Thursday, June 12, 2008

Obama's Experience

McCain Not Natural Born Citizen?

Several months ago, when Huckabee was still running, someone pointed out to me that McCain is not elligible to be President because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. At the time, I let it pass so as not to look like a rabid Huckabee supporter. But today I stumbled upon a blog that laid all of the information out in a way that didn't seem rabid at all. The blog is Muddy Thoughts. The entire post seems well researched and logical to me. Here is the conclusion.

All of that leads back to the Constitutional requirements. The citizenship definitions of both Article II and Amendment 14 apply in terms of McCain running for President.

So, to tie it all together:

1. The 14th Amendment and matching policy limit citizenship to either natural born or naturalized, but not both.

2. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.

3. 8 USC 1403(a) declares naturalized citizenship in 1952 on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.

4. Therefore, 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain at age 16.

5. Therefore, John McCain is a naturalized citizen.

6. By treaty, the Canal Zone was not part of the United States.

7. Therefore, John McCain was not born in the United States.

8. Therefore, John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States.

9. Therefore, John McCain is not a natural born citizen.

10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen.

11. THEREFORE, John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution; he should be decertified and removed from all present and future Presidential ballots; and his past results should be disallowed, including unbinding all of his committed delegates.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Oil Prices Expected to Drop

Oil prices expected to drop to $50/barrel by July 4th. For more information, click here.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Huckabee Heimlich

According to MSNBC, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee put the squeeze on a politician at the North Carolina Republican Party convention, but in a good way.
The former Arkansas governor performed the Heimlich maneuver on Robert Pittenger, Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, at a lunch Saturday.

Just thought I would share.

And With Obama as President, It Could Happen Here

I found this article on Here are some quotes from it.

On Friday, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum. He was also commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal's November decision to side with complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund. The tribunal has also called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper.

Most disturbingly, says Boissoin, is that the ruling calls for him to "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals." Boissoin wondered to what extent the right to freedom of expression in Canada will be deteriorated, stating, "I am not allowed to hold on to my views."

He concluded by commenting on the Remedy order and the entire ordeal, which over the last six years has consumed tremendous time, energy and money - both from the pockets of taxpayers and Boissoin.

"Absurd - beyond absurd. I will never make a public apology; I stand by what I said. My context has never been taken into consideration. Lund's context has always been taken into consideration."

This will not be the last edition to the Boissoin story as he admitted to that he "will be appealing to an actual court of law."

If you would like to show support for Mr. Boissoin, here is the information for the proper Canadian official.

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach:
Office of the Premier
Room 307, Legislature Building
10800 - 97th Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 2B6
Phone: (780) 427 2251
Fax: (780) 427 1349

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Christians Taken Captive

I was zooming around the Internet today when I came upon this article. It was discussing the Truth Project. As mentioned in this post, I had been told at the Truth Project that the Barna Group had discovered that only 9 in 100 "born again" Christian's held a biblical worldview. Well this article lists the questions asked by Barna.

Would you call yourself a Christian?
Have you made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?
Do you believe that you will go to heaven when you die because you have confessed your sins and accepted Jesus Christ as your savior?
Do you believe that you have a personal responsibility to share your religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians?
Do you believe that Satan exists?
Do you believe that eternal salvation is possible through grace, not works?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on Earth?
Do you believe that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches?
Do you believe that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity?
Do you believe that God created the universe and still rules it today?

The first three questions were used to determine if someone was "born again".

The article talks a bit about Focus on the Family's response to this information. Then the author makes this statement. The question they faced: How do you convince ninety-one percent of born-again Christians that showing up at church, voting Republican, and putting a Jesus fish on the SUV isn’t enough?

I think that Christians are certainly called to do things: fight spiritual battles, help the needy, tell the lost the Good News, etc. But I don't think that this question really summarizes what the Truth Project is really about. I would have said this, "The question they faced: How do you free the ninety-one percent of the born-again Christians from the deceptive philosophies that have taken them captive?" Because when you believe that the real truth is really real you will be compelled to act on it.

SBC and California Schools

A new resolution was submitted for the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention. Read an article about it here. It urges California parents to withdraw their children from California public schools at least until Senate Bill 777 and all other legislation mandating that schoolchildren be indoctrinated to accept various forms of sexual deviancy as normal or acceptable are completely repealed. It also urges churches to foster homeschooling and organize more Christian schools. While I find these things interesting and applaud them, there was a more interesting quote from the Christian Newswire story.

Dr. Baucham believes it is urgent that Christian parents become better informed: "I am convinced that if government schools had to recruit students by sending out brochures outlining the academic, moral, and spiritual aspects of their curriculum, most Baptists would throw it in the trash without a second thought.

I think it would be a very different world if parents didn't assume that government schools were the default. What if government schools had to actually convince people that they were the best option based on academic and moral superiority? What if parents actually compared all of the pros and cons of all of their options? Why do so many people parent by default on the issue of education?

And What Might Constant Cellphone Use Be Doing to Our Brains?

This video shows some French men popping popcorn with their cellphones. This makes me wonder, "What might constant cellphone use be doing to our brains?" Just something to keep in mind. (No pun intended.)