How to make the Gubernator the POTUS

Many wide eyed republicans have often wished to make Arnold Schwarzenegger the President of these United States. Unfortunately Arnie wasn't born in America. As such he is constitutionally disqualified from the office. Here's the text:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

It seems a little strange that we can have a 35 year old we can't have someone who's managed the world’s 8th largest economy in the world. Playing with the 35 year old theme a bit, I wondered how it would sound if the constitution were amended to say you needed to be a US citizen for 35 years instead. Here is what I came up with:

No person except a citizen of the United States for 35 years shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who have not been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

It still means 34 year olds can't be president. But it also opens a window of opportunity for our friend Arnold.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in 1947 and became a naturalized citizen in 1983. So let's do the math. 1983+35=2018. He would be eligible to run in the election due to be held November of 2020. He'll miss the 2016 election by a couple of years... So how old would Conan be when he took office in January of 2021? 74. Just two years old than McCain...

Peace

I Gave Money to Mitt Romney. I Gave Money to Huckabee. But I Voted for McCain.

From the beginning, my concern has primarily been to get a Republican elected. Any republican is better than any Democrat. My key issue is that of social abortion. I think using abortions as a means of birth control is just plain evil. Democrats have a litmus test when selecting or approving judges. That is will they support Roe v Wade or not. Since life is not defined in the constitution and judges have invented a "right" of privacy many judges have taken to legislating from the bench. A democrat is going to appoint judges that do just that. At least with a Republican you have a chance at getting a judge that will judge and not legislate. The point being that whoever can beat Hillary (or perhaps Obama) is my candidate.

At first I thought McCain was unelectable. He doesn't have the party elite supporting him and the guy always looked like an angy white man. Have you ever seen someone so white? He frankly scared me. But the guy learned to smile. And in no small part to that smile he started racking up the delegates.

Up to Florida it was clear it was either going to be Mitt Romney or McCain as nominee. If the economy was the most important thing to you, you choose Mitt. For everything else most people choose McCain. I've been listening to the other pundits about McCain's supposed anti-conservative record. I find it somewhat lacking to be true. The guy has a perfect record voting for life. Most of the time he votes to cut taxes. And he fights to cut government spending. The two things he supposedly is bad on is immigration and campaign finance reform.

McCain Feingold has loop holes. That's bad. So what? I mean what other bill got passed that even attempted campaign finance reform? The American people hate the fact that special interests have so much power in the country. Some argue if the government would just get out of our personal lives (shrink government) that money would automatically have less of an impact. But the argument is circular because you can't get government out of our lives until you limit the effect that money has on how law makers choose to expand or contract the size of government.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_McCain_Immigration.htm
Regarding immigration, it's a complicated and emotional issue. I may not agree on every aspect of his immigration policy but we have do have several things in common. 1.) Stop or at least severely slow the number of illegals coming into America. 2.) We won't be able to find and deport all the illegals so we need a practical plan that get's them paying taxes instead of getting a free ride on our entitlements. 3.) This country has had waves of immigration throughout its history. (INHO It's a little disingenuous to be so protectionist now.) 4.) McCain voted Yes to making English the official language, voted yes on building the border fence.
Q: Will you pledge to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty?
A: Yes, of course, and we never proposed amnesty. But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. We need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law; they need some of our love and compassion. I want to assure you that I'll enforce the borders first. We'll solve this immigration problem.
Immigration is a hard problem. He sounds like a guy that is really trying to solve it while at the same time being a compassionate Christian. What's so bad about that?
To wrap it up, McCain has the best shot at stopping a Democrat in November. He has proven he can work across the line with Democrats and even attract some of them to his side (i.e. Lieberman.) He has a strong showing among independents. He'll either appoint pro-life judges or constructionists. Romney will have a much harder time beating Hillary. Huckabee just doesn't have a shot at winning the nomination. (not this year anyway...)

-Peace

I WAS WRONG

Huckabee takes Iowa

In my article “Why Christians should vote for a Mormon” I made a mistake. Yes I was wrong. How you say? Well Huck-a-who? Mike Huckabee, winner of the Republican Iowa caucus didn’t even rate an honorable mention. I blabbered on about the other Republican candidates and their chances at beating Hillary Clinton in the national election. (Hillary came in third in Iowa. So much for her inevitability.) I suggested that really only Giuliani and Mitt Romney had a chance. My premise was and still stands that I would rather have a real Mormon than a fake Christian. To my credit I said the jury was still out on Thompson. Now the jury is basically in and he doesn’t want it bad enough. I figure my career as a political blabber mouth is still secure considering O’Reilly got it wrong too.

Now much to my surprise and delight, we have the slim hope of asking which would we rather have a real Mormon, a fake Christian… (queue drum roll) or a real Christian? At least on the front cover, Mike Huckabee seems to be the real thing. Yes the rest of the world will laugh at us for electing a red neck cowboy whose name has something to do with foliage but wait they do that anyway.

The truth is he really only has one shot and that is to win New Hampshire. It would be like hitting a hole in one twice in one day. With only 5 days left and a completely different base (NH lacks the strong evangelical presence that Iowa has) it will be an uphill battle and a long shot with veritable giants to beat. Perhaps it’s even a fools bet. I wonder if anyone bet on Daniel vs. Goliath.

So if you have any interest at all in who becomes our next president (or perhaps VP) may I please ask you to check out Huckabee’s website? I donated a little money to the chap. I know he’ll need it if he’s gonna have a shot in NH in 5 days. Though he didn’t need it in Iowa.

-John

“Outspent 15 to 1 voters prove they cannot be bought.” www.mikehuckaabee.com

The Critical Flaw in the Constitution


I am taking aim at the forfathers here. To most the constitution is second only to the Bible in it's perfection. To say there is anything wrong with the constitution is an American herisy. But here it is. The constitution is broke. How you say? It has to do with the freedom of religion clause. In actuallity it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Start with the premis that morality is defined by religion. You get the inseprability of morality from religion. Thus any imposition of morality is an imposition on religion. Furthermore relazation in morality is completely acceptable because one cannot impose morality because it is an imposition or establishment (preferential treatment of one religion over another is establishment) of a religion.

Looking at the earliest laws and on through the ages one can clearly see law is an attempt to codify morality. Since morality is the output of a religious system, morality is a by product of a religious code either implicit or explicit. Therefore it is impossible to make any law that doesn't violate the first amendment. That is given the premise.

Here's the thing. In the American mind, religion and morality are the same thing. We don't like to admit that. Especially the far left doesn't like to admit it openly. But they have a religion too. It's called secular humanism. And they are trying to force their religious freedoms on the rest of us. Those religious freedoms include abortion, Gay marriage, legalized pot, etc. Basically the rule of thumb of secular humanism is if it feels good do it so long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else. For example, one should be allowed to have a Gay marriage because it's nobody else's business. In fact marriage is an inherently religious act. So to prohibit the free exercise thereof is to violate the constitution. One could litterally apply this same argument to ANYTHING. And they are. They haven't come out and said that it's there right because of their religion for a number of reasons. (But that's another blog.)

Peace,

-John

Why Christians Should Vote for a Mormon

So here's the deal. Would you rather a real Mormon or a fake Christian in office protecting our religious freedoms? We understand we don't really choose who takes office. People other than us setup a few people for us to choose from. And very early on there is usually a front runner, a few close behind that have a chance to contend for the nomination. Then there are the issue candidates. These are the guys (ladies) that have an issue they want to get out so they run for president. They have no real hope of winning but perhaps they can get their issue some attention. There are also the few that are really running for Vice President or running for president in the next election (think Regan before he won the nomination.)

So the reality your only choice is the front runner or one of the potential upset candidates. You could vote for one of the issue candidates or the VP hopefuls but that will mean someone other than you will choose the presidential nominee. This is cool if you just don't care who get's it. If you do care you have to choose from basically the top 3. In this election cycle it's Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. There is still a wild card in Thompson. He may replace McCain shortly. Time will tell.

There is still time to get behind Thompson if he's your man. But I want to talk about the top 3 for now. Let's just face it. McCain is simply not electable. His problem is more of presentation then content. Think JFK for the opposite. McCain comes across angry. He doesn't come across as fatherly (Regan) or jovial (Clinton, Mr.) America simply doesn't want an angry man with his finger on the button. (Ya know the flashing red one that says wipe Iran off the map with one missile button...) It's difficult to trust an angry man. If it wasn't for his electability in the general election, I would get behind him. His service in Vietnam makes just about all the other candidates look like pansies in comparison. He is a man's man. But 50% of the voters out there aren't men. And given the likely hood of the republican nominee will face Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't want to alienate 50% of the votes and encourage them to run to the first woman who actually has a shot at becoming president.

So that leaves Giuliani and Romney. Giuliani is a professing Christian. Romney is not. Does anyone believe that Giuliani’s religion is anything more than politically expedient? It's certainly not the type of Christianity we saw in "I an alcoholic but Jesus saved me" G.W. Bush.

Romney on the hand, his religion is a negative when it comes to his political career. Every election he's ever run in he's had to answer the same questions. Is being a Mormon going to overrule his judgment as Governor, president, etc? Being a Mormon is a detractor because real Christians believe that Mormons are in a cult and basically going to hell. There are individual exceptions. The whole populating planets and special underwear thing is kind of creepy. Compare him on this issue to say Obama who was raised Muslim! Obviously being a Muslim candidate for anything in this country is a non starter. So voila! I'm not Muslim anymore and I can run for office. Romney didn't do that even though it might have been politically expedient for him to do so.

So there you have it. You and I as Christians get to choose from a luke warm Christian, Giuliani or a real Mormon, Romney. Which one is more likely to embrace family values at the presidential level? If it's expedient to do so, I would imagine Giuliani to be the kind of guy to trade morality for something else that he finds more important at the time. Romney on the other hand I could see losing a reelection bid because the political establishment wanted him to do something that was contrary to his religion. Take for example the slide the party has taken towards pro choice. Who do you think is a better candidate to protect the life of an unborn baby?

Mormonism like is typically very strong in the family values area. Yes they have the creepy polygamy thing. But that's not Mitt's type of Mormonism any way. The brand of wishy washy religion that Giuliani displays seems like it would mutate and change to get whatever he really wanted. And God only knows that that is.

That is why I think a Christian should vote for a Mormon.

Peace.