My LinkedIn Profile
About Me
TwitThis
Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)
.gif)
Views
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Not Done With Debbie Schlussel's Meir Kahanist Sentiment Yet
Beyond-the-Pale Antimissionary Alert: Debbie Schlussel
Debbie Schlussel can't get any more Anti Missionary, Jewish Supremacist, and Far Right than she is. I even told Ms. Schlussel:
Your Antimissionary, Jewish Supremacist, Far-Right stance only helps Jewish Christians like me to want to vote for Mitt Romney more. Todah rabah for having your kvetching backfire on your goals of getting Romney to lose support and on losing Mitt Romney supporters by utzing them.
Nicole Czarnecki on January 31, 2012 at 9:51 pm
If nothing else, Debbie Schlussel gave other Jews more reason to vote for the Democrat instead of the Republican, who many Jews already presume to be meshuga like Debbie Schlussel. If I weren't already a Jewish Republican, I wouldn't consider being one thanks to the Meir Kahanist types like Debbie Schlussel-- and she complains about Hamas, etc.? I'd like to see who from the JDL, JIDF, Yad L'Achim, and other groups in violation of significant verses in D'varim.
I Really Resent Taking Showers Now...
I already have a hard time getting ready for showers. Now to get ready for showers in a dorm suite which I'm sharing with four other people-- none of whom include people with whom I'm comfortable getting ready for showers in front of or near (e.g., Mom-- as I have to with a disability)--, not fun! And with a not-exactly-handicap-accessible shower-- not fun! And with Mom having to help me on the first night that my shower chair's here, and in the dorm suite which I share with three other people who are not only (for a lack of a better term) getting-ready-for-a-shower comfort zone, but also here when my Mom is here-- not fun!
To build a mikvah and immerse me in that to get me clean (since, hey, getting ready for a shower or bath-- let alone getting a shower or bath-- is a ritual in of itself for me) would be easier. Just build and immerse me in a mikvah; and get me clean, please.
To build a mikvah and immerse me in that to get me clean (since, hey, getting ready for a shower or bath-- let alone getting a shower or bath-- is a ritual in of itself for me) would be easier. Just build and immerse me in a mikvah; and get me clean, please.
Monday, January 30, 2012
My Internet Connection Is Slower Than Me, Though Things Could Be Worse...
But I missed a class by accident today-- which I'll explain on YouTube (See my latest video.). As for my other class today (for a lack of a better term, and without saying "Antimissionary"), Non-Messianic professor who may be very liberal alert!-- although I'm not sure; but I think that a professor who openly wears a kippah, teaches at liberal UMBC (at which I am amazed that I have not been persecuted for watching FOX News on my dorm floor's community television, by the way), and has the following response to what was originally a Blackboard post is certainly Non Messianic and probably very liberal (whereas many or even most Jewish conservatives and moderates usually tread carefully on the outward symbolism, unless they're on the other extreme-- Far Right or even Meir Kahanist-- at least in America. Most Jewish conservative and moderates, for a lack of a better term, play it safe on showing outward religiosity. Think of many Modern Orthodox Jews who one can't tell are Orthodox just by looking at them-- for example, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, and even Mark Levin).
By the way, most Messianic Jews (including myself) who I've seen usually don't go showing our Yiddishkeit the way that Non-Messianic Jews do when they do-- many or even (I daresay) most Messianic Jews are much like most secular Non-Messianic Jews and Reform Jews, gentile Christians, and others who show (for a lack of a better term) little to no outward religiosity. For comparison; take most secular Non-Messianic Jews and Reform Jews, and mainstream gentile Christians who might have only a bumpsticker on a car or keychain (whether the bumpsticker or keychain be a URJ or JCC sticker, or an Ichthys sticker or keychain), or a necklace (be the necklace a Magen David, cross, or Magen David-and-cross or an other Messianic Jewish-symbol necklace), or a copy of Tanakh (either with or without the Brit Hadashah) in a pocket, purse or other bag, or car.
As for the response on Blackboard:
"I appreciate your passion and the fact that you took time to comment. Please continue to do so throughout the semester.
That FDR was an Anti Semite is known fact. Even liberal Wikipedia cites that FDR did not support a Jewish State in "Palestine".
By the way, most Messianic Jews (including myself) who I've seen usually don't go showing our Yiddishkeit the way that Non-Messianic Jews do when they do-- many or even (I daresay) most Messianic Jews are much like most secular Non-Messianic Jews and Reform Jews, gentile Christians, and others who show (for a lack of a better term) little to no outward religiosity. For comparison; take most secular Non-Messianic Jews and Reform Jews, and mainstream gentile Christians who might have only a bumpsticker on a car or keychain (whether the bumpsticker or keychain be a URJ or JCC sticker, or an Ichthys sticker or keychain), or a necklace (be the necklace a Magen David, cross, or Magen David-and-cross or an other Messianic Jewish-symbol necklace), or a copy of Tanakh (either with or without the Brit Hadashah) in a pocket, purse or other bag, or car.
As for the response on Blackboard:
"I appreciate your passion and the fact that you took time to comment. Please continue to do so throughout the semester.
But please also cut out the polemic language and try to keep your posts as concise as possible. I want the discussion boards to be a friendly place. It's possible to be passionate and opinionated, while also being polite and concise--and doing so will make this forum a lot more effective.
If you have any questions about these guidelines, please speak with me.
Again, I look forward to hearing what you have to say!"
What was apparently "polemic" and not "polite and concise"? I can more than guess. For example:
- ""Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution."
That FDR was an Anti Semite is known fact. Even liberal Wikipedia cites that FDR did not support a Jewish State in "Palestine".
- "The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors."
Again, the professor wants me change historical fact. The framers indeed (as, of all people, Newt Gingrich once cited in a special based on one of his books for FOX News) were 95% Unitarian and Deist (if not 95% just Unitarian). Also, the 3/5-of-a-person clause and the lack of the 19th Amendment spoke for that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'"
I can't change that "The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples)."
Yet, I get a professor who gives much a pass to FDR and the framers of the Constitution as Shmuely Boteach gave to Mohamedians (and in comparison to Christians) on Geraldo Rivera's radio show. He (like Shmuely Boteach) has no problem blatantly implying that he's of the school that says that Jews must be both outwardly religious and proudly Democratic as you can get-- apparently, G-d forbid that one can have a moderate or conservative, factual view of history and try to assimilate as much as possible so as not to bring trouble on him- or her-self or anyone else. I'm just saying, wearing a kippah that openly and being liberal to the point of being revisionist is inviting stereotypes from and wrong rubs toward both fellow Jews and gentiles.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Repost: So I Found Krystal "Krystal Keith" Covel's Twitter Account, But...
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2011
So I Found Krystal "Krystal Keith" Covel's Twitter Account, But...
I really don't see her promoting it (See @KrystalKeith.). She's also, for example, using her dad's name and not her family name ("Covel") or married name ("Sandubrae"), and her first single is a song that she wrote for her wedding-- "Daddy Dance With Me". She even is on her dad's label and she isn't breaking out as much as she could be even on the label:
"”She sang all her life, of course. But getting in the studio, she was a little anxious. She sang her butt off today.” He adds, “I’ve never worked in the studio with her very much. When we did ‘Mockingbird,’ I wasn’t there for when she laid her vocals down.” So is dad pretty easy on his little girl? Keith admits, “Unfairly, I’m probably a little harder on her. But the other artists came in and I said, ‘I won’t step in too much until you guys ask me to.’ And with her it’s like she wants me to take the lead on it.”"
You can Google if you want to read more about Krystal. But unless Krystal makes some major changes, she'll be known only as Toby Keith's daughter and not as a country singer in her own right.
"”She sang all her life, of course. But getting in the studio, she was a little anxious. She sang her butt off today.” He adds, “I’ve never worked in the studio with her very much. When we did ‘Mockingbird,’ I wasn’t there for when she laid her vocals down.” So is dad pretty easy on his little girl? Keith admits, “Unfairly, I’m probably a little harder on her. But the other artists came in and I said, ‘I won’t step in too much until you guys ask me to.’ And with her it’s like she wants me to take the lead on it.”"
You can Google if you want to read more about Krystal. But unless Krystal makes some major changes, she'll be known only as Toby Keith's daughter and not as a country singer in her own right.
Update: By the way, here's some excellent pictures of her from Twitter. She really looks like both parents. Also, the album has yet to be released and she has yet to break from the Oklahoma scene. She could go far if she wanted to break from being a Covel/Keith in terms of the music business. She should use "Sandubrae" and stay away from her dad's "I Love This Bar" restaraunts for right now.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."
"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.
The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).
As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.
For example and for comparison:
- A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
- In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.
In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution.
In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).
This Fatass Needs To Lose Weight, and...
If you guessed that the fatass is me, you are correct. I told you that I don't sugarcoat about myself. I'm a foodie who's gaining a double chin; and while there's nothing wrong with being a foodie, there is something wrong with emotional eating, thinking about committing suicide again, and even being tempted to go out there and get pregnant just so that I can get all the love and attention that my cousin got at her baby shower (let alone all the love and attention that she gets, anyway. She again, though, comes from FAIRLY-GOOD HOME AND HAS HAD ALL THE PRIVILEGES IN THE WORLD COMPARED TO ME.).
That someone has had all the privileges in the world compared to me sets them up for more privileges at least in this lifetime, though, is always the case. I even get shattered dreams or otherwise bad with the good. I'm not my cousin or a Krystal Keith who gets to have her cake and eat it, too; though I inadvertently ended up getting followers for Krystal on Twitter when I couldn't even get people to like my own Facebook page (in part, though I shouldn't be talking about them, thanks to bullies like Steve and Cathy Dallwig who indeed despise the poor and won't even reach out to help them; but for when they can reach out only to bully the poor when the poor rebuke them for not reaching out to them.).
What mazel! I get hatzlacha of being the fulfillment of this:
The poor man is hated even by his own neighbor,
But the rich has many friends.
Even many of my own "friends" hate me (And don't you lie. I know that you do and just want to not admit that you hate me.). At least if I lose some weight, though; maybe even become a little underweight as I was at one time again, I'll at least be loved for my skinniness-- and I'll have a reason to be a foodie again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)