****)!

No matter who ***** picks, no conservative can trust her (likely her) or him. Besides, she (as all indicators seem to have demonstrated so far) or he is going to be a ***** sycophant (at least initially—and who knows what's happened when Neil Gorsuch has ruled against his boss, whom is illegitimately in the White House in the first place and thus makes Gorsuch's appointment illegitimate in any case, no matter that the Senate's confirmed it for the time being)? Also, and most importantly, the following should cause everyone to consider why no real conservative is going to back *****'s SCOTUS nominee even if she or he even ends up being a he by the name of Merrick Garland(!):

1. Real conservatives would rather have a moderate like Merrick Garland, whom was appointed by an albe-legitimately-elected president whom we generally didn't like, than a sycophant of an illegitimately-elected-president in whom no decent person can find any merit.
2. Now-Former President Obama admitted his general disdain for most conservatives as well as most moderate & leaning-moderate people on all sides—and at least he, as far as I know, doesn't have any forcibly-aborted children or sexual-harassment victims in his wake. ***** still tries to pretend to suddenly be Mr. Reformed and Mr. Conservative when he has never even repented for—and he demonizes everyone whom calls him out on—his own immoderate and far-from-conservative actions, among which are trying to get Marla Maples to abort Tiffany Trump (and someone who really wants to overturn "Roe v. Wade" would come clean about wanting to abort his own child, not to mention his affair-conceived child—and to be fair, one now has to wonder at what point the affair stopped being an affair and crossed into Marla Maples being Stockholmed, since a man who can rape his wife and try to force any woman to abort her child probably didn't have a fully-willing partner in Marla. When he or she also considers, among other things, how ***** bragged about "grabb[ing a woman] by [her private areas]" and "mov[ing] on her like a [dog]", one has to wonder if Marla could've said "No" and had it taken for an answer.)
3. In other words, Former President Obama is generally a "You get who you see" kind of person and was that way as a politician, even though he at least made bipartisan concessions. ***** is a "For thee and not me" kind of person, and the kind whom "narcissist", "sociopath", and "Machiavellite" only begin to describe!
4. Especially any women and any (supposedly) pro-life nominee of ***** will be a token and a court packer—and only one SCOTUS nominee of an illegitimately-elected "POTUS" is needed to be pack a court; so, two nominees of a Non POTUS make a packed SCOTUS, even if the rest of the justices are nominees of legitimate now-former POTUSes.

The Optical Trumplusion: How The Puppetmaster Attempts To Gaslight Others Into Thinking That He's the Puppet

Notice:

1. How the spotlight goes under the curtain and shines onto the purported puppetmaster. Wouldn't the spotlight usually be on the puppet, though? Notice, though, that the spotlight is on whomever or whatever the focus is, or at least not on whatever is being hidden.
2. How the strings go under the curtain and are wrapped around the purported puppetmaster and then come back out from behind the curtain.
3. How the spotlight is set to make the curtain transparent enough that the purported puppetmaster can be seen as he's purportedly controlling a puppet.

Trump (whose name I normally censor) has created what I call an optical Trumplusion for the willfully ignorant: he has put the spotlight on Putin to make him look like he's the puppetmaster when Putin is in fact the puppet. After all, as I've said before:

1. Trump has had a history of never playing puppet.
2. He has also had a history of throwing others—including the Clintons—under the bus once he sees them as useless. 
3. Putin needed a Trump Tower in Moscow more than Trump needed one, since the U.S.' economy was better than Russia's economy and the Trump brand was an international brand. Keep in mind that (according to the tape of the press conference that is circulating) this was in 2013 and the Trump brand is likely to not be even a New York brand once Special Counselor Mueller indicts Trump.
4. Trump is playing Putin like Ribbentrop played Molotov¹.

In conclusion, then, a history-informed careful observer will notice how Trump the purported puppet is using spotlights that he is shining under the curtain to take the focus off of himself and make Putin the puppet look like Putin the curiously-visible puppetmaster. 

¹ By the way, even though Stalin even had his own equivalent of the Nazis' Final Solution" plan, ****** was worse than Stalin merely by the fact that his Anti Semitism was the worst kind of Anti Semitism. Unfortunately, he was a self-hating Jew—as his father was the son of Leopold Frankenberger, as DNA testing confirmed. I understand the attempted backtracking of the researchers, by the way. Nonetheless, people have to acknowledge uncomfortable truths such as the fact one of the worst enemies of Israel arose from among Israel and was far worse than a run-of-the-mill gentile Anti Semite like Stalin. After all, self-targeting bigotry affects far more havoc to be wreaked than standard bigotry does. 

If one needs another example, look at someone else who could very much be compared to Trump and was part of another ethnic group that Trump hates: J. Edgar Hoover, whom was apparently an African American.

A (Not-So-)Funny Thing Happened On the Way To This Point In American History, And It Doesn't Make One "Derang[ed]" When Distrust Is Earned

Three North Korea-kidnapped Americans were released and returning to the United States today, and to distrust a certain illegally-elected "POTUS" whom's currently under investigation by a special counselor does not make one "derang[ed]." After all, the last time that an American came back to the United States, the American in question died—and he had held out until he could die surrounded by loved ones, all of whom had been and still are targets of the illegally-elected "POTUS", D****d *****. So I'm certainly not withholding earned credit when I criticize *****, either. Besides, ***** praised Kim Jong-Un long after Otto Warmbier died; and the Warmbier Family were thus targeted again as recently as just over three weeks ago. They were also targeted when ***** maliciously withdrew the U.S. from the Iran Deal, as every single Jewish family was.

When an impurely-motivated person has repeatedly shown his or her Anti-Semitic and/or other bigoted true colors, I'm not going to give him or her "credit for anything good that he [or she] does". I'm also not going to say that two wrongs make a right, and the bad-enough Iran Deal certainly did not need to be withdrawn by somebody whom harbors just as much hatred for Jews as does the Iranian Government. In fact, I would be foolish to call "good" that Iran is now emboldened enough to "increase spending" on nuclear weapons and continue its Anti-Semitic attacks on Israel.

Call me and others "derang[ed]", then, though you're certainly not going to make *****'s wrong right or your slander against me and others true when ***** has continued to prove that the Warmbier Family, Americans as a whole, and Jews as a whole are only pawns to him at best and just continuous punching bags at the best of the worst—and Special Counselor Mueller luckily does have ***** under investigation, or only God indeed does know what (I kid you not) Mr. "proud to have that German blood" would do. By the way, ***** being proud to have German heritage would not be a big deal if he wasn't proud of it for malicious reasons—so I'm not asking anybody to go to the Germanophobic extreme that occurred during World War Two, and there were many righteous Germans¹ and are righteous Germans.

¹ Truth be told, though, I'm pretty sure that many "Righteous Among the Nations" were Jewish themselves and not counted as such either because of Rabbinic halachah and/or other identification by others as "gentile". One example is probably Hebert Coehn. "Coehn" or "Cöhn" can be German, but it is often Jewish. Also, Raoul Wallenberg and Eduardo Propper de Callejón were both Jews and never got recognized as Jews. We who are Jewish do ourselves a real disservice when we don't acknowledge Jews whom risked their lives to save other Jews as Jews.

Commentary: Karl Marx's Fifth Daughter & Her Various Lovers And Descendants—And What Havoc She Has Wreaked

Since necessity is the mother of invention and Karl Marx was the father of Communism, one could say that Communism was Karl Marx's fifth daughter. While Communism was at best a misguided and thus ill-conceived attempt at correcting abuses that occurred during the Era of the Industrial Revolution and Neoimperialism/Neocolonialism, abuses that occurred during that Era still needed correction. Thus, Karl Marx perhaps conceived his brainchild in an attempt to affect a correction of those abuses—and at worst, he conceived his brainchild just to create different kinds of abuses and heap abuse upon abuse.

Karl Marx himself¹ was a Levite and a child of Herschel Mordechai HaLevi and Henrietta Pressburg² Mordechai, and Herschel Mordechai culturally Prussianized himself by converting to Lutheranism and renaming himself "Heinrich Marx". As for Karl, he in many respects took the opposite path of his father—a Levitic rabbi's son turned fully-assimilated and patriotic Preußener. For example, he married the gentile Jenny Westphal and became an Atheist—whereas his monotheistic father had never intermarried or given up on God in any way. He also believed in centralization of governance and of governments in a far different way that his Prussian monarchist father did—in fact, he founded an entire family to reflect that he did.

That family is the family of Communism and the family of Communism-descended ideologies. Paradoxically enough, the writer of "Daas Manifesto" and "On the Jewish Question" raised up his ideological daughter in his Jewish roots to some extent—whether or not he meant to do so. For instance, he—whether intentionally or unintentionally—based "Each according to what he needs and what he has" on the pursuit of justice and on the mitzvah that the rich give no more than the poor and the poor no less than the rich³. At the same time, he explicitly bucked against his roots by raising up Communism in ways that were contrary to them such as the shunning of the mitzvot to believe in and worship Yehovah⁴ and to not engage in Revolutions⁵.

Once Communism fully grew up, she found her footing in finding various lovers and having her own children—and to this day, she is as polyamorous and prolific as ever. She has had gentile lovers and Jewish children like her father had, and she has also had Jewish lovers and gentile children. Of course, some had and have loved her by loving her descendants such as Socialism instead of loving her—although some have flirted with her as well as with her descendant ideologies.

Among the lovers of Communism were Lenin and Stalin, both of whom were in Imperial Russia—where her father actually thought she could never have a footholdⁱ¹⁰—and among her descendants were Leninism and Stalinism. Once Lenin died and against what Lenin wished, polyamorous Communism simply took on another husband—Stalin. Thus, misguided and bad-enough Leninism was overtaken by his worse stepfather and by his brother Stalinism—and obviously, bad went to worse.

The Communistic Soviet Empire ("Union Of...Republics"⁶) eventually collapsed, and Communism's familial rule in Russia seemed done until her child Kremlinism conceived another descendant of hers—Putinism. Meanwhile, other descendants of Communism and other lovers of hers have continuing footholds in other places. For instance, Maoism still is the ideology of China's governance and government, and its own Politburo head declared himself "emperor for life" as China looks to have a modern-day equivalent of the Soviet Empire. At the same time, Kimism is the Ribbentrop to whom South Korea is sickeningly playing Molotov⁷.

Thus, then, the kind of Solomonic wisdom that Karl Marx flouted for whatever reason⁸ could apply here. In this case, Communism is the seductress that one wants to avoid:

"Say unto wisdom: 'Thou art my sister', and call understanding thy kinswoman; [t]hat they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the alien woman that maketh smooth her words.For at the window of my house I looked forth through my lattice; [a]nd I beheld among the thoughtless ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, [p]assing through the street near her corner, and he went the way to her house; [i]n the twilight, in the evening of the day, in the blackness of night and the darkness. [a]nd, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of a harlot, and wily of heart. She is riotous and rebellious, her feet abide not in her house; [n]ow she is in the streets, now in the broad places, and lieth in wait at every corner....

"Now therefore, O ye children, hearken unto me, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thy heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded; yea, a mighty host are all her slain. Her house is the way to the nether-world, going down to the chambers of death."⁹

Fair Use. Obtained via Biblioklept.org.

¹ As one can find out even if he or she just browses around on good-for-the-basic-facts Wikipedia, though he or she will want to do more research than that

² Or, were it UnGermanized, something like Bratislavsky—or in her case, Bratislavskyová. Again, research. I've researched. By the way, I'm using simply prior knowledge as I write this—e.g., I remember reading that "Pressburg" is German for "Bratislava", and I have Slovakish Yidish roots. 

³ Exodus 30:15. I do double check my work when I'm not sure about something—a particular reference. By the way, the "pursuit of justice" refers to Deuteronomy 16:20.

⁴ Psalm 14:1 sufficiently covers that.

⁵ Proverbs 24:21-22. Incidentally, I think that the American obsession with British royals may involve latent Post-Revolutionary regrets.
ⁱ Once again, Western Ashkenazim look down on Eastern Ashkenazim, despite that Karl Marx may've had Eastern Ashkenazi roots😉. 

⁶ "Socialist" and "Republic" denote inherently-contradictory concepts, especially with regards to direct republics like the United States (as opposed to traditional republics. Also, a republic with elements of what's been called "direct democracy" could really be called a "direct republic", especially since democracy could actually be called an ideological ancestor of at least Soviet Communism—just as only freeborn Athenian Greek men could be citizens and vote in democracy's birthplace, so only Soviet Russian men whom were part of the Politburo and Soviet Non-Russian men whom had the favor of the Politburo had any real say).

⁷ By the way and on that note, Ribbentrop actually represented what are two Communism-related ideologies, which are Fascism and National Socialism—the latter of which is known as part of the Alt Right for a reason, as the Alt Right ("Old Right", 19^th-Century Right) is the Modern Far Left. In contrast to Communism (unless Communism was maliciously conceived as opposed to misguidedly conceived), however, Fascism and National Socialism were maliciously-conceived ideologies from the beginning. 
⁸Since the exhortation against revolutions comes from the Book of Proverbs
⁹ From Proverbs 7, JPS 1917
¹⁰ Update as of May 2, 2018 at 10:15 PM EST: I came to realize that since I had written Footnote Two to insert the joke that is now is in Footnote "i"—and that Footnote Two would've thus made no sense without Footnote "i"—I decided to insert the joke despite whatever backlash I may get for it. Besides, Western Ashkenazim apparently at least did at one time look down on Eastern Ashkenazim—in fact, I once read that Western Ashkenazim came up with (forgive my language) "sheeny" to make fun of Eastern Ashkenazim for using Yiddish, which explains why a character's use of it in Eugene O'Neill's play didn't make sense to me when I read it without knowing that (Why would a slur that sounds like it came from "Sheen" be Anti Semitic and not Anti Irish?, I thought?).

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

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

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