Matters of mercy,judgement & faith

gloriapoole

I read an op-ed piece in the NY Times a few minutes ago and from a moral or legal standpoint it is propaganda.  That quote in it about the 'right to privacy' including Roe v Wade turns my stomach. If the stupid and the wicked in the U S understood that words have meanings and that they are not supposed to be like a piece of elastic stretched to fit whatever.  First of all,the words 'right to privacy' do not apppear in the U S Constitution or the Amendments to it. The Fourth Amendment says citizens are to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, houses and personal effects but that is a paraphrase. I will look up the actual words and enter it as update. If a medical doctor probing into a woman's most intimate and hidden parts of her body with sharp instruments on a seek and destroy mission is NOT a unreasonable search and seizure then in the NAME of THE MOST HOLY GOD what does constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in the minds of that Congress-from-hell? IF there is any such right as the right to privacy why is it selective? Where is it on April 15th of every year when Americans en masse are expected to reveal almost every detail of their incomes their expenditures, living arrangements etc to the federal and /or state governments? Where is it when a woman like me exactly like me who is living in state subsidized housing because the state refused to uphold it's own laws to protect me from a dangerous felon, is told to submit bank statements because they are afraid they have left her with a penney? { I do not intend to submit bank statements to corrupt politicians or corrupt agency workers based upon the 4th Amendment, FYI.]
  In the second place, Roe v Wade had absolutely no precedent in any law in America or in the English common law that is the basis of much law in the U S since the U S began as colonies of emigrants from what it now called the United Kingdom. And it has absolutely NO precedence in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim laws either. There is no such right as the right to kill one's offspring when they are the tiniest and most vulnerable. The facts are that humans in the womb are human. Indeed they cannot be any THING but human beings. They derive from a human man and a human woman and therefore by the law of the species they are human by definition. And they are also human by virtue of human DNA and human brains, and human cells and human blood, and human intellect and human emotions, some with more of those than others depending upon how old in the womb the human is, but humans are human. For the NY Times or the Washington Post to continue the ungodly and evil idea of killing humans because of their age [in the womb or 'elderly', or handicapped etc] or for any reason when they are not guilty of a heinous crime, violates the very essence of American law. IF the law does not protect innocent babies then of what use is it for anyone? If a baby has no protection from the U S government then what sort of government has the U S become? Read the Bible about how the Roman soldiers ran babies through with swords when they were determined to destroy JESUS? And how the Roman so-called leaders ordered midwives to smother Jewish babies when born. Do not be fooled that the 'hispanic' cultures are influenced and controlled by the church of Rome. Read and then understand that the Roman church is not prolife and never was. Italy has one of the lowest if not the lowest birth rates in Europe. Latina women and men tend to see children as commodities to use as bargaining chips. Sotomayer does not have children at what age? That should tell you she is not prolife. And her childhood is not the qualifying factor of whether she is the Judge this nation needs. Her childhood or her lack of a father as a child cannot be the determining factor of her concept of the U S Constitution or rule of law.
  I was told by a hispanic person that hispanics consider themselves superior to black people. I know for fact that catholic people and almost all hispanics are catholic; and in their so-called worship, bow down and pray to things made with human tools and pray to the dead and they have their festivals in the cemetary for the day of the dead or something like that. Their religion is not based on a LIVING GOD and they do not even know the Commandments of GOD in most cases. They think they pay their way into heaven with paying money secretly to ungodly and not-called-by- GOD-'priests' . Sodomites are NEVER called by GOD to lead the people of GOD since GOD does not violate HIS own commandments and laws.
  The more relevant questions to ask Ms Sotomayer are in what situations do Americans who are not pregnant women have the "right to privacy"?  Since the "right to privacy" instead of the actual words of 4th Amendment is the spin liberals use as  a code for abortion rights? So do women have a different set of 'right's then men in this nation? And in what situations do Americans who are not hispanic have the right to be secure in their dwellings and their papers, and their personal effects? And in what situations do Americans have the second amendment lawful right to defend themselves from government intrusion if need be with weapons? And in what situation do Americans have the lawful right to be protected from government supported killing factories? And if the U S government allowed murderous felons who were murdering those other than in the womb for example if they were murdering grown and not innocent federal judges would the U S government allow the defense of 'right to privacy' to obstruct the prosecution of a murderer? Does a heinous murderer of innocents have a so-called right to privacy to hide murderdous behaviours? Do the US citizens have a right to be protected from murderers? What is the duty of the U S government and Supreme Court--is it to protect the innocent or the wicked?
And in what situations do innocent babies have the right to be born alive?
/s/ Gloria Poole, R.N., @ Denver Colorado @ 8:33AM 14-July-2009
Update : The Amendments which are ratified by the people of the U S to amend the US Constitution are:

United States Constitution

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next Amendment there are more amendments but for sake of space I did not include them but search them on Google --educate yourself on fact not on NY Times ' propaganda!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gloriapoole

I am writing this for two reasons:
I read in the NY Times that Sotomayer gave evasive

answers to some questions. That is reason enough to

eliminate her. If a Judge trained in the law gives

evasive questions it is for the purpose of misleading.

Remember the infamous Bill Clinton saying it depends on

the definition of a word rather than admitting guilt?
  My daddy always taught us [I have five siblings] to

look him in the eye [make eye contact with all] and to

answer straight-forwardly and truthfully.  Sotomayer is

not honest or she would answer the questions. If her

colleague believes her to be proabort then there is a

reason for that. People get their impressions from

somewhere and if he worked alongside her [the definition

of the word colleague] then he would know what cases she

was involved. Evasive people are not trust-worthy.
  Also here's the questions that the Republicans should

ask :
1) what is Ms Sotomayer's connection to Planned

Parenthood since the nation knows now that the Planned

Parenthood paid many of Obama's fees and supporteed him

in his run for the U S Senate and vice versa. And 2) what

is Ms Sotomayer's relationship to the Center for

Reproductive [killing] Rights in NYC?
and 3) What contributions did she receive from Emily's

List or Center for Reproductive [Killing] Rights or

Planned Parenthood at any time? The U S has a right to

know whose pocket the Judges are in.
  And regarding the title to this entry, I read in NY

Times that Obama is eyeing the Medicare fund, planning to

raid it. AS IF it had money in it. It was plundered long

ago by crooks to pay for the Kennedy's and the Clintons

and the Obamas to live as kings and queens. Obama is a

liar, a con-man on the order of Bernie Madoff. It took my

four yrs and 10 months married* to well-trained-by-

catholics-swindler to recognize the signs of one but I

think I have much better insight into them now. Maybe a

white woman who was previously married to a hispanic con

-man fraudster abuser of women could make much better

decisions than a person who did not have that

experience?? The Bernie Madoffs, and the Marc Driers, and

the Barack Obamas, and the Sonia Sotomayers are the death

bell for America because they with their socialist

attitude of take whatever they can get away with, has put

America in debt to every nation of the world, where even

a few days ago the U S Treasurer was in the Arabic

nations trying to find funding. The Obamas with their

massive 'rewards programs' for swindlers, crooks,

embezzlers, and self-seeking money managers has reduced

every office of the federal government to puppets of

other nations' money, and to begging for loans. It is a

shame, a sham, and a disgrace. I put Dillinger on

Barack's name to remind of John Dillinger the infamous

public enemy number one decades ago and from his same

money-laundering, corrupt politics, neck of the woods.

*Footnote now divorced second time from that devil and

divorced since Oct 2007.

/s/ Gloria Poole, @ Denver Colorado 80203 @ 9;27 AM -16-

July-2009
Update at 10:12 after reading op-ed piece in the Denver

Post by Rosen entitled, "Yes they're Socialists"

referring to Obama and his band of criminals.
But I looked up the Commnist Manifesto since GOD put it

into my heart in the early
90s to do that and I remembered some features of it and

after quickly reading it again I disagree with Rosen and

I say they are communists. Here are some of the main

points of the Communist Manifesto and quotes have

quotation marks on them:
 In the "Bourgeoisie and Proletariat" section are the

words "class antagonism" created by taxing the rich to

give to the poor, and is essentially redistribution of

assets but not from family to family or generation to

generation but from worker to government to those

considered party-approved. In the US there is developing

a hatred of the well-to-do, the rich, and the successful

and I mean honest people. There should be a hatred of

those who defraud, swindle and cheat at any level!  And

the words, 'bougeoisie [defined as those who are

producers of income and wealth]  caused 'naked,

shameless, direct, brutal exploitation" . In the U S that

translates into a hatred of the generous and the wealthy

who prospered by obeying GOD's laws especially, but

generally of anyone with any means to live well.

Destroying the wealth and income and influence of good

Medical Doctors is more the reason of Obamacare than

dispensing of measures inducing life.  It says the

systems produces 'enormous cities' and it labels rural

life as 'idiocy' . Is that not the precise attitude

taught in the U S public schools about farmers and rural

life? .It calls the proletariat [working for wages]

people a 'dangerous class' and 'social scum' 'without

property' and says of the Communist party : "their

mission is to destroy all previous securities for and

insurance of individual property'. Isn't that exactly

what Obama and his communists have done? Used

manipulation to destroy the entire Securities and wealth

concept in the U S and redirected; channeled control of

those to themselves? Has not Obama taken over the auto

industry, the banking industry, the communications, the

Press, the control of ALL money flowing into or out of

the U S? Hasn't he through his series of frauds caused

people everywhere to distrust the banks because he is

nationalizing communizing them?
 "In the "Proletariat and Communist" section it says the

aim of the Communists is to form a proletariat class to

pit one class against other , to 'overthrow bourgeois"

and 'conquest of political power by proletariat' and

'abolition of bourgeois property " . Remember the

takeover of private property in Connecticut? And remember

that Obamacare is intended to destroy all the wealthy

except the Kennedys, Clintons and Obama communists.
 To be continued saving as precaution..
It says, 'capital is a social power' and that 'capital is

converted into common property', and 'the abolition of

bourgeois individuality, bourgeouis independence, and

bourgeouis freedom is undoubtedly aimed at" and

'communist abolition of buying and selling' and

'abolition of the family [Aufhebung] and 'the bourgeouis

family will vanish" and 'rescue education from the

influence of the ruling class', and "the bourgeois clap-

trap about the family and education about the hallowed

co-relation of parents and child becomes all the more

disgusting' and the 'real point aimed at is to do away

with the status of women', and 'communism abolishes

eternal truths [such as Freedom and Justice in previous

paragraph], it abolishes all religion and all

morality..." . Ask yourself what is the real effect of

the so-called women's movement? Did it help women by

creating a situation where they could not count on thier

husbands for ANYTHING? Did it help women by making their

offspring tools to be be bartered with in Congress? Did

it help women to reduce them to beggars when they are

pregnant and the laws no longer require husbands to

support their wives or exwives they abandoned and

mistreated? Is the nation better off because Obama and

his band of communists used political power to take down

my Christian websites for opposing Obama and the killers

of innocents? Is a secular heathen godless nation better

? NOT ! Does any nation that wages war against the unborn

preborn have a future?
saving again as precaution, to be continued...
Has it helped America to be 'changed' by Obama to a

communist nation where all production is controlled by

Obama? Has it helped the nation to have those ngos whose

sole purpose is the destruction of human life and

therefore family like Planned {un)Parenthood, Center for

Reproductive Killing, U N Family depopulation plan called

Millenium Plan, to be enriched with taxpayers money

through dozens of secretive funds including the defense

dept, the NIH budget, the Medicaid budget, the Medicare

budget, and nearly EVERY federal budget whether directly

or in disguise?
  Here is another quote from the Communist Manifesto:

goal is to 'centralize all production in the hands of The

State". Is that not the stated goal of Obama and his

communists?
If you want to educate yourself for the purpose of seeing

the truth and how those principles are being sneakily

forced on the nation then Google the words "communist

manifesto' or read them at the website of

www.marxists.org/archives/marx/works/1848/communist-

manifesto. If you did not understand that I am OPPOSED to

socialism and its more leftist cousin communism, let me

be perfectly clear. They will destroy the United States

as clearly as they destroyed Russia and I am absolutely

opposed to both forms of extremist governments!
/s/ Gloria Poole @ 10:40 -16-July-2009 Denver Colorado

80203