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 appear 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! ——————————————————————————– Update at 9:44 AM same day after reading in article that Ms Sotomayer called ‘abortion rights’ to kill innocents ‘settled law” . Well, I say WHITEWASHING a pig does not change it’s pig-ness or being. There is no such lawful right as the right to kill innocents. There never was. The U S Supreme Court has had the political-gerry-mandering by Congress of having a selected bunch of Nazi-extremists that spin the law to include the right to kill. And the so-called right to own slaves was ‘settled law’ in the U S from 1776-1865 and yet it was overturned. Not easily and it costs a lot of lives and money to unroot that catatastrophe but it was done. And so will Roe illegal usurpation of power by those who profited from the blood, guts and cells of humans on the U S Supreme Court, be overturned and probably by a what they call a ‘radical’ nation like Iran or North Korea or one of those nations that has no respect for the U S because the so-called leaders of the U S are as they are [without concern for human life but trying to fool the public] so it makes it a battle of equally unfit for leadership nations of which country is able to kill the most people ‘wins’.

PS I changed the template on this blog so not to worry. The other one though I liked it much limited the usable space too much and was therefore unworkeable. I like the fleur symbol of power and always did! It has a classic elegance.