Broken Blog Shabbat: "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" (2012)--Composed From My Tweets

That Jerry Sandusky was found guilty by a Penn State-biased jury is amazing. We know that G-d wasn't on Joe Amendola's side. But there is one problem regarding "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" (2012): the only problem in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" is that "Kennedy v. Louisiana" (2008) took the death penalty off of the table.  Thanks to a racist who twisted facts to get his way, Sandusky will still have some time alive. In other words, the Supreme Court must be (albeit belatedly) kicking themselves for a decision that would and does have long-term ramifications--pedophiles such as Jerry Sandusky will never again be legally put to death for essentially (and in some cases, entirely) taking the lives of children--in other words, Jerry Sandusky would be put to death only if he had actually physically murdered one of his victims (though, if I were a prosecutor, investigator, etc.; I'd charge him with murder if one of his victims committed suicide as a result of being sexually abused).

Meanwhile, I thought that Geraldo Rivera would at least tweet about "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" (2012). Maybe that he didn't is better for everybody. In other words, now is not the time for Geraldo Rivera or anyone else on either side to plug in anything selfish, sensationalistic, etc.. I'm just saying, he has had a reputation for injecting too much self interest and sensationalism into stories. 

The "then again" side  is that he is a lawyer and has an actual and proven reputation of caring for children. So, why hasn't he tweeted? The only reason that I'm saying this is that I remember when he first tweeted about the case saying that he'd beat up Sandusky.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court will hopefully reconsider their "Kennedy" decision in light of "Sandusky"; and Geraldo Rivera--who, if one can say nothing else about him, does have a reputation for caring about children and wanted to beat Jerry Sandusky up for hurting too many children (since even one child is too many children to hurt, and Sandusky hurt at least 10 children over the course of at least 15 years). Anyway, Geraldo Rivera--will hopefully tweet something (hopefully non selfish and non sensationalistic) about the "Sandusky" verdict.

By the way, as I said, one can at least say that Geraldo Rivera does have a reputation for caring about children and would have loved to beat up Jerry Sandusky--too bad that Geraldo Rivera wasn't a prosecutor in the times before and when "Kennedy" took the death penalty off of the table.

Messianic Jews In Hollywood and Michelle Obama Is a Kohenet?

First, the three Messianic Jews that I can think of off the top of my head--well, four; maybe five: Kathie Lee Gifford nee Epstein, Josh Groban, Lenny Kravitz, and Jada Pinkett Smith (Sefardit Yehudit, and not Messianic if she is into Scientology)--oh, and Julie Margolies (actually, Julianna Margulies--wrong spelling, right name. And whether she's related to the Margiewiczes-Morgiewiczes, I do not know. [Update: Actually, her mother is Messianic Jewish. This doesn't mean that Julianna Margulies isn't, though; although she did marry her husband in a Non-Messianic Jewish ceremony.]).

Meanwhile, is Michelle Obama a Kohenet or at least of Kohen descent?

"Mrs. Obama’s paternal great-grandmother was Rosella Cohen of Georgetown, S.C., and her origins remain something of a mystery. We can’t say with certitude who Rosella’s parents were, but some historical documents suggest that they were Caeser and Tira Cohen, who were born into slavery in Georgetown. The surname Cohen suggests a possible link to the white Cohen family, a very prominent Jewish family in Georgetown in the early 1800s. Moises Cohen, who emigrated from London to South Carolina around 1750, was the first chief rabbi of Charleston’s Congregation of Beth Elohim, the birthplace of Reform Judaism in the United States. His two sons, Abraham and Solomon, moved to Georgetown and became deeply involved in its civic and political life. Abraham, who fought in the Revolutionary War and served as the town’s postmaster, met with George Washington when the American president visited Georgetown in 1791. Solomon was a director of the Bank of the State of South Carolina and his son, Solomon Jr., was elected to the South Carolina State Senate in 1831. Several Cohens were also slave owners. Most of the Cohens eventually left Georgetown for Charleston, but before they did, it is possible that a member of this prominent Jewish family owned Caeser or his parents."

Assuming that Caesar Cohen was a "mamzer", Michelle Obama would be a 1/16th Jewish and Koheni. With Tira Cohen (as far as I know), there's no evidence that she was born of a Jew, let alone a Kohen. So, Michelle Obama would be a (follow me here) paternal-paternal(?)-maternal Kohenet (or if you'd like to go down the line, maternal-paternal(?)-paternal Kohenet).

Is Practicing Supposed Transubstantiation Falling Away?

CARM.org, while I don't agree with every point that they make--although I agree on the essentials--, makes a point about transubstantiation:

It should be obvious to anyone who believes the word of God, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical.  For the reasons listed above, we urge that Roman Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ died once for all and that there is no need to participate in a ritual where His re-sacrifice is practiced.

Finally, because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, it is sufficient to save us and we do not need to maintain our salvation by our efforts or by our participation in the Lord's supper.  It is not a means of grace that secures our salvation or infuses into us the grace needed that then enables us to maintain our salvation by our works.  Instead, we are made right before God by faith.

That CARM.org didn't reference the following is a little surprising:

Hebrews 6:4-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

⁴ For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, ⁵ and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, ⁶ if they fall away,^[a] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 6:6 Or and have fallen away

Hebrews 10:26-31

New King James Version (NKJV)

The Just Live by Faith

²⁶ For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. ²⁸ Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. ²⁹ Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? ³⁰ For we know Him who said,“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”^[a] says the Lord.^[b] And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”^[c]31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 10:30 Deuteronomy 32:35
2. Hebrews 10:30 NU-Text omits says the Lord.
3. Hebrews 10:30 Deuteronomy 32:36

Evangelical and truth-seeking Catholics: please take note and run while you can, or--if you're called to stay and be used to reform the Roman Catholic Church--pray on your calling to help reform the Roman Catholic Church. By the way, I have previously referenced the Yeshuat Yisrael study on Hebrews 6:4-6; and in other words, you will not lose your salvation if you participate and have participated in transubstantiation. But be warned:

⁹ For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. ¹⁰ According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. ¹¹ For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, ¹³ each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.¹⁴ If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Remember, "if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins"; and in supposed transubstantiation, "they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame." If you fall away, you "will suffer loss; but...will be saved, yet so as through fire." But you do not want to fall away.

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.