The Anti Semitism And Other Hatred Has To Stop

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..

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.

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.'"

Is "The Jerusalem Post" Ignoring History?

They apparently are. Then again, they may just be cutting it short. Still, isn't cutting off a part of history essentially ignoring it (at best)? (At worst, cutting off any part of history is either denial of it or even unspoken support of what happened at a point in it.).
Jeremy Sharon, the Post reporter who wrote the history in question, reported:

One of the most striking aspects of the 33rd Government of Israel was the absence of the two haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, from the coalition.
Since 1981, at least one of the haredi parties has been a coalition partner in 11 out of the 15 governments since that time.

Is he kidding?  Even though Shas was absent (or Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had been deceased since October 7th of last year, which Sharon himself reported) and United Torah Judaism was absent, that doesn't make "the absence of the two haredi parties" (or any other Haredi party) a fact! On the contrary, the Haredim have always been in the government since then-PM David ben Gurion gave Agudat Yisra'el power.
All one constituency needs is an umbrella or big-tent party to be in its government, and that constituency is there for as long as the party is there. In this case, Agudat Yisra'el has been in HaMemshalah Yisra'el since before the "Declaration of Establishment" was written.
Therefore, for Jeremy Sharon and The Jerusalem Post to claim that the Haredim were missing from even one of the Israeli regimes, let alone four, is dishonest and (at best) sloppy or even (at worst) yellow journalism.
How would it be yellow journalism? For starters, yellow journalism itself

was a style of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over facts. During its heyday in the late 19th century it was one of many factors that helped push the United States and Spain into war in Cuba and the Philippines, leading to the acquisition of overseas territory by the United States.

Therefore, to claim a Haredi absence is yellow journalism in its own sense. To state that "the two haredi parties" were absent is sensationalistically acting like the Haredim were entirely absent, after all.
Besides, Jeremy Sharon also noted that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had appointed an heir∗:

Roi Lachmanovitz, a former Shas spokesman, said that the designation of Moshe as inheritor, in particular of the rabbi’s library and publishing rights, gives him increased influence within the Shas party and the Yosef family.
Lachmanovitz noted that it had been Yosef’s other sons who had been chosen for public roles. Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef was nominated by Yosef himself, before he died, to be the new Sephardi chief rabbi, and Rabbi David Yosef was appointed to the Shas Council of Torah Sages after the rabbi passed away.
“Moshe and his wife are returning to the center stage, because whoever has control of the books and library... can direct the [haredi] public, can tell the public what the rabbi meant. They will have increased status because of this,” he said.

In conclusion, Jeremy Sharon cut off 34-67 years of history (34 years counting from 1947-1981; 67 counting from June 1947-2014) and submitted a yellow-journalism article for The Jerusalem Post to print and publish (and apparently fell for his own revisionism).

Update (10:54:45 PM EST on December 8, 2014): Now here comes the "Told ya."

Example From My TOI "Wuerker" Post and Disclaimer

(Disclosure: this is mostly for those who have read my "Wuerker" post, by the way.)

For example, I can talk about what a traitor George Soros is because I know the facts, verified what I've read, and had family members (albe that they were distant ones) affected by the Shoah. Glenn Beck, who had and has no history with the Shoah, again has questionable intent. By the way, I first found out about George Soros in Culture Warrior. When I did, I honestly had no clue that I am Jewish and a bat-Anusim, let alone that George Soros (at least in some sense) has the blood of my family members (Anusi and openly Jewish alike) on his hands

By the way, George Soros also has to answer for the murders of some Nagys, among others, might I add—and If you think that I'm stupid, etc., by the way, I am not. I darned well know that, for example, "Levai" and "Nagy" can be Jewish; I know about kinnuim, etc.. If you think that I get drek from only my family on that, you are sorely mistaken.

I always have to add a disclaimer like this because of the tsores I go through at the hands of people who want to plant doubts in my head, etc. I basically go through something like what my dad's maternal granddad went through—in his case, he was always shot down with "The only reason that you say that we're Russian is because you work for the Russian Orthodox Church." How Dad pretty much passed down the drek to me was very much in similar words—something like, " "The only reason that he say that we're Russian is because he worked for the Russian Church.""

He worked for a Slovakian Byzantine Catholic Church in Swoyersville, Pennsylvania; and his father and mother were Anusim by the names of Gajdosz and Uszinsky—and let me tell you, he knew what he was saying. He never outright said that we're Jews, and that's because he would've been given a harder time. Let me add, too, that his parents never Magyarized their names—"Gajdosz" remained "Gaydosh", as opposed to "Gaydos"; and "Uszinsky" remained "Ushinsky", as opposed to "Usinsky".

Also, a Anusit Sefardit also got similar drek from her mishpachah; so, I'm not the first person to whom historical abuse (e.g., mental and verbal abuse in light of historical facts and findings) has happened. By the way, I can't find that example, though I remember reading it. I Googled and found plenty of other examples (including Susan Jacoby's! Who knew?)

Update (November 16, 2014 at 9:28 PM EST): Also see the following message (which I was writing when Shockwave crashed and I had to make the message a two-part video series):

Even If Nobody Else Is Saying This...

Quite honestly, I wonder if it didn't have to do in part with the Haredi constituency in New York City that follows Yevamot 62b. Sure, this Vietnamese couple made their argument; nonetheless, was someone also trying to appease the Haredim?

"Our Rabbis taught: Concerning a man who loves his wife as himself, who honours her more than himself, who guides his sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married near the period of their puberty, Scripture says, And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace.49  Concerning him who loves his neighbours, who befriends his relatives, marries his sister's50  daughter,"

Incidentally enough, I had no clue that it was that specific. I just knew about the reference. Anyway, don't kid yourself; the Haredim have a very-strong presence in New York City (e.g., Williamsburg, Crown Heights). By the way, the decision reads in part:

There is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages. Indeed, until 1893 marriages between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, of the whole or half blood, were lawful in New York. And sixty years after the prohibition was enacted we affirmed, in May, a judgment recognizing as valid a marriage between a half-uncle and half-niece that was entered into in Rhode Island and permitted by Rhode Island law. It seems from the Appellate Division’s reasoning in May that the result would have been the same even if a full uncle and full niece had been involved. Thus Domestic Relations Law § 5(3) has not been viewed as expressing strong condemnation of uncle-niece and aunt-nephew relationships.

I wonder, too, if that's why some Haredim immigrated to New York. They may not have been literate in haleshonot l'goyim, though they still knew what was going on. Remember that back in Krasne nad Krasnopol, Wojciech and Marianna Krusznyska Danilowicz were smart enough to claim negligence in baptizing Katarzyna—by the way, Jews did use and even adopt shemot hagoyim; though I'm not sure if we'll ever know the real names of "Katarzyna" et. al.. "Marianna" is probably the one real name, though, since that's "Miryam Chanah".

As for their cousin Rochla (and I'm definitely not fooled in light of this, since Aleksandria listed Katarzyna as her in-law mother and nearest relative, even though they were not talking to each other after Julian and Aleksandra became Anusim), she came to New York with enough English literacy (or maybe she talked to a customs official who could speak Yiddish) to get into New York (Her aunt had to pick her up; so, who knows?).

By the way, all of Great-Granddad's families stuck together in Northumberland County, PA, too (Look it up. If you're too, quite honestly, lazy to do it, I'll give you the names and links to searches for "Czarnecki", etc.; "Danilowicz", etc.; "Andrulewicz". etc.; and "Margiewicz", etc.. Otherwise, you're on your own from there. I've proved myself enough—and I don't need that "Both sets of parents?" argument again, since Alexandria gave her parents' name as "Antoni" and "Katarzyna" as well. As far as I know, that neither is my fault nor was the fault of Great-Grandaunt Alice. I didn't even know that Great-Granddad's parents were here—let alone Crypto Jews who escaped the pogroms—until I was close to 20 years old, and she was simply writing what her mother told her to write. So, I wouldn't even be counted in an Israeli Census before then, and she was a bat chayil.

Anyway, back to my point (since I just needed to say all that in case I would get the "That's not enough evidence," "That's coincidence," etc. arguments): since Haredim are (as I must mention, in case one didn't know that Haredim are) very much a constituency in New York City (and, thus, New York State) and knew enough to immigrate to the "treif medina", could they somehow have played into "Nguyen v. Holder" (2014), even if quietly? After all, I perhaps would darned well consider that if I were a Second Circuit Court judge—especially if I wanted to get reappointed, and even someday appointed to the Supreme Court (As is known, elective politics plays even into appointive politics.).

Let's not be fooled: if (and since) Katarzyna's parents could (so to speak) pull strings to be under-the-radar Anusim, and Rochla knew enough to get into New York, the Haredim could and do know enough to (at least if they wanted) play into a gentile case that has implications for Haredi Jewish tradition.

Let me conclude one incidental observation as well: "Antoni" and "Katarzyna" seem to be to Poland as "Juan" and "Maria" are to Mexico.

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).

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.

Open Letter To Stephen Colbert (And Be Warned That You Might Be Offended)

With all due respect, Mr. Colbert, you are scum! You state, "“I’ve got nothing against brains, some of my best friends have them[;] but you cannot scrap football over brain damage. Just ask the brain-damaged.”"

For one matter, people are not brain damaged just because they disagree with you. For another matter, football players know the risks—and if they don't, something should tell them that wearing helmets means protection from the possibility of brain damage. For still another matter, you insult the really brain damaged, who could never or can no longer make their own decisions competently and independently. Ask my granduncle Jim—whose son's brain was damaged by unexplainable seizures and an overdose of codeine, which his aunt had no idea was an allergen to him when she took him to the hospital to try to stop her one-a-half-year-old nephew's seizures. Also ask my cousins Kevin and Kayla (if they'll talk to you, since they surely won't talk to me)—their mother attempted suicide and can't remember her three months in the hospital that followed her suicide attempt. She asked questions like, "You were there?" when Kayla talked about being at the hospital—she clearly couldn't remember, and that she had damaged her heart sac and kidneys was enough. Ask her older brother, my dad, while you're at it.

Again, Mr. Colbert, you, with all due respect, are scum—and as blunt and harsh as that is, that is a compliment to someone who would insult those with whom he disagrees and make fun of mentally-disabled people.

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 Yeshua—whether 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.

Part Of Why I Just Feel Like Giving Up Quite Often

https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/426684163291226112I didn't necessarily know how to start answering the question of why I just feel like giving up quite often. Then I found a Sodahead poll that gave me a start. As I answered, life is getting worse in general. "It's a paradox. On one hand, we'll always have poor people (cf. Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8). On the other, much is required from whom has much (cf. Luke 12:48). Now, nobody was poor among the Church in its early days (cf. Acts 4:32-5:11), but we're in the End Days and life is getting worse and worse (cf. Daniel 12:1, e.g.)."

Since (as the old saying goes) it's all going to Hell (quite literally, and at least for a little while, anyway—for "Heaven and earth will pass away," as Matthew 24:35a states) and there will be a new Heaven and new Earth (cf. Revelation 21:1, e.g—meaning that this age will pass away, and a new age that'll last for 1,000 years and eternity will come), just to throw in the towel (so to speak) is quite tempting. Besides, I just found out that my major may indefinitely leave me in unemployment limbo—and I obviously still don't have a job, or else I wouldn't be in unemployment limbo (well, really, non-employment limbo—since I've never been employed, so I can't have ever been unemployed). Also, as my Political Science 301 class's textbook reads, Political Science is a major for those who want to study (e.g., research in) the science of politics, not actually practice politics—and I may have majored in History or Journalism had I known that, and even Mom says that I should have majored in Computer Science or Information Systems instead of Political Science—and here, I thought that I had a major that would help me get into the news business or politics! 

Furthermore, my attempt at getting even an interview miserably has failed so far—and both times!—and on the day that I was going to improve my interview video (long story short), I was unable to make the video due to audio and other problems (e.g., a fight with my sister that did not end well—and to end that fight took a lot of time and energy). Also, being on LinkedIn has not helped.

Apparently, doing a YouTube video and utilizing social media to even seek an interview in this day and age has ironically (and/or paradoxically) backfired—here, as a friend noted, I was trying to be innovative and, in my innovation, miserably failed. In addition, Mom said that I should do it the traditional way and send out resumes, cover letters, etc..

Well, excuse me, Mom—if I could drive around to employment places and send out resumes, etc., I would. Then again, I really have no resume on which to go. In addition, being (or at least trying to be) humble and honest (as is my Christian duty) leaves me all the more in non-employment limbo. One of the criticisms that I got was that I was too personal in my interview video. Well, excuse me—what would have happened if I didn't disclose that, for instance, I have Cerebral Palsy, OCD/Anxiety, Depression, and ADD until an interview? Either way, I'm screwed: damned if I do, and damned if I don't!

Furthermore (again with Mom not knowing what the heck she's saying), disabled people are still looked at as liabilities and scapegoats (and again, what would have happened if I didn't disclose that, for instance, I have Cerebral Palsy, OCD/Anxiety, Depression, and ADD until an interview?). After all, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (who was not born disabled) was scapegoated by both Texas State Senator Wendy Russell Davis and her supporters, and (allegedly—as I read on Twitter, since I slept in late and missed "Geraldo" on WABC this morning) Geraldo Rivera—and I'd like to believe my sister that Geraldo meant "handi-CAPABLE", but (if he really said what @seaheather alleges that he said) I don't think that he meant "handi-capable". Even Geraldo Rivera apparently (and disappointingly so) goes to prove my point!

Meanwhile, I gotta go....while I'm typing this, my mom and sister are trying to justify not owing me an apology for not knowing what they're talking about when it comes to being disabled in society!  

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).

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]

---

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/second-wave-health-plan-cancellations-looms/?intcmp=trending

[2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/white-house-braces-for-doctor-dump/?intcmp=trending

[3] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/how-low-can-go-obama-poll-numbers-drop-again/?intcmp=trending

[4] Chapter 8 'Institutions'. American Government: Power and Purpose . Ansolabehere Stephen, Ginsberg

Benjamin, Lowi Theodore J., and Shepsle Kenneth A. . p. 290 . US . W. W. Norton . 2012 .

[5]

[6] http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/11/15/geraldo-rivera-detouring-around-never-ever/

[7] Ibid.

[8] http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/11/15/rosario-marin-white-house-have-problem/

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.

Physical Therapy, Rome Versus the United States, and Disabled People Like Me

I figured out something, and what I figured out hurts--if it didn't hurt, I'd either be able to not take things so personally (which, according to Patricia Evans, I shouldn't be doing, anyway--that is, I shouldn't just let things roll off of my back or send messages that I can tolerate that kind of thing) or I'd be tolerating that kind of behavior! While I'm not a hero, anyway,  I'm not a hero even among my "friends" (actual or not) and family because they probably don't like strong disabled people who have a chance to stand for something, know what we stand for, and why we stand as we stand.

Deny as they will, they'd like to see me squared away in a convent or asylum (Maybe that's even part of why some don't like Geraldo Rivera). Maybe, as much as to think that they're mad at Geraldo for keeping those like me out of places like Willowbrook hurts, that's it. If I and other disabled people were their stereotypically-controllable, compliant types, they'd like that!

Furthermore, for the ones who are also getting physical therapy, that they don't want their mind working while their bodies are working is not my fault. Besides, part of why Rome lasted longer than the US is lasting is that every forum was one for civic and social engagement--people cared and talked about issues. Granted that they didn't have physical-therapy centers like we do, but they sure had other public-utilized forums--including private businesses--in and at which people would talk with people.

Also, as the old saying goes, the mind gets working (or at least should get working) when the body does. Even further, many people are in physical therapy because they have preventable conditions which they bring on themselves or pre-existing conditions which they exacerbate by not talking. After all, apathy, bottling up of feelings, or whatever else not talking brings about can bring one down. Great-Grandma Czarnecki learned this the hard way, and she finally broke down after 73-93 years (She got married when she was 20 years old, and something at home must have affected her to be attracted to someone as abusive as Great-Granddad ended up being to her.).

Since Great-Grandma Czarnecki broke down and told Aunt Mary, "No, no; it's okay--I want to talk about it!", perhaps my family, "friends", and fellow physical-therapy patients ought to let me talk and start talking themselves--either that, or they can fall down and let whatever else fall right down with them. Besides, they ought to look no further than the once-great-and-now-late Rome and the increasingly-apathetic United States to see how well shutting up, putting on the fake smiles, and leaving everything at the door of the physical-therapy businesses is working.

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!

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.

Just Pray For The Two Guys Involved In This Conversation...

As a sidenote, I know that the Devil redragged me into this debate while I was trying to write the last blog entry and take a stand for Israel.

Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki shared NewsNinja2012's photo.

6 hours ago · 

• Let me put it this way, too: when G-d makes hot dogs to start fitting into hot dogs and buns into buns (if you know what I mean), then we can talk.

  

  The New Pope gets it concerning gay marriage!
  
  SHARE and LIKE

  2Like ·  ·  · Share · Promote

  • Michelle Ravens Czarnecki, Matthew Ärildsen and Marie Christine Hary like this.
  • 51 of 97

    View previous comments
  • 

    Sander Lebau Well, perhaps she feels that you are, and perhaps a better response than blocking her would be for you to explain your opinion and position on the issue.

    31 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki I'd rather block her for both our sakes. I guarantee you that she would've blocked or reported me if I called her a religiously-intolerant proselytizer, for example.

    30 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    Well, what's the point of posting controversial statuses? Now from her perspective you're just some bigot who can't justify your beliefs, whereas you might have been able to change her mind by actually engaging her in discourse.

    30 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki And I already said that I'm kiboshing this debate.

    30 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau Actually, I know Becca, and she wouldn't do that. And of course I don't either.

    29 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    So, you don't like having to stand up for your own beliefs? You can preemptively turn comments off, if you don't actually want to defend posts like these.

    29 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki I want to. Have I censored you two? Have I called you two names? Have I tried to proselytize you? Becca tried to censor and proselytize me by calling me a bigot for a Jewish/Christian belief that I have.

    27 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    Okay, despite her harsh language, I hardly think she was trying to censor you... She had a pretty well thought-out argument aside from the ad hominem attacks, and to neglect that makes it look like you're incapable of backing up your opinions.

    25 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau Well, just because WE aren't being censored doesn't mean we can't care about others being silenced. You know what they say, first they came for the Communists, but I was no communist, then they came for the Gypsies, but I was no Gypsie...

    25 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki That's enough, Sander. And she was the one being a Nazi, by the way. She was persecuting me for my legitimately-held religious and scientific belief that active homosexuality is wrong. By the way, "they" came for the Jews who held for years that active homosexuality was punishable by death.

    23 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    Well, it probably would have seemed a lot more legitimate to her if you could have told her that rather than just blocking her... What you've done is actually antithetical to your beliefs, as now someone who was trying to reach out and possibly communicate you has now written you off.

    21 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki As I said, I don't have time for persecutors like her.

    21 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau But couldn't it also be said that she doesn't have time for persecutors like you?

    20 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    Again, why did you bother posting this if you don't have time to actually justify the beliefs behind it?

    20 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Who am I persecuting for holding that active homosexuality i wrong?

    20 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki I do, and it's my wall.

    20 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau Well, homosexuals...

    20 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    Homosexuals.

    20 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Not at all.

    19 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau How so?

    19 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    Wait, so you do have the time to justify your beliefs? Why not think of it like that, rather than wasting time on persecutors? Change the persecutor's flawed belief to your superior one!

    19 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Have I called them "homos", "sodomites", etc. once?

    18 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki I just don't believe in same-sex marriage.

    18 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau Just because you haven't called someone a name doesn't mean you haven't persecuted them. You ARE kinda denying them a right just because of who they are...

    18 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau And one could say that that is persecution.

    17 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki I'm not. I belireve that active homosexuality is a sin.

    17 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau Aren't you advocating they be denied the right to civil marriage and the government benefits therein?

    17 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Am I raiding their homes and dragging them out on the streets? Am I yelling "Sodomite!" every time that I see a homosexual?

    17 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki They can marry people of the opposite sex. Who's stopping them?

    16 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau I think your definition of "persecution" may be a tad too narrow...

    16 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau But... that's not who they are! Why should they be forced to marry someone they don't care for?

    16 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau That's... just cruel, Nicole.

    15 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Then maybe they can choose to be celibate like other homosexuals have done.

    15 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Then, G-d is cruel, huh, Sander?

    15 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau So, because you believe them to be wrong means that they must be forced to comply with your values?

    14 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    So, it's okay to be gay, so long as you never express your mutual love for another person through physical intimacy?

    12 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Hey, Sander, am I advocating this? "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " That's what even Non-Messianic Judaism advocates. I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm not going into homosexual weddings and stopping the weddings or killing or murdering the brides or grooms.

    12 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki I didn't say that. Being homosexual is unnatural and either a thorn in the flesh or a choice.

    12 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau But you are advocating that they be denied their rights because of who they are. Just because you aren't killing them or physically hurting them doesn't mean that you aren't persecuting them.

    11 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki So, Non-Messianic Juaism persecutes them, too, huh? By saying that what they're doing is an abomination? G-d's persecuting them?

    11 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau Yeah, kinda.

    10 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau That could be said.

    10 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Then take it up with G-d, not me.

    10 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau What do you think of the rest of Leviticus?

    10 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau He doesn't answer much these days.

    10 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Have you tried talking to Him? " And ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall search for Me with all your heart. 14 And I will be found of you, saith the LORD, and I will turn your captivity, and gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you back unto the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive. "

    9 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki Whether you talk to G-d is your choice, but I'm telling you what Tanakh says.

    8 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Sander Lebau But what do you think about the rest of Leviticus?

    8 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki As far as Leviticus, the part about sexual morality remains in effect in the New Covenant. See Acts 15.

    8 minutes ago · Like
  • 

    Jacob Lattner · Friends with Ally Schuele and 3 others

    Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
    
    Should it be legal for people to eat shellfish?

    a few seconds ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki That doesn't apply anymore. See Acts 15 and Romans 14.