WashPost: what planet are you on?

I read an article this morning in the Google News but article is in the Washington Post about Obama's NOMINATION of Kagan. He is not King--he cannot put her on Supreme Court --all he could do is nominate her. That is my first objection to the way the news reports on Supreme Court nominations. They write their articles as if him saying it makes it so. He is a notorious and chronic liar as are all Democrats whose very name derives from the root word demon.

Also, for the Washington Post to state that the abortion issue is not an issue shows how out of touch with America you are. IT is the number one issue for most of America now, since more than 50% of the population has changed to a prolife philosophy. And the shooting death of that mercenary killer Tiller proves that. It is an issue that is not going away until the false right to kill is not legal any where. There is no right to kill anybody. There is no right to abortion because the US Constitution has no lawful authority to create new law according to the US Constitution as written, which is the lawful authority of the federal government. Read the US Constitution. See if you find the words anywhere of a right to abortion, or the right to kill innocents, or the right of the Supreme Court to create law, or the right to privacy that they use to attempt to justify murders while revoking the right to privacy when taking about insurance, money, income, taxes, schools and universities, and on and on. The so-called right to privacy actually is ONLY applied to the killing scheme of the wicked to annihilate America.

Here are my other objections to Kagan personally as a nominee for Supreme Court:
1) NARAL an organization that kills and that pays for, promotes, legislates, bribes legislators for their evil cause of killing is endorsing her. Anybody that NARAL endorses is prodeath not prolife.

2) If her credentials are so sketchy that the Washington Post has to omit entire sections that would be discussed in any normal job interview then that says a whole lot.

3) Does she have children? Does she have a husband or ever had one?

4) Why is she believed to be supportive of homosexual special rights --because she was 'educated' at that University from hell, Harvard?

5) Why did she leave Harvard as Dean, a position most lawyers would probably kill for?

And my final question in this entry for the Washington Post. Why are you trying to trick Americans into thinking she is the 'magic' for America instead of telling the whole story of her life and her circumstances and her agenda?
Gloria Poole; 7:28 AM, 11_May-2010 at home in Missouri
I logged back in at 7:52 am reading two more op-ed pieces in the NY TImes on the subjects of human life, and Kagan.They are the articles written by Bob Herbert of the NY Times, and David Brooks also of the NY Times.

Bob Herbert's article is a good article by Bob Herbert of NY Times about stopping the killing and the work of a organization named CeaseFire which is about stopping murders:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/opinion/11herbert.html?hp/
On the topic of stopping murders, where's the news about the murderer of Yeardly Love? And why is this concept of stopping murders excluding the tiniest most defenseless in the womb? They are the absolutely most vulnerable and the most in need of protection from evil. Remember the Commandment of GOD, 'thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13.

And David Brooks' article, 'What it takes" in NY Times also today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/opinion/11brooks.html?hpw/
which incluees a long rambling quote, or words spoken by Kagan that is nonsense-- a lot of words to say nothing; being deliberately obtuse to avoid any show of conviction on any real topic. Also, it points out the fact that while
at Harvard she banned the ROTC from recruiting on Harvard Campus.
That says it all to me.She thinks Harvard students are too elite to
have to serve their country in some way that is not a posh padded office
and lots and lots of money. Or that they should ever be expected to
lay down their lives for the nation [in the Military protecting the US]. It says she
is against the Military and sees them as the problem for the nation, whereas most
of the nation does not see the Military that way. In fact the only people who see
the Military the way Kagan does are those 'educated' in socialism and annihilism at
posh ivy leaque brainwashing centers.
7:51 AM 5/11/2010