Tuesday, July 28, 2009

3:27 PM Update :NYTimes Article "Power...:Thanks David Brooks

Today I read in the NY Times an article entitled "Power of Posterity" an op-ed piece written by David Brooks. It is a thought provoking set of words because of course the imaginary world of his article in which the half of the world is sterilized [reproductively] by the sun, is a reality in a different way. Millions of women around the world have been sterilized by abortion and millions of men have been sterilized by their decisions to have surgical clipping of their vas deferens, the tubes from the testicles that deliver sperm to the uterus via ejaculation. David Brooks ' article makes the point that future generations are the engine that drives almost all deeds, and thoughts that endure over time. Those who think they have no future self-destruct one way or the other. But those who have children and who love them, plan for them, work for them, encourage them, live for them, [yes believers live for GOD first and foremost but then for their families and children], spend for them, pray for them, hope, cry with them, rejoice with them, agonize at times over them. There is almost no self-centered motives in good parents and good grand-parents, and good great-grand-parents--> generation to generation the blood lines and family ties that bind one's soul to her or his own flesh and blood , own's progeny.
That article by David Brooks is the most life encouraging article that I have read in the NY Times and I have read the NY Times intermittently for years. It encourages life by making one think about what life would be like by making one think of the grimness of no future generations. I am a prolifer from the get-go and that is so because of GOD's words as written,'thou shalt not kill' in Exodus 20:13. Humans in the womb are human and indeed they could be nothing but human since they are directly produced by the very bodies of humans: human sperm and human oocyte [egg].
The U S and the so-called first world countries are in danger of extinction and depopulation. And that is so because of the evil Roe v Wade immoral attempt to authorize premeditated killing of innocents by the U S Supreme Court,and because of the massive propaganda effort for decades by those who profited from that killing. If the RICO ACT did what it was intended to do, abortionists, Center for [Reproductive Killing ] "Rights' and Planned [un]Parenthood would all be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and profiting off the human flesh and blood of innocents.
/s/ Gloria Poole,R.N. @ Denver Co 80203 @ 7:26AM, 28-July-2009
Oh yea, I almost forgot .The other news that upsets me is the publicized event of alcohol drinking as a way of 'easing tensions' for Harvard University nitwit. The Obama next bad influence on the youth of America is teaching them to drink alcohol to resolve their problems. Of course their problems won't be solved by drinking alcohol but they will forget about the need to solve them and learn drinking and drugging as a way of life. I dislike Obama for many reasons and that is one of the most foremost reasons. Teaching by example consuming alcohol is BAD.
And I saw a totally disgusting stomach turning photo in the BBC news today on a poster, of men kissing men in a passionate way and it is a photo I would not like to ever see again! It is repulsive, and abomination according to Leviticus 18:22.
Update after reading more of the news today :
The news that the U S Congress tried to legitimize Obama is too much! I have always doubted his citizenship because there are laws of generations regarding when a child born to a citizen and a non-citizen becomes a citizen. For the record the resolution by the Congress does not change the laws of citizenship or the rules of emigration. To change the definition of a U S citizen would require that the Constitution be amended and neither house of Congress could do that all by itself. Here is the info I gleaned from the article in visalawQuote from article in 'visalaw":"In 1940, Congress passed a law making illegitimate children born abroad to US citizen women citizens if the mother had resided in the US. HOWEVER, under this law, if the child was legitimated by the foreign national father before his or her eighteenth birthday, the child would not be considered a citizen. In 1998, the Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the requirement that a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen woman be legitimated before his or her eighteenth birthday. The decision was reaffirmed in the 2001 US Supreme Court decision Nguyen v. INS which held that differing requirements for out-of-wedlock children of US citizen men versus US citizen women are constitutions."[ end quote]. As I remember from the news Obama was legitimated by his KENYAN born father way before his 18th birthday correct? So Obama is a citizen of Kenya not the U S.
Article at:
http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html/
8:27 AM 7/28/2009
Update at 11: 05 AM after researching some. How is it possible that in the U S a man whose citizenship is Kenyan is President and a woman whose citizenship is Puerto Rican 'approved' by that bunch of criminals on the Judiciary Committee to be a judge in any courtroom? When is the U S public going to vote out the scoundrels who disobey and ignore the true laws of the U S? I searched some for public laws regarding citizenship having studied them some at the University of Georgia when a student [and yes I graduated ] . There is NO such law as citizenship for Puerto Ricans [Sotomayer] that I could find nor is there any law that grants citizenship to a man born to a Kenyan National father. And here's the clincher: the U S House of Representatives KNOWS that Obama is not a citizen and they knew it in January of this year when Rep Elton Gallegy introduced H R 126 IH to amend the immigration laws of the US into the U S House docket. But that Resolution went nowhere that is publicly recorded. If it is being discussed, it is being discussed secretly behind closed doors which in itself is unconstitutional. You may read about that U S House of Representatives Resolution [not a bill yet] at:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:23:./temp/~c111LLEl2E::/
And here's the thing. They cannot amend the definition of a U S Citizenship without amending the U S Constitution and they would be fools to approve that Resolution since it would 'import' by fiat millions of illegitimate children into the U S immediately [from service men abroad, and immoral men everywhere] and it would swell the ranks of the public welfare and health care rolls by millions immediately. Is that HR hidden in Obama's fanatic pushing of ruinous changes to health care ? Is that a secretive amendment to that bill to grant citizenship to Obama but here's the other thing, laws are not retroactive in the U S and there is a clause that says that no member of any current administration could directly benefit from laws they pass or similar words but they are about remunation but isn't is about remuneration since Obama is paid a salary by taxpayers and so is Sotomayer? That is why that sneaky Congress tried to write a 'sense of Congress' hooey which has no legal binding whatsoever in the law to try to sneak past the public the fact that Obama is NOT a US Citizen but a Kenyan since his father is Kenyan and the laws of progeny of the U S as they stand [are written] mean that since his father acknowledged him before the age of eighteen he is a Kenyan citizen not a U S citizen because he was born illegimately and those rules apply. I am mad and I pray that every US citizen is mad at being hoodwinked by Obama and Sotomayer. And about Sotomayer, I know the so-called news reports that the U S has territories and that the people there are citizens but that is not true. They do not have voting privileges and they do not pay taxes and they are not classified as born in the USA citizens since Puerto Rico is not a state in the U S.
Update at 3:27 PM and after the ???? U S gov't and or Microsoft tried to fry my harddrive AGAIN!
But they didn't because I have learned to recognize that before it fries my harddrive. Here is what I wanted to add to this entry. I read in the news [AP] and shame on you Associated Press for writing it the way you did, that the Senate Judiciary 'approved ' Sotomayer. That is not so. They could only make a recommendation to the entire Senate and the entire Senate has to vote on her confirmation. It is not over yet! Why did you try to deceive the American public? Is it to 'push' the results --skew them--to the socialist goals? The Judiciary Committee only prescreens for the whole Senate--they do not approve or confirm; and they do a poor job of prescreening too since they do that based upon their feelings and not the written US Constitution. Since Sotomayer was born in Puerto Rico unless she applied for US citizenship she is not a US Citizen since Puerto Rico is NOT a state.In the U S it is not lawful for a tiny minority [committee] to usurp the power of the entire Senate. By U S Constitution, each Senator is equal to every other Senator meaning they are supposed to have equal weight in the law and each are supposed to vote on ALL bills put before them. Read the Constitution instead of the journalism school brainwashing mush of socialism.
And for the record, Obama is not a U S citizen either since in the U S citizenship is conferred in two ways by birth to citizens on U S soil, or if the father is an American citizen --as far as I know or could find laws about,it is not conferred through the mother only since that would allow any woman to cross the border and give birth in the U S in places like San Diego. Since Obama's father was Kenyan so is Obama and what is on his birth certificate states the circumstances of his birth if it is a real birth certificate and not a bought one from an identity mill.
Update at 4:06PM after reading article about the hooey of Obama-Gates v Officer Crawley [?sp}, and I would like to ask these questions:
when do the black people accept their skin color and not consider it derogatory to state a fact about them?
Should white people refer to black skinned people-- a fact that is observable [like the color of one's hair or eyes but of course the color of one's hair could be altered, but skin color is born with]-- as purple or what--how do you describe a black person AS POLICE officers and Nurses and doctors and other professionals are often required to do? Police officers AND the public have a very real interest in Police files being accurate. And it would be wrong to say Mr Gates is a white person or an Asian person or an Arabic person or a hispanic person because according to his photo in the news, he is a black person. Why is being described as a black person such an insult to black people? And to apply the politically correct misnomer of "African-American' to him is not right either unless he was born in Africa. Was he? I don't know because I did not read his bio. Using that term puts a slant on his nationality yet he obviously does not object to that. Why? I have German and English ancestry but I do not describe myself as German-American or English-American though of course English is my first [and only real language since I am not fluent in any other]. So since it is medical fact that black races have certain types of diseases that white races do not have, and have profound tendencies toward health care problems in much higher ratios than white people, is it wrong for a doctor to make note on medical record of the FACT of a person being black? Because to that medical doctor that would immediately cause him to know to be on the look-out for high blood pressure, and sickle cell disease. And Jews/ Arabics are also prone to certain diseases that are not prevalent in the white populations such as Tay-Sachs.So is it always wrong to make note of the FACT that a person has black skin? I am not insulted when someone calls me white woman, why are black men insulted when someone says they are black men?
And why did the first black President make race the issue? I have been threatened with arrest for talking back and by a Judge once for calling a crooked lawyer a liar, and for asking a police officer who was blocking the main thorough-fare in Athens Ga to move his car. I did not make a national issue of those events. Why did Gates and Obama? They are the worst racists of all.
4:52 PM update: I thought about this some more and it really irks me now when before I thought of it as the arrogance of two Harvard 'educated' men who have superiority complexes of thinking they are superior to whites. Generally I would think 'who cares if they do think that?" But the points of the law are a different matter altogether. After I realized that the Massachusetts Judge dropped the charges not because it was the right thing to do but because the man was a rich black HARVARD professor who took advantage of that fact. If there is an issue here, it is that what passes for justice in America [as a general rule it seems to me] has to bought cash upfront or under the table;and justice has been completely divorced from the actual law.If the state of Massachusetts Legislature and the Cambridge city council or whatever their form of city gov't is, authorizes Police officers to arrest anyone for talking back, shouting at cop, disobeying direct order of a Police officer [called obstruction of law enforcement in some places] and if Gates did those things he should have been arrested and he should have had to answer for them. There should be no defense allowed of "I deserve special treatment BECAUSE I AM BLACK" hooey. That seems to me to be the real issue and the other issue seems to be IS Harvard superior because I don't think so. Their values are abominable if Obama and Gates are examples. Two well 'educated' and well paid and supposedly 'superior' 'elite', Harvard alums 'played the fool' my daddy would have said. And then when one of them was called on it and arrested for disobeying the law about unruly conduct after he was observed breaking into a house [that was not immediately known to be his] pleaded the 'oh I am BLACK ticket' did he not? Did he not exactly make his race the issue? And should the Judge have honored that? When America wants to get past race issues they have to collectively stop allowing race to be a defense, and stop the perqs like free Harvard education FOR BEING BLACK.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home