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!

President Obama to push Congress to a vote on the healthcare plan still including abortion funding before Easter

The nation's newspapers shut down opinions from pro life faction which went pro choice in a trend toward mind control the American people must resist in order to make the nation intellectually strong again. Religion is seen as the opium of ignorant people but to shut out 'religious' thinking is to discriminate against the development of man's spiritual and idealistic sides and opened the door to killing without a conscience which is what legalized abortion allows.

The http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com website sent me an e-mail today giving me the facts about what is included in the health plan which I will quote here:

"Gerry,

Abortion industry lobbyists are rejoicing following
yesterday's announcement that their allies in the White
House and Congress plan to use the controversial
reconciliation process as a last-ditch effort to ram
through a health care reform bill that would mandate
abortion coverage and government funding of abortion.

The reconciliation process is being used to circumvent
the need to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate to
pass the bill -- following the upset Senate election in
Massachusetts which broke the 60-vote stronghold.

Under this process, the House would be asked to pass
the abortion-laden Senate health care bill (that does
NOT include the widely supported Stupak language that
bars government funding of abortion.)

Then, both the House and Senate would vote for a
companion reconciliation measure that would make
changes in the first bill to gain the support of more
Representatives and the White House.

Only 51 votes would be needed to pass the additional
reconciliation measure in the Senate.

President Obama said yesterday, "this is where we've
ended up," and added that he looks forward "to signing
this reform into law." He indicated his desire to sign
the abortion-laden health care bill by Easter -- just a
few weeks from now!

Gerry, this is the BIG ONE. Everything we've been
working for comes down to this moment.

The current health care reform proposal ...

--> Includes government funding of abortion

--> Imposes a brand-new "abortion fee" on taxpayers

--> Directs $11 BILLION in new funding to groups like
Planned Parenthood -- the nation's largest abortion
chain that took in over $349,000,000 in tax funding
last year while aborting 305,310 babies

--> Would result in the largest expansion of abortion
since Roe v. Wade

The House of Representatives will vote on the bill
first. If it passes there, it would then be signed by
President Obama. Finally, it would go to reconciliation
for changes to be made -- and where only 51 votes would
be needed to pass it in the Senate.

Therefore, the fight right now lies in the House --
where you can make the GREATEST impact today.

If ever there was a time for every pro-life American to
let their voice be heard, that time is NOW.

Here's what you -- and everyone you know -- needs to do
IMMEDIATELY:

1.) Call and e-mail your Representative to clearly say:
"NO Abortion in Health Care!" Get their contact
info online at:

http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/representatives

2.) Write a letter to the editor. Your Representative
and staff read the newspaper daily and a letter to
the editor is a great way to ensure that your
message is heard. Get sample letters online at:

http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/take-action/letters

3.) Use every social networking tool to get the message
out -- post status updates on Twitter, Facebook,
and MySpace, asking friends and family to also send
a clear message to Congress. Be sure to link to:

http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com

4.) Pray, pray, PRAY! Let's never forget the power of
prayer. Pray that our leaders block government
funding of abortion -- and that our movement is
successful in protecting the unborn.

This is the final lap, so let's press forward to the
finish line!

Abortion is NOT health care under any circumstance --
and we should NEVER be forced to fund it.

For Life,

Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition
http://www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com

I received a letter from President Obama yesterday

In it he referred me to a web site he has created: WhiteHouse.gov I went there and from what I was able to read in my search on the abortion issue, I am including an excerpt from what he said when he spoke at Notre Dame University:

That’s when we begin to say, "Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)
Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature"

I have written him several letters, one regarding my disturbance with the pro choice faction speaking for the democratic party, while I and many other Christian democrats are unaboutedly still pro life and feeling extremely frustrated because of the direction the democratic party has taken on this difficult subject.

I believe that the Christian pro life democrats should speak out. In his letter to me President Obama said that he appreciated my imput and thought on the difficlt issue of abortion. He also says that he is interested in making his Administration as open and transparent as any in history.

I believe him when he says that, and in the months to come, I will continue to write him my concerns when they become so urgently felt that it seems necessary. I was heartened by his words about conscience in his address to Notre Dame, as though he respects conscience which does not seem to be the case with the architects of FOCA. The future and indeed the present text of FOCA still remains shrouded in darkness. It remains to be seen what if any changes have been made in its intent and purpose since Obama became the candidate and won the presidency.

Bush's rule of conscience regarding abortion subject of 30 days public comment before present administration rescinds it

I got this touching graphic from Connie, of Windswept Whispers. Thanks so much, Connie.
I knew this day would not be long in coming, and sure enough the Department of Health and Human Services even though there is yet to be a secretary appointed to pass muster, announced Friday that the rule of conscience that Bush got passed in his waning days in office will be rescinded after a 30 day period of public comment. This means that providers such as the Catholic Church hospitals, doctors, nurses, whoever do not believe in abortion were not required to perform them. This has greatly irked the abortion advocates who seem to see this as a threat to legalized abortion which they deem as totally necessary in our society. So they want these providers to be forced to perform abortions whether they want to or not, or lose obstetrical privileges and so on. The Catholic Church has come out officially saying that their hospitals will not perform abortions even if they have to shut them down!
I am sure that many who think religion is anathema to reason will not care if things go that far. So now who is turning into extremists here? It seems to me that a procedure that requires bloodshed and killing can never be harmless and without consequence in some people's eyes
Churches have been deeply criticized and called dangerous who try to dictate public policy, hence the need for separation of church and state in many people's eyes. But when extremists on either side try to deny what is inherent in their convictions, that is, a question as to whether they are right or not, who is the dictator here?
Nobody on earth is going to tell me that the act of killing the unborn must be a law for our good. Whose good? Certainly not for the good of the child who is being killed, who these believers would not give the right to live once conceived.
The columnist Cal Thomas believes that many pregnant women would change their minds if they were just shown a sonogram of their unborn child before aborting. That too is against the law. In fact for years, Planned Parenthood, the nations biggest provider, has done everything possible to keep any laws from passing that might impede abortion. Is that right?
A right to life governor, Janet Brewer, has succeeded Janet Napolitano, a democrat and believer in pro choice, in Arizona and it is expected that despite a democrat in national office, her regime might succeed in passing such limitations in abortion policy as required notification of parents when underage teens seek abortions. Planned Parenthood has killed any attempts to pass this one restriction for years. Any other surgical procedure requires the notification of parents, except abortion. Is this right?
Years ago, Bryan Howard, head of Planned Parenthood in Arizona, said in the newespaper that parents should not be notified because they might be religious zealots who would prevent the teen from having an abortion, therefore ruining lives. He is on record as saying that all teens who get pregnant should have abortions. This man has been dictating abortion policy in Arizona for years as has Gloria Feldt, head of the national Plannned Parenthood who preceded Bryan Howard as head in Arizona.
So I have been reading what these people have to say in the press for years. Bryan Howard was recently quoted as saying that he is sure Planned Parenthood sponsoring lectures by pro choice advocates in colleges will counteract the harm Governor Brewer might do to the cause of legalized abortion. Jane Fonda was Planned Parenthood's representive who recently spoke at our huge ASU insitution to enthusiastic response according to Howard.
I was interested to read this since I thought that Jane Fonda had joined a Chrisitan Church, so I did not know how she could continue in that capacity and square it with pro choice lectures in universities.
But I know for a fact that universities can become radicalized simply by awarding tenure to extremists. I have come to believe that higher education can have an insidious effect on the young that is not necessarily good, if the young are not in the habit of reasoning about the influences they come across, but just accept whatever any radical says if he or she is 'educated' or has a degree.
When a degree is at stake, people are less apt to question a professor's beliefs. It could hurt their futures. I know this could happen, because I put acquiring my degree on the line by behaving according to conscience. This led to my incarceration in a psych ward, from which I emerged with my health broken, after nearly dying in there under threat of electric shock.
How would you like to be dragged off to a mental institution for questioning university policies? I did not even get very far before I was dealt with very severely.
I went with my consicence because I believe that standing up for beliefs is more important than a college degree. I felt I was fighting extemist attitudes both on the far left and the far right. There is a big resemblence in both factions, in that they want to dictate policy without regard to reason. The Mormon faction was practically overwhelming in Utah at that time, but they did not know how to deal with the left extremists who had infiltrated the university as they do everywhere. These two factions were diametrically opposed in many areas, but they were both dictating to me what I needed to believe in order to get a degree. I had to conform to both! Neither parties could be reasoned with. A Mormon psychiatrist incarcerated me, but a radical in the theater department called him for an appointment. A psychiatrist who I am sure did not believe in either philosophies had the power to give me electric shock therapy against my will. I disputed that I needed it. He could not make up his mind to concede that simple point, since those accused of mental illness at that time could be electric shocked against their will. Was he going to go against that widely accepted policy and get himself in trouble in his command? No, he wasn't, which is why I then had to nearly die to get out of it. Something was wrong with me, I already knew. They did not listen. I told them it would kill me, and so before their eyes I nearly died. Only then did they believe me, and turn me loose, but only after I signed a paper saying that I volunteered to go there myself! An absolute lie.
So I express my conscience when it comes to abortion, over and over. For years. I do not let anybody else dictate to me what I am going to think about something so important. I am not going to call the bloodshed and violence required by abortion as 'necessary' for our society to survive. This I will state in a public forum and will be sending a copy to the White House to be directed to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Pro Life Sunday and encouragement to protesters