The Jewish Kopechnes? A Bat-Anusim Speaks On The Subject

Background

When are some gentiles not really gentiles, but Anusim passing as goyim? As a bat-Anusim, I can speak to this. As I noted before, Anusim often have uncommon surnames. As I once read (and, as I recall, even beforehand suspected about some of my own family), we made up surnames or took uncommon (or at least very-gentile ones) to avoid being (for a lack of a better term) "Jew hunted" in some cases. Even Katherine Ushinsky Gajdos—who should've Americanized her name "Uszinskyová" to "Usinsky" for being a Slovakian-Hungarian woman as she claimed—Americanized her name to "Ushinsky" (The Hungarian "sz" is just "s"; the Polish "sz" is "sh"; and Great-Granddad Gaydos [z"l] identified himself as "Russian".). She further Anusized by becoming "Maria Uscianski" to get into the Philadelphia port, and put "Keyde Usziansy" on her marriage license.

Also carrying their names with them when they became Anusim with the Levitical-Khazarate Foczkos (Also "Fockos"—since "c" in Slovakian is "ts", as it is in Polish and Hungarian. In Hungarian, as in Polish, "cz" is "tsh".). We left Warszawa, Lodz, and Radom when we became Anusim (Otherwise, we—even as Anusim, at least if we were found out—would not have been allowed outside of Russia-controlled Poland, even in pre-Pale days. We fled shortly before avinu Jozef Foczko [z"l] was born in Aranyida, and preferred to lived as Anusim in Szlovákia Magyaroszág than Yehudim in Polish Russia.). Who would know us in Szlovákia Magyaroszág, after all? We were comparable to the "Kerrys" in the United States—and after generations and in Westmoreland and Luzerne Counties, who knew our own secret? After all, Aranyida and Kassa hardly knew (and the ones who did know—besides us and our families, of course—were the families and in-law families of Kassa native György "Kvetkovits" Rusznak. Of course, I would—so to speak—bust the door open even for those of us in the family who did not know; but I wasn't born yet).

Not carrying names with them were those such as György "Kvetkovits" Rusznak, who adopted a neighboring family's name. After all, he'd be know as one of the Jewish Rusznaks if he didn't adopt another name, and even having an adopted and adapted surname didn't save a Jew from being known as a Jew if he was known to be of a Jewish family. Besides, Yoshua Rusnak would later born known for his work with Zionism, despite that his family had to adopt and adapt a Ruthenian name, and make it a shem shel Yisra'el—which could easily blow the cover of "acquitted to marry" György "Kvetkovits" Rusznak, Yoshua's Anusi cousin who lived just five hours away in Aranyida. Of course, then came the foolish move to save a foolish cover when we stopped writing to Yoshua's children and their side of the family—and we, to this day, are deservedly living with what we did by buffering their efforts at piku'ach nefesh.

Two other Jews who refused to carry names with them (if they even had names before) were Regina Jantozonková Czarnogurskyová (not Charnogursyková—please note that!) and her husband, Christophorus (By the way, "ch" in Hungarian is "cs"; whereas it is "tsh" in Polish.). It could've originally been "Charnogursky"—which makes no difference in Poland—before they fled ("Cz" and "Ch" in Polish are the same, but not Slovakian or Hungarian—as the example with which I came up shows; since using other vowels didn't just give me the sounds, but sometimes words—e.g., with "u" and "e". Try it yourself, though, if you won't believe me.).

So, the background should give you an idea about the Kopetchnys:

Now About the Kopechnes

1. Their family name and variants thereof are uncommon (Use Ancestry.com and Google.com to test this for yourself.).
2. They had "David"s in their family. Keep in mind that Eastern Europeans did not adopt and adapt Jewish names in those days—remember that the opposite and converse happened (i.e., Jews, especially Anusim, adopted and adapted gentile names.). After all, gentiles did not want to be taken for Jews—unless, of course, they converted to Judaism.
3. They were apparently Moravian, but posed as Polish.

By the way, if the Kopetchnys (Kopechnes) were Anusim (as I suspect), it just proves once that that Satan goes after Anusim among Jews the most. After all, Satan hides our heritage from us and goes after us especially when we find out that we are Jewish and remain in Yeshua. Incidentally, Anusim (at least in my family) were attracted to small towns and counties like Wilkes-Barre and Luzerne County—and not feinshmeker cities and counties like Pittsburgh and Alleghany County—I suppose that that's part of why Anusim like us are (for a lack of a better term) the dirty little secret of and within the Jewish community.

Remembering When, Part Seven

Looking back over what I have written, I see that I have given the impression that (for one matter) I need a ghostwriter and (for another matter) I am not a skilled author as is one such as the late F. Scott Fitzgerald (from whom I borrow the words "Looking...impression that"). Then again, unlike him, I am not making up a story based on life—I am telling a story that I could not have made up in even my wildest dreams. With the truth being told (besides that much of it has already been told), I did not know my own family's story—especially not my Czarnecki side's story.

As I talked about before I detoured over to some of Grandma's story, I was not told the real Czarnecki story at all. Let me go back to the part in which my great-grandparents were getting married, then, to explain exactly how much I did not know. I had no idea that Great-Granddad was a Jew who lived the majority of his life in Sugar Notch, Pennsylvania before he met Sugar Notch native Mary Trudniak—and I did not even know who Miss Trudniak's parents were.

The story that I had been told was this: a Pole named Anthony Czarnecki came over to the United States by himself, married Mary Trudnak, worked in the coal mines, served in the Korean War, had Black Lung, and died when Dad was 12 years old. We were also Lithuanian, presumably through Great-Grandma Czarnecki. Nothing came up about a young Anusi illegal immigrant whose parents told lie after lie on Census, naturalization, and other records to protect their Jewish identity. Nothing came up about Great-Grandma being a Hungarian-Slovakian-Polish Jew or about Great-Granddad being the one who was Lithuanian, let alone actually a Litvaker-Poliysher Yid.

Nothing came up about Great-Granddad falling in love with a believing Jewish woman and getting her pregnant—and nothing came up about the fact that the priest at the Sugar Notch church refused to marry Anthony Czarnecki and Mary Trudniak. Nothing else after that came up.

When any of the family story came up, the story was—again—that Anthony Czarnecki came over to the United States by himself, married Mary Trudnak, worked in the coal mines, served in the Korean War, had Black Lung, and died when Dad was 12 years old. Who knew that, for example, Pop-Pop was not actually Anthony and Mary Trudniak Czarnecki's first child? Who knew that Mary Trudniak Czarnecki had lost that baby two days after he was born? Who knew that Granduncle Tony was named for the lost baby 12 years after he was born? None of us great-grandchildren did—and even Aunt Mary did not know until she talked to Great-Grandma, and one can therefore presume that none of the other grandchildren knew.

As a Fosko cousin would say after he found the marriage license for me, "The return was not filed by the priest or minister, so [there was] no date or minister name to prove marriage took place"—and the Fosko cousin forgot to mention, at least in that specific comment (which is dated June 6, 2008 and is still on my Ancestry.com family tree), that the priest refused to sign the license. If the priest had not refused to sign the license, the date of the marriage and the priest's name would be there.

Also, the license filing—not the wedding—was on May 10, 1934. Furthermore (and you are welcome to do the math as I did), Pop-Pop was not born until May 25, 1936. Since Pop-Pop was conceived around August 25, 1935, two-and-a-quarter years and two weeks passed by to his conception from his parents' marriage-license filing. 

When Great-Grandma gave birth and lost her first child, she was obviously in no mood or capacity to try to conceive another child, let alone Pop-Pop, for at least six weeks—and had she known what the second child whom she would conceive would become, she may have even skipped trying to conceive him (After all, she did not remarry after Great-Granddad died—and continue to keep in mind that Pop-Pop made Granduncle Tony dread him for very-legitimate reasons, because Pop-Pop turned out like his dad and even still gives one an idea of whom Great-Grandma dreaded marrying all over again!).

So (and, as I challenged, you can do the math as I did), the real story was hidden from us great-grandchildren and even the grandchildren because the facts added up to a chillul Yehovah that had a heck of a backstory to it—that is, a Crypto-Jewish illegal immigrant who became a Polish-American Vaticanist married a Jewish Catholic woman who he had impregnated, and the story continued from there.

By the way, you may have noted that I used "Catholic" in the insert to this memoir to refer to both Granduncle Tony's wife and Grandma. You may be thinking, therefore, "You used 'Catholic' for the New Israel Fund project, but you use 'Vaticanist' for the memoir. At the same time, you use 'Catholic' for the memoir. So, what is going on? Maybe you do need a ghostwriter!"

This is a case in which I do not need a ghostwriter, since I actually very deliberately chose my wording to make a point. "Catholic" is appropriate to use for actual Catholics ("Universalists") and for the New Israel Fund project (since New Israel Fund would not understand the nuances regarding "Vaticanist"). "Vaticanist", on the other hand, is appropriate to use for most "Catholics" (including Anusi "Catholics" such as Great-Granddad), since (as I learned from, of all places, Wikipedia) Vatican Hill is why The Vatican is called "The Vatican"—in other words (as one can quickly figure out if he or she at least skims over the Wikipedia entry about Vatican Hill or the one about The Vatican, or some related entry), The Vatican tried to replace the "holy hill" (Mount Zion) with Vatican Hill. Thus, "Vaticanists" are properly called such in light of Scripture verses such as the following (from Psalm 2):

"He that sittethin the heavens shall laugh : the Lord shall have them in derision . Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion."

Also, most "Catholics" do not believe in Biblical inerrancy or infallibility, whereas actual Catholics do—and, thus, are actually part of the Catholic (again, "Universal") Church. By the way, Great-Grandma really was Catholic—as I myself remember her, she was a sweet woman who loved all of her descendants (including me and my dad's cousin Jamie, the son of Pop-Pop's brother Jim—and I have Cerebral Palsy, and Jamie is mentally disabled. She did not have to love me or Jamie, especially since being disabled in our family is being a shame to and within the family—and, as you will want to keep in mind, even the real story of how Jamie became disabled was hidden from me and the other great-grandchildren for years.). If Great-Grandma's love for her family (including, and perhaps especially, me and Jamie) did not show that she was a Catholic (at least if nothing else did), I do not know what did. 

You may have also noted that I used "P'rushi" ("Pharisee") and put terms such as "Rabbinate" in quotes. As with "Vaticanist" for "Catholic", I called "Rabbinate" for what it really is. As you may have figured out by now (at least if you know the New Testament really well), Matthew 23:8-10 (for example, "But be not ye called Rabbi...") becomes a lot more serious and pertinent to one like me when he or she has his eyes opened to his or her Jewish roots.

You might have furthermore noted that I used "Yehovah" instead of the P'rushi euphemisms such as "Adonai" and "HaShem". As Matthew 23:8-10 becomes a lot more serious and pertinent to one like me, what Scripture really calls God becomes a lot more serious and pertinent—even if (as in my case) the seriousness and pertinence are affected by evil men such as Nehemia Gordon, a so-called "Karaite" ("Qara'i", literally "Scripturalist"). As far as Nehemia Gordon is concerned, by the way, I went from wanting to learn as much as possible from Nehemia Gordon—even though he is Anti Messianic—to figuring out quickly who he was and wanting to never have anything to do with him again (and part of how I figured out who Nehemia really is has to do with the fact that I come from the family from which I come—and coming from that family entails dealing with and knowing, or at least having previously dealt with and coming to have a knowledge of, deceit and abuse of all kinds. By the way, see my YouTube video "Verbal Abuse From Nehemia Gordon And Evidence Thereof".).

Meanwhile, my family and our history (along with, among other matters, my dealings with Nehemia) prove that Genesis 50:20 and Romans 3:1-8 are also more serious and pertinent—and you will see all the more how that is the case as you continue to read this memoir. 

Remembering When, Insert (Not Part of the Memoir)

This was originally written for the New Israel Fund's "Taking Our Place" Project. It isn't part of the memoir, but it ties into it:

I don't understand how women (whether we're Messianic—e.g., Notzriot, I like am; or Lubavichiot, who boggle me with how they keep themselves out of Judaism—or Non Messianic) are kept of Judaism when women are often the ones who keep and/or rediscover the Jewishness in their families. I know that I'm one who actually rediscovered my family's roots (much to the chagrin of, and even with persecution from, quite a few of my family members), for example.

As for another instance, my great-great-grandmother Czernecki (who was of the Litvak-Poylisher "Andrulevicus"/"Andrulewicz" and "Morgevicus"/"Margiewicz" families) did everything to keep our Jewishness alive even when she, her husband, and her firstborn child (my dad's paternal granddad) became Anusim to survive the pogroms and to deal with Anti Semitism in the United States (where they had to go once their families were done with them and the other Anusim in the family). In fact, she totally flipped out when my great-granddad crushed her heart by marrying a Notzrit Jew whose parents were Anusim (She believed so thoroughly that her son was doing wrongly by marrying who she considered a koferet, she even drove my great-grandmom to almost have a breakdown.).

That same Notzrit, my great-grandmom, would follow her in-law mom's example when she stood by my great-granddad and voiced the objection of "She's Irish!" to my granduncle's marrying his Irish-American Catholic girlfriend (now his wife of over 40 years)—she wanted to see her sons marry girls with Jewish heritage (and my granddad did marry a Levite Catholic—my grandparents even named my aunt "Mary Joan" for their mothers and her mother in line with Sefardi minhag—since we do have some Sefardi heritage—, and in no way for the mother of Jesus).

Therefore, I'd be remiss to say that women ought to not be included in Judaism.

[Short Author Biography]

Nicole Czarnecki is a Patrilineal Levite who has Ashkenazi Jewish heritage on both sides of her family, and a bat-Anusim who discovered her parents' heritages (about which her dad didn't want her knowing, and about which her mom didn't know—and, sadly, doesn't care). She lives in the Diaspora and hopes to make aliyah if and when Notzrim like her will be able to do so under the Law of Return. Meanwhile, she invites you to find out more about her (including her family history) at http://www.about.me/nickidewbear.

"Remembering When", Part Six

I have been in back pain for a few days and have not been able to write. As I wrote (at least on my Stage32 wall), I had surgery in July and the pain is due that surgery—by the way, the pain has nothing to do with Johns Hopkins or any botching of any surgery (I wanted to mention that because I know that some people will make a comparison of me and my surgery to Geraldo Rivera's much-publicized recent back surgery that was botched by Health Specialty Services in New York—I am not comparing Johns Hopkins to Health Specialty Services in any way, shape, form, or whatever-else-have-you manner; nor am I even attempting to invite such comparisons.).

I also, as I recall (since I am not looking over what I have written so far right now), compared my back pain to Great-Granddad Czarnecki's pain that affected his eventual suicide. Before I get back to that (and I thought that I would, except that the back pain flared up again today—or, by Hebrew reckoning, yesterday), let me once again detour to the awful act that Great-Grandma Gaydos and Great-Great-Granddad Rusnak committed. I need to do so because I want to clear up that I blame only Great-Grandma Gaydos, Great-Great-Granddad Rusnak, and others in our family to whom Vilmos Rusnak and our other cousins in Slovakian Hungary wrote.

I have been accused of blaming Great-Grandma Gaydos' mother's family—the Foczkos—for what her dad's family (that is, she, her dad, and others on our side to whom Vilmos and his side wrote). Besides, I got to thinking about Juliana Foczkova Rusznakova (Julia Fosko Rusnak) when I heard of Nick Gillespe's comparisons of President Barack Obama to Hitler (Yemach shemo.)—and, because of the back pain and other issues, I am admittedly too lazy to go back to the story of my Czarnecki great-grandparents tonight. So, let me clarify here what I attempted to clarify on Twitter—as I was responding to the tweet from which about Nick Gillespe's comparison, and what I am about to say here are the exact words that I used on Twitter (which were, of course, originally broken up into separate tweets. Here, I also provide the actual picture to which I was referring instead of the link to it—and I repeat to my family that my use of the pictures is within my right to do, since I am part of the family and you did not copyright the pictures. 

(In fact, I will even note that I am the oldest child of the oldest child of Mary Rusnak Gaydos' oldest-surviving child who has children of his or her own at present—and I know how important hierarchy, rank, and status are to and within our family; so I am more than willing to assert familial privilege in order to make my case for my use of the pictures.

(Anyway—now that I have the familial and legal disclaimer out of the way):

I've seen others compare Barack Obama to Hitler (Yemach shemo.)—that's really going too far. I don't recall Obama committing ethnocide. Also, to compare anyone to Hitler (Yemach shemo.) without proof is insulting for those of us who lost relatives in the Holocaust. I will also concede that (at least in my family) some of us were just as sick as the Nazis (My stomach still is upset at that.). Also, as I've said, I don't know how Vilmosz's et. al.'s closer relatives forgive us—I don't. How could we have done that to them? By "we", I'm talking about my line—i.e., Mary Rusnak Gaydos and her dad (Her brothers, e.g., had nothing to do with it.).

I think that that's what may have bothered Great-Great-Grandma, too—i.e., how could her daughter and her husband do that when her sons were fighting to help people like their cousins? She died on July 5, 1945 at 58 years of age, by the way. I suspect that Isaiah 57:1-2 applied to her. 

She even (imperfectly) sent a brother away for committing adultery (As I said, imperfectly—that was unfortunately what was done in her day.). She also even refused to marry Great-Great-Granddad and come to America if she couldn't care for her widowed mother. Meanwhile, her brother Andras "Alexander" (the second-born son of Istvan and Johanna Hanzokova Foczko) stepped up to take his sister's place.

By the way, here is Great-Great-Grandma with her son Andy, since-deceased Staff Sergeant Andrew Louis Rusnak (WW2, Veteran)—who passed away on October 2, 2013, by the way (May the memory of Andrash HaLevi ben Andrash v'Aviva be a blessing.). Also, as far as Isaiah 57:1-2:

"The righteous perisheth , and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away , none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He shall enter into peace:they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness."

Both Julia and her son Andy passed away as such at the respective times of their passings—she passed when deserved evil was getting ready to befall her husband (who died on February 9, 1947—and I do not know whether or not he ever repented of what he did to Vilmos' side of the family), and he (that is, her son Andy) passed when Alzheimer's Disease had taken him and thankfully left him unable to comprehend the tumultuous and evil times in which he had to live his last days (and may I and others join those who are asleep in Christ, the Messiah Jesus, soon). 

Someone Continues To Try To Intimidate Her Critics, And...

She has lied about it—when I was reading an article about an OSU (not Oklahoma State or University of Oklahoma, as I'm glad that I checked out), I found this huge lie:

""I know there are going to be people who only see me as Toby’s daughter, and I’m prepared for those criticisms because  I’m really confident that the album and my work ethic will speak louder," she says. "Obviously  I have an amazing opportunity to be on a great label and work with amazing people. I don't take that for granted or apologize for it, but I also hope people will be open-minded enough to listen  and base their judgments on the music. I have faith that most people will be pleasantly surprised.""

Mrs. Sandubrae, that "people...see you as [only] Toby's daughter" and that you are "prepared for those criticisms" is a lie. As I have proven on this blog several times, you have intimidated critics like me—you and Denise Denis accused me of being a "Dixie Chicks" fan, for example. You have even gotten criticism from your defenders. For example, you got criticized as "a little snotty" by  L. Kay in your hometown; where most people, as I and others understand, do not like you or your dad—and their dislike of you and him has to with your character, which I am certainly sure does not include a "work ethic". In fact, your character has proven itself to not include a work ethic—people who have work ethics try to do the opposite of "no[t] getting around the shadow of a musical superstar in the room," especially when they whine about how they "want to have [their] own voice[s] [and] just want people to be at least open to listening to [them] with an open mind".

You are neither prepared for your critics nor an honest person—and that is on what people are judging you, Mrs. Sandubrae. By the way, according to Wikipedia, people have judged you on your music and have judged you as doing poorly:

Discography[edit]

Albums[edit]

Title	Album details	Peak chart positions
		US Country	US Heat
Whiskey & Lace	Release date: December 10, 2013 Label: Show Dog-Universal Music

Extended plays[edit]

Title	Album details	Peak chart positions
		US Country	US Heat
Krystal Keith	Release date: April 16, 2013 Label: Show Dog-Universal Music	53	25

Singles[edit]

Year	Single	Peak chart positions	Album
		US Country Airplay
2013	"Daddy Dance with Me"	58	Whiskey & Lace
	"Get Your Redneck On"A

• ^ACurrent single.^[9]

Guest singles[edit]

Year	Single	Artist	Peak chart positions	Album
			US Country
2004	"Mockingbird"	Toby Keith	27	Greatest Hits 2

Wise up, Mrs. Sandubrae—and my threat of prosecution stands for as long as you continue to try to come to this blog, use whatever I post here against me, and try to make trouble for me and my family (and let that be understood—that the Foczko DNA results solidify that we're Jewish, e.g., is none of your business to use against me—I watch my Feedjit feed and Google statistics carefully, Mrs. Sandubrae, and I record every instance of your visiting this blog.).

Sample Of My Schoolwork Writing: "Assessment and Analysis of a Scholarly Article" (Originally For SOWK 240)

In full disclosure, I will say that doing this assignment scared the crap out of me. I just hope that I did well on the assignment—i.e., I hope that I covered all of my bases and cited everything correctly. By the way, I—unless I am unaware of some law which states that I can't share my own writing on my own own blog—have the right to share my own writing. Also, for you to cite me if you use this blog entry would be nice; but I would be a hypocrite if I required that you cite that, since I believe in the Bible as opposed to the concept of "intellectual property".

Assessment and Analysis of a Scholarly Article:

Student Critique of “Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) Students’ Prior

Sexual Abuse Victimization”

Nicole V. Czarnecki

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Abstract

            This article attempts to summarize, assess, and analyze Michelle T. Gore’s and Pamela J. Black’s study which is titled “Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) Students’ Prior Sexual Abuse Victimization”. Published by Gore and Black (both of whom are affiliated with Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky) in Journal of Teaching In Social Work, the study stands for scrutiny insofar as it employed its chosen type of research and methodology, and insofar as it came to the conclusions to which it came. The scrutiny is the work of Nicole V. Czarnecki, who was then a student in the SOWK 240 (Information Technology in Social Work) class of Dr. Jessica Guzman-Rea at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). Czarnecki was a Political Science (as opposed to a Social Work) major and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science in December of 2013 (The time of Czarnecki’s critique of Gore’s and Black’s study was October 19, 2013, when Czarnecki was a to-be-graduating senior and Political Science major at UMBC.). Therefore, Czarnecki could not comprehensively assess and analyze the study of Gore and Black, both of whom are in the Social Work field (whereas Czarnecki is in the Political Science field).

            Keywords: analysis, assessment, Black, critique, Czarnecki, Eastern Kentucky University, Gore, social work, scholarly article, study, summary; University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Introduction

            Michelle T. Gore and Pamela J. Black of Eastern Kentucky University conducted and published a study which they titled ““Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) Students’ Prior Sexual Abuse Victimization”. Gore and Black published their study in Journal of Teaching In Social Work in 2009, and they described their 2009 publication as a study which “reports findings of an exploratory study surveying 61 students about their prior child sexual abuse victimization.” (Abstract From the Authors) They utilized quantitative work to attempt to answer the query of “What percentage of [Bachelor of Social Work] students [“at a south central U.S. regional university”] has been sexually abused (as defined by [the 2001 Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children] statute) during childhood?” (“RESEARCH QUESTION” &“METHODOLOGY”)

            Gore and Black extensively laid out their 2009 study’s methodology. In sum, the methodology “consisted of 61 BSW students [who were] attending the university during the academic years of 2001 and 2002” and “taking a required course on child abuse”. The students each received “[a] confidential five-itemed questionnaire” (“SAMPLE” & “METHODOLOGY”). The questionnaires effected the researchers to find “that taking a child abuse course may increase BSW students’ self-awareness regarding prior victimization” and “social work students [indeed] report a higher occurrence of prior childhood abuse than the general population” (Abstract From the Authors & “DISCUSSION”).

Assessment and Analysis

            As Gore and Black concede in their study’s “LIMITATIONS OF STUDY” section, “There were several limitations to this study.” One significant limitation is that Gore and Black used a highly-flawed methodology in that they defined “sexual abuse” in the terms of “[t]he state’s current definition of child sexual abuse” (“METHODOLOGY”), which in of itself is highly flawed. The definition, according to Gore and Black, is as follows (ibid.):

“‘‘Abused or neglected child’’ means a child whose health or welfare is harmed or threatened with harm when his parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child:

(e) Commits or allows to be committed an act of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution will be committed upon a child;

(f) Creates or allows to be created a risk that an act of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution will be committed upon a child.

(Cabinet for Families and Children, 2001, p. 4)”

            The flaw in the definition is that it “addresses abuse by a parent, guardian, or

others [who was or who were] acting in a caretaking capacity. It does not pertain to sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers. For example, incidents of sibling sexual abuse would not be included unless the perpetrator was acting in a caretaking role with the alleged victim.” The flaw specifically is that the definition does not cover “sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse” as “sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution” which a “parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child… allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created.”

            Given that the definition is as highly flawed as it is, therefore, it alone nullifies and voids the study. After all, a “parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child… allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created…sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse”. Whether the custodian mandates, encourages, enables, or fails to act to stop and/or punish any “sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse”, the custodian allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created…sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse”. Therefore, Gore and Black must redo their study and base it on a definition that covers any and all custodian-mandated, -encouraged, -enabled, and –commended or –condoned sexual abuse.

            As far as the study’s other limitations, Gore and Black adequately speak to those limitations. Therefore, this critique needs to not comment on those limitations. As this critique aforestated, the study must go through a reworking process and base itself on a definition of any and all sexual abuse that anyone commits against a child.

            In conclusion, this critique assessed and analyzed Michelle T. Gore’s and Patricia J. Black’s 2009 annullable, voidable, and reworkable study which was published in Journal of Teaching In Social Work. This critique explicitly stated that Gore and Black must rework their study because of how they measured their concept of sexual abuse by the standards of the 2001 Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children law, which  inadequately and illogically does not count “sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse” as “sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution” which a “parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child… allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created.”

References

Gore, M.T., & Black, P.J. (2009). Bachelor of social work (bsw) students’ prior sexual abuse victimization. Journal of Teaching In Social Work, 29, 449–460. doi:10.1080/08841230903249786

Paiz, J.M., Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., Brizee, A., and Keck, R. (2013, March 1). General format. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

“. (2013, September 28). Reference list: electronic sources (web publications). Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/

AncestryDNA Autosomal DNA Analysis Version 2.0 and Problems Therewith

Ancestry.com's AncestryDNA still has problems. Ancestry.com is on Version 2.0, though, to be fair. Nonetheless, part of their methodology still includes counting "nations of the former Yugoslavia—Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Macedonia"—as part of Eastern Europe (Europe East). 

Also, they count European Jews as native to Europe—"The chart above (in blue) shows that the DNA of the typical person from the European Jewish region is very unique to this region. Most people from this region have very little (if any) DNA shared with neighboring regions. However there are some exceptions to this. When we estimate ethnicity for people from this region a small minority see results showing 65% of their DNA is similar to this region."

Their methodology also includes major problems—e.g., "The next step is to estimate a customer’s ethnicity based on the DNA of the reference set of individuals, as well as the DNA of the customer. We assume that an individual’s DNA is a mixture of DNA from a set of “source” reference populations." Their reference panel includes "a candidate set of 4,245 individuals."

That's not even 0.0001% of the global population. (Divide 6,000 by 6,000,000,000,000 to get this number.). They say at the end, nonetheless, that they are improving that. "Currently, we are working to even further expand our global reference panel for future ethnicity updates. We have already begun genotyping and analyzing samples for a future update which will provide finer-grained estimates of ethnicity."

However, they did seem to confirm what I was saying about us being Jewish (Also count that other Jews have had problems being noted as Jewish by AncestryDNA), and that we may have had possible Sephardic ancestry:

By the way, "Palestine" (Israel) is erroneously counted as part of the "Caucusus". So are Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Google "AncestryDNA European Jews" and "AncestryDNA Ashkenazi Jews", by the way: you will see that other Ashkenazi Jews are having problems with AncestryDNA. Also, they continue not to match my dad up with a Fosko third cousin and a Margevich cousin:

• [Margevich Cousin]
•  Possible range: 5th - 8th cousins
•  
  Confidence: Moderate
• Last logged in Oct 6, 2013

 41 people

• [Fosko cousin]
•  Possible range: 5th - 8th cousins
•  
  Confidence: Low
• Last logged in Oct 6, 2013

 1764 people