Since "Andrulewicz" Is Jewish In My Case...

Contact me, St. Louis. I've told family members to contact me in the past.

    

Saint Louis, Missouri arrived from us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com on "The Nicole Factor: Natalie Wood Wagner Was Jewish? And If So, Her Story's Not Much Different Than Mine..." by searching for andrulewicz jewish.

Repost: "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" and Credibility Issues

The credibility issues lie with the Sandusky family (e.g., Jerry and Dottie Sandusky), the defense team, and others on the Sandusky side. Firstly, Dottie Sandusky is doing what abusers and deniers of abuse commonly do: try to turn the issue of credibility on the victim and lie about what happened. For example:

Part of the defense strategy is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong, but Dottie Sandusky was unable to say with much precision how often certain boys would stay in the couple's State College home. She said one of the boys, called Victim 10 in court records, she did not know at all.

She described Victim 1 as "clingy," Victim 9 as "a charmer" and Victim 4 as "very conniving, and he wanted his way and he didn't listen a whole lot."

Victim 9 testified last week that he was attacked by Jerry Sandusky in the basement of the ex-coach's home and cried out for help when Dottie Sandusky was upstairs. She, however, said the basement was not soundproof and she would have been able to hear shouting if she was upstairs.

Dottie Sandusky, who isn't charged in the case, also said the visiting boys were free to sleep upstairs if they wanted to. The accusers have said Jerry Sandusky directed them to the basement, where they allege he sometimes molested them.

Secondly, the defense team is trying "is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". The defense first stated that the abuse victims had a financial motive and were outright liars, but now they're acknowledging that something did happen--although they're saying "that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". Thirdly, why would Dottie Sandusky smile about a matter like this? In whichever way the case ends up going, Dottie Sandusky has and should have no reason to smile. Fourthly, would you blame the victims for saying things like the following, if they really did even say what they are alleged to have said?

Witness Joshua Frabel, who lived next door to Victim 1, recalled that the young man's mother said she had just heard Sandusky molested her child and that she would end up owning Sandusky's house.

"She had said about, when all this settles out, she'll have a nice big house in the country with a fence, and the dogs can run free," he said.

He added that Victim 1 told him: "When this is over, I'll have a nice new Jeep."

The mother took the witness stand to deny it, and Victim 1 denied it last week during his testimony.

Jerry and Dottie Sandusky owe their lives to those victims, and the victims were nice enough to not bring a class-action civil suit in addition to bringing criminal complaints against them. Too bad that "Kennedy v. Lousiana" (2008) overturned the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Fifthly, and in conclusion, the defense went really low to use a brain-damaged Iraq War veteran for sympathy--and using someone who didn't directly know Victim Four and who is cognitively and otherwise cerebrally damaged is not a smart move, anyway; since she may not even be able to understand what is really at stake in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky". 

Followup Re "Louisiana v. Mississppi" (1996) And Catholics Protesting Simmon's Execution...

As far as I know, I usually don't follow up blog entries like this; but did you notice a couple of points? For example, my friend talked about the "religion of Catholicism". So, he or she has words which testify against him- or her-self. He or she made my points:

• [I have] made the distinction between Evangelical and Non-Evangelical Catholics several times. Evangelicals of any denomination or even spin off (e.g., cult) believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, and B'rit Hadashah) as confirmed at Yavneh and Nicea and in its original languages and Holy Spirit-guided translations. Evangelicals are among Catholicism, Mormonism, Unitarianism, Lutheranism, and any other denomination and cult that you might like to name.

• To make the distinction between Evangelical (true, actual) and Non-Evangelical (nominal, in-profession-only) Christianity is imperative because Christianity is too often defined by the Non-Evangelical sects (e.g., Catholicism, Mormonism, Unitarianism, Lutheranism). 
Catholicism has been explained; Mormonism is obvious; Unitarianism does not believe Deuteronomy 6:4 and John 14:6, and Lutheranism is Anti Semitic.

• For people who are upset, let me explain something to you: let yourselves be upset. The truth needs to spoken when, for example, Catholics are protesting the execution of a rapist, kidnapper, and murderer named Gary Simmons. You talk about me judging, and you didn't even ask about the context. Besides, you know that I've spoken about this in the past. What should surprise or anger you now? Don't like the truth or seeking the truth? Don't be my friend. Simple.

• [I speak] the truth only because I love people. If I didn't love people, I'd shut up and let people go to Hell or be severely misguided.

Point One doesn't need to be elaborated on. Point Two can be explained with "The Book of Mormon" and "On the Jews and Their Lies". Point Three can be elaborated on by many of my past blog entries, and so can Point Four. My friend can get as pissy and huffy as he or she wants, and so can anyone else; but I'm perverting leading a quiet and peaceable life into shutting up when the blind are being led into a ditch, the deaf don't hear the alarms going off or whatever else they need to hear, and the mute don't have a voice. 

Re "Louisiana v. Mississppi" (1996) And Catholics Protesting Simmon's Execution...

Catholics protested outside of Gary Simmons' execution, and author Jewell Hillery took that part out:

Posted: Jun 20, 2012 9:03 AM EDTUpdated: Jun 20, 2012 7:36 PM EDTBy Jewell Hillery - bio | email

That Wolfe was collecting drug money doesn't matter: two wrongs don't make a right, even though Wolfe was (so to speak) playing with fire. I opined two, among other, points:

• Don't these Catholics get the concept of nefesh l'nefesh?

• [I don't] get why Catholics are so opposed to the legitimate death penalty when they illegitly used the death penalty for years--e.g., the Inquisition. Then again, I do get it--Catholics (not counting Evangelical Catholics) are hypocrites.

One of my Catholic friends in particular was pissed. I'm censoring his or her name to be generous, but this is how the conversation went; and I daresay that he or she is either remiss or stupid in that he or she doesn't know his or her own religion's doctrine, and that he or she would be remiss and foolish to try to school me again:

Nicole Czarnecki

4 hours ago near Baltimore · 

• doesn't get why Catholics are so opposed to the legitimate death penalty when they illegitly used the death penalty for years--e.g., the Inquisition. Then again, I do get it--Catholics (not counting Evangelical Catholics) are hypocrites.

   ·  ·  · Share

  • Jorge Alberto Escudero likes this.
  • • 
      

      [Friend] Whoa there. That's wrong. Just because a small group of Catholics did that in the past doesn't give you the right to judge Catholics today. And the official church stance isn't against the death penalty if you read the catechism. You could also make the same argument for protestants today. And only the more vocal liberal catholics are so opposed.

      4 hours ago via mobile · 
    • 

      Nicole Czarnecki As I said, I excluded Evangelical Catholics--those who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible in its original languages and Holy Spirit-guided translations. And it was no small group, which was part of why reformers such as Jan Hus and John Wycliffe showed up.

      4 hours ago · 
    • 
      

      [Friend] But you still say Catholics in general are hypocritical?

      4 hours ago via mobile · 
    • 

      Nicole Czarnecki Yes. Not Evangelical Catholics, though.

      3 hours ago · 
    • 
      

      [Friend] Wow. You are very judgmental of my faith. I will let it go though and pray that life experience will teach you differently. There is much you don't understand about the beautiful religion of Catholicism.

      3 hours ago via mobile · 
    • 

      Nicole Czarnecki I understand too much about it.

      3 hours ago · 
    • 
      

      [Friend] You are trying to instigate people today. One day you will learn the truth. In this life or the next.

      ...
    • 

      Nicole Czarnecki 

      I'm not trying to instigate anything, with all due respect... And I come from a long heritage of Catholicism, Jewish and gentile. I was baptized Roman Catholic, raised English-American Catholic (Episcopalian), have Catholic relatives (Roman, Byzantine, and English-American), went to a Byzantine Catholic Church at family reunions (St. Nicholas in Swoyersville), used to defend even Non-Evangelical Catholicism as a legit denomination of Christianity, and went to University of Notre Dame of Maryland. I learned the hard way.

"Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" and Credibility Issues

The credibility issues lie with the Sandusky family (e.g., Jerry and Dottie Sandusky), the defense team, and others on the Sandusky side. Firstly, Dottie Sandusky is doing what abusers and deniers of abuse commonly do: try to turn the issue of credibility on the victim and lie about what happened. For example:

Part of the defense strategy is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong, but Dottie Sandusky was unable to say with much precision how often certain boys would stay in the couple's State College home. She said one of the boys, called Victim 10 in court records, she did not know at all.

She described Victim 1 as "clingy," Victim 9 as "a charmer" and Victim 4 as "very conniving, and he wanted his way and he didn't listen a whole lot."

Victim 9 testified last week that he was attacked by Jerry Sandusky in the basement of the ex-coach's home and cried out for help when Dottie Sandusky was upstairs. She, however, said the basement was not soundproof and she would have been able to hear shouting if she was upstairs.

Dottie Sandusky, who isn't charged in the case, also said the visiting boys were free to sleep upstairs if they wanted to. The accusers have said Jerry Sandusky directed them to the basement, where they allege he sometimes molested them.

Secondly, the defense team is trying "is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". The defense first stated that the abuse victims had a financial motive and were outright liars, but now they're acknowledging that something did happen--although they're saying "that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". Thirdly, why would Dottie Sandusky smile about a matter like this? In whichever way the case ends up going, Dottie Sandusky has and should have no reason to smile. Fourthly, would you blame the victims for saying things like the following, if they really did even say what they are alleged to have said?

Witness Joshua Frabel, who lived next door to Victim 1, recalled that the young man's mother said she had just heard Sandusky molested her child and that she would end up owning Sandusky's house.

"She had said about, when all this settles out, she'll have a nice big house in the country with a fence, and the dogs can run free," he said.

He added that Victim 1 told him: "When this is over, I'll have a nice new Jeep."

The mother took the witness stand to deny it, and Victim 1 denied it last week during his testimony.

Jerry and Dottie Sandusky owe their lives to those victims, and the victims were nice enough to not bring a class-action civil suit in addition to bringing criminal complaints against them. Too bad that "Kennedy v. Lousiana" (2008) overturned the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Fifthly, and in conclusion, the defense went really low to use a brain-damaged Iraq War veteran for sympathy--and using someone who didn't directly know Victim Four and who is cognitively and otherwise cerebrally damaged is not a smart move, anyway; since she may not even be able to understand what is really at stake in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky". 

Now Would Be A Good Time To...

Boycott Alice Walker, who is an Anti Semite--which probably explains her divorce from Civil Rights lawyer Mel Leventhal (a Levi). First, we Jews have suffered more apartheid than Blacks like her will ever suffer; so she has hutzpah to try to opine on whom's relating to apartheid in the wrong way. Secondly, we were trying to give her anti-apartheid (or supposed anti-apartheid) book a plug--not anymore. Third, she supports a people who:

• Are not a people
• Are against the people of her ex husband (as her seemingly-Self-Hating-Levit daughter seems to be as well)
• Try to steal the land that Yisra'elim were to take and did take (as best as we did, anyway) from the Kena'anim and others. Who is she to try to buck the will of G-d? Why doesn't she take a cure and learn what happened to us when we tried to buck G-d's will (If G-d didn't spare us, how will He spare her?).

Does Toby Keith Cheat On His Wife? I Didn't Make Up the Question...

I've heard that, that allegation is out there. He certainly verbally abuses children, so that he cheats wouldn't surprise me; and I don't know about you, but (and skip to 0:10) I consider this cheating:



There are other instances of this.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania arrived from google.com on "The Nicole Factor: Toby Keith Sure Isn't "Country As Conbread" or "Good As He Once Was" Anymore..." by searching for does toby keith cheat on his wife.