Sunday, August 8, 2010

I think it is the Democratic Party and President Obama's next presidential election to lose

From what I read today in the the editorial of the Arizona Republic, owned by Garnett, and a liberal voice, I fear that if the immigration issue is not addressed any better than this by the Democratic party in the remainder of the president's term, Obama's will be a short presidency.
In the wake of SB1070, Arizona republicans are accused of being unkind to our Hispanic population across the board as though we cannot address immigration problems without running too big of risk of upsetting this minority. I feel that has been used as an excuse along with many others for letting the problem get so far out of hand. Many American citizens have gotten very impatient with the idea that we cannot even try to find out if a citizen is an illegal especially if that citizen attracts the attention of a policeman for breaking some kind of law, especially when law officers and property owners on the border are reporting a veritable flood of illegals in recent years. Citizens have nothing to fear. Why should illegals have nothing to fear either just because it might upset them to be checked and it be suggested that their presence was not exactly acceptable if illegal? If illegal immigration is ever going to be restricted something like that is going to have to happen, either at the border, which is where Arizona would prefer it happen, or inland if too many illegals keep coming through. Is that bad reasoning? I don't think so. Is it racist? No, it is an attempt to deal with too many illegals overwhelming the state's ability to absorb them, pure and simple.
Yes, most illegals are going to appear to be Mexican, since Mexico is our border state. I think most of our Hispanic citizens can reason. But if they are citizens they have nothing to fear. It would appear that the democratic party does not want anyone, whether illegal or not, to be checked. For fear those who are not breaking the law might be upset. It also appears they don't want the people breaking the law upset either! So they appear to be favoring a do nothing attitude until the President and congress are ready to act. I think Arizona was patient with that policy as long as possible.
This policy of the democrats opposing every single conclusion about a problem reached by a republican has reached almost ridiculous lengths in Arizona in my opinion. I have long been a democrat, but if the party I belong to fails to address a problem as well as the opposing party I will naturally cross the line and vote for the man I think is doing the best job of dealing with the problem.
I was for example enthusiastic about Janet Napolitano when she ran for governor in Arizona as were a number of other republicans because she was very easily voted into office. She had already made a good impression as Lt. General. I gradually became disillusioned with her as she voted the democratic party line in Arizona and gradually alienated republicans in the legislature when they tried to pass anything that wasn't approved by the democratic party. I am a pro life democrat so any time a democrat goes out of her way to vote against any pro life legislation that comes across her desk I am going to become disillusioned. Arizonans had in general become disenchanted with her but she earned an important position in the newly elected democratic regime which was head of homeland security. I assume the President thought that being the governor from a border state and once popular there, she was a good choice.
But Arizonans were no longer enthusiastic about a governor who appeared to check and see what the party line was before she ventured an opinion. She did not show the ability to think for herself and make waves if necessary when her thinking differed in any way from that of more powerful democrats.
To me this is how an election gets lost, not because of the party in opposition, but because the candidate does not somehow distinguish his or herself with the ability to use the thought process and stand up for her own thinking on the subject.
It has not been very long since the democratic party was taken captive by the pro choice element who made it very clear that this was to be the party that supported abortion rights. Well, what if there were a lot of democrats who disagreed? Too bad, we are in charge now! Who said so?
Needless to say I have been extremely irked by so many in the democratic party caving in so easily to the pro choice crowd and silencing all the voices within the party that disagreed. Anybody that was opposed better find a new interpretation of the so called God's law because some people had risen to power in the democratic party that were even willing to oppose God. All I can say is such pride may goeth before a fall!
To me, parting company with God on this issue was the worst thing that had ever happened to the democratic party, absolutely the worst, because it was not going to take very long for them to convince all the younger crowd now growing up with abortion rights that all the justifications for it were absolutely sound and true. Wrong. The justifications were not sound, the justifications for a violent solution are never sound, but they are tempting. Abortion is a quick fix.
And for the younger crowd the sexual revolution that made abortion a lot more of a necessity was becoming a way of life. To rebel when young is natural, and now there were elders who would satisfy their wildest dreams of rebelling against just about everything that had once been called sacred. This scene reminded me a lot of what Moses found when he came back from fasting and praying in the wilderness. He found his people celebrating and worshiping false idols and the golden calf. Trying to get control of their thoughts and loyalty took a lot of doing and the revelation of the ten commandments God revealed to him from the burning bush.
Thank god, after a few years in which they appeared to be stunned into some sort of agreement, the republicans rared up and began to oppose abortion rights. If you will remember Ronald Reagen, a very popular republican president, did not oppose it. He was not a strong pro life president. I think he was too afraid of losing his popularity with the Hollywood crowd.
I thought one of the reasons George Bush senior lost his bid for a second term is because his platform stood for pro life, but he did not speak about it, promote his stand hardly at all, and the press got it out of Barbara Bush his wife that she favored abortion rights after ten kids with George, and that was highly publicized.
George Bush Junior did not make that mistake in either one of his campaigns for president. He ran pretty hard on his pro life platform, including vetoing any democratic proposals to extend abortion rights while he was in office. His wife did not go on record as being for abortion rights until he was entirely out of office and then she exerted her right to disagree with the president and wrote she believed in abortion rights in her recent book. But she did not disagree with his war in Iraq. Hm, well, I stopped being interested in this woman's thinking right then and there, and decided that she was not the great help I imagined she was in George W. Bush securing the presidency. I thought he won the election on his own integrity concerning the pro life issue and he lost the love of the people by waging the war in Iraq without just cause. I do not think he was with God on this one who abhors war as a matter of pride and senseless killing of anybody.
I happen to believe that the abortion rights issue as an extremely important one when it come to the election of presidents, only the press went pro choice so quickly and so completely this could never be acknowledged or publicized. It was always played down as completely as possible by the press.
And that by the way was when I thought some of the American people also became very disillusioned with the so called vaunted objectivity and integrity of the press. When the Supreme Court made its incredible ruling that legalized abortion, which by the way got more protests from the people than any other decision in history, the press caved in with their support across the land almost immediately. It was very obvious most of the journalists were not going to risk losing their jobs by opposing what had suddenly become legal. Hardly anybody in the press put up any strong objections at all.
Well, thousands and thousands of journalists have since lost their jobs. I just think the press became so shamefully pro choice in such a short time, the readers all woke up to the fact that these guys could be led quite easily. Thousands and thousands of readers were lost when they perceived that the press did not believe in much that was hard at all. The sexual revolution was one thing but the press so willingly supporting the legalized killing of unborn babies was another.
What the press failed to understand was for one thing thousands and thousands of people across the land had been engaged in trying to take care of the children through adoption and other means their parents decided they could not take care of. It wasn't long what with abortion rights, available children to adopt became scarce as hen's teeth. People were having to go abroad to find them. A lot of people were engaged in the work of what it takes to have a policy of pro life, saving all the unborn except in cases of incest, rape, and possible severe birth defects, etc, which are cited now as only 5 percent of the cause for abortion, the rest being for reasons of birth control.
In so many ways I believe the press lost their hold on the loyalty and trust of their readers who became downright disturbed as I was by finding a bunch of columns in their editorial pages that could be said to be nothing else but abortion propaganda over night! I was outraged to find such propaganda almost daily in my newspaper and I wrote pages and pages and pages of protests. I know how the newspapers changed once abortion was legal, and what is more it wasn't long until protests were simply not printed. Mine weren't. My word, I read letter after letter from Arizona's leading abortion Doctor Finley but not any of mine were printed! Planned Parenthood heads were always able to get a letter printed. I remember Ellen Goodman, from the Boston Globe, who had once been a respected national newspaper columnist, actually writing a column about how women should regard a baby they were going to abort. She advised them not to name it or in any way think of it as anything other than 'fetus.' But if the mother was going to keep it then she could be thinking of names for it and all the standard things women do when having a baby that is a 'keeper.' I was so outraged at this column I sent a copy of it to President Bush and his pro life task force, and I received some answers in return.
But I think the press made the mistake of thinking that because they could silence the pro life thinkers and keep them out of their newspapers they were not out there, that they all just went away.
Well, since hardly any of the press held out as pro life, that was a lot of newspaper people for pro life writers to take on. But we battled them for years. The did not print my letters, but I still wrote them, and this is some of the fuel that I use in my continued battle with a press that convinced me if they had to risk their jobs for a principle, forget it. They would just jump on any bandwagon and support it for all they were worth!
This was all quite disillusioning to me to say the least, but I had to take stock along with other pro life holdouts and start figuring out how we could reach the people and build up the belief again that life is sacred that had so rapidly seemed to disappear with the help of the press.
I prayed to God every day to help me with this task, because I know the power of God is very strong. And he can accomplish miracles if the people have faith and are willing to be led by him.
I believe in Moses, oh how I believe in him, but I believe he was a man, a great leader, a great man of God as I believe Jesus was. I think there is no difference between the births of any great men of God, there doesn't have to be if they are willing to listen to and learn the will of God.
It is dismaying to learn how much energy has been expended in conflicts over the nature of Jesus, which I think has not been for our best interests in fighting for good. We are not ever going to be able to convert some people with proof that is based on hearsay, that is what was written which cannot be proved! Why would anyone want a man to be above everyone else in some way that is not natural? I think that everyone has been born with the ability to access the voice of God within, the still small voice that can expand if it is welcomed.
But to require people to believe certain things about Jesus or about a prophet before they are welcomed into the fold is I think counter productive. We don't make progress that way and we don't come together to fight evil efficiently. In Utah I not only had to believe Jesus was divine but I had to believe Joseph Smith was now the only true representative of God on this earth, and the prophets succeeding him, and that everyone on earth had to be baptized a Mormon in order to be saved. In fact, no mother or father can even go into the sacred Mormon temples to see their children married unless they accept all this and become a member. It is no wonder the Mormons have not done very much about abortion when they are constrained to convert so many people to their doctrines in order for them to be saved. Is it really more important to believe this doctrine in order to be 'saved' than it is to save the lives of the unborn? Or at least get people to say they believe it. What does believing it even mean? Yes, in order to live in Utah peacefully and be an accepted member of the church, I need to believe this?
There is not too much difference in what you have to say you believe to be a Mormon than to be a Christian. I have had a number of people since I left the Mormon Church trying to convert me to being a Christian so I could be saved.
I would say, no, I don't believe I have to do that. I don't think I have to say I believe Jesus Christ is divine, the son of God, whatever is required, to be saved.
And so what if all these people are wrong demanding this. What if we could go back and check out Jesus and his life on earth, and what if we found out, as expected that he was a great leader and teacher, that he was willing to lay down his life for us, but no more than that? We ask soldiers to lay down their lives for us. And many do. But was Jesus' life worth more? So it is taught, because he was more than a man. He was what?
I am just saying. I am doing what most Jews by the way would be scared to death to do for fear of what would happen to them, I am questioning Christian perceptions of who Christ was who was a Jew! Well, I don't think Jews are afraid to argue with Jews about such questions, but they are more afraid to argue with Christians who are not Jews.
Now, if you are fairly close to sane, you will let me live for doing that.
Think of my poor Mormon relatives that have to put up with me questioning their Mormon beliefs!
I have not been quite as bold in past years before I was 79!

No comments:


Blog Archive