Wednesday, October 13, 2010
As the time for the voters to become familiar with all their choices on Nov. 2nd 2010 draws closer, I would like to extend my invitation to debate all the U.S. Senate Candidates listed on the ballot Mike Lee for Republicans, Sam Granato for Democrats, and Scott Bradley for Constitution Party.
Just a word or two about each.
1- Mr. Scott Bradley believes that non-citzen terroris should be given the same rights as an American Citizen, which I believe pollutes and dilutes the privilege of U.S. Citizenship towards global citzenery.
2- Mr. Sam Granato may be the one candidate that I am just not sure has even read read the Constitution as I have watched a few of his answers interviews. When asked about certain measures he has responded over generally rather then specifically as if 'being our brothers keeper' was his answer to most everything Constitutionally speaking. Well, that is in line with the socialist point and he loves Obama and believes it's a health care ought to be a Constitutional right.
3- Mr. Mike Lee has pretty much laid down the gauntlet on Social Security and Medicare stating "not one more dime" you can see here and for a guy who says he believes in the Constitution sure wants to change it a lot, and never mentions Barack Hussien Obama's lack of Constitutional Qualifications.:
Here is the email I tried to send to Mr.Scott Bradley personally several times with a server error coming up on his 'contact' page. I also tried to tie this to my comment on Connor Boyacks' Connors Connundrums blog, but my comments have been cut off.
So last chance I had was to publically offer this up for discussion to all who might read this. I'm available for a debate.
Dear Mr. Bradley /or/Representatives:
Thank you for running as a candidate for U.S. Senate. I would like the opportunity to debate Mr. Scott Bradley and offer myself available at his convenience as far as time and place.
Personally I believe it will foster greater education, and a debate that both Mike Lee and Sam Granato will probably refuse to attend. If this is appealing to you-
Please contact me with your answer at firstname.lastname@example.org
Cody Robert Judy
Write-in Cody Judy U.S. Senate
U.S. Senate 2010 Utah
2:10 pm I was able to extend the invitiation and link of this blog on Mike Lee's U.S. Senate page on facebook, Sam Grananot's U.S. Senate page on facebook, and also Scott Bradley's U.S. Senate page on facebook as follows.
Cody Judy challenges DEBATE in U.S. Senate Race for all of Utah
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Here are a few questions that I found Mike Lee, Sam Granato avoiding that Scott Bradley of the Constitution Party did address. I think they are good questions so I answered them myself as a WRITE-IN CANDIDATE for U.S. Senate here in Utah.
1. What should be done in regards to our current military engagements in the Middle East, and why?
After 911 we were supposed to be after bin Laden, but we went into Iraq. We have a huge investment there now as well as Afghanistan, the longest running war in our history. While many of our politicians believe whole heartedly we should be in the business of nation building and policing, it must be recognized that a common way to wage a long term war against the U.S. is by and through our economy by engaging us in these practices. By and through the demolition of our economy can our Constitution and National Sovereignty come to a precarious halt? I say oh yes it can, and oh yes it has been planned.
As a balance of power, our influence has not promulgated a single nation abroad to adopt our Constitution, nor has the population of those we have supposedly freed and liberated from tyrants acted on any debt of gratitude with repayment of our military and blood. These facts should give us a clue to the fact that we are in some regards supporting tyrants and despotism in a degree that is anti-constitution and does not serve us domestically. We then should act in Congress responsibly under our own Constitution and by that, the People.
Perhaps We The People don’t fully understand the problematic despotism that exist among greater thresholds of power, such as China or Russia, and the bases in Afghanistan and Iraq serve a purpose of balance that has served us well? Leaving that open for military advisors and until we knew and understood this exactly however it is easy providence to simply say we shouldn’t be sticking our nose in the business of nation building and policing states in a direction that we could hold as subversive to our own Constitution: and if it were an excuse not to engage in those practices, it would seem to serve and save a lot of our own money that could be better put to use in affairs domestically that are in dire straits now and that would give a better rate of return.
To sum it up simply, involvement in the degree we have invested in these wars in the Middle East has netted us, as I would imagine supporters would say an insurance policy of peace. That is to conclude that the same investment made in our people in our country would have been destroyed by those necessarily opposed to us had the foreign investment not occurred; so it was essential not to make the investment domestically.
I personally just don’t believe that. I also believe that when we start paving our streets with pure gold we could say something was happening that was right, and that attraction towards that right might be a higher influence to those foreign as they heard and saw the affects of a true liberated, free people, under a Constitution as ours. Who knows, they, under their own God given rights then might consider a closer adoption of our Constitution seriously.
2. What should be done with the Federal Reserve, and why?
Scott Bradley says the Fed should be audited and then done away with. I say why waste the money auditing them first? Congress has the right to coin money, and the Fed simply ought to be responsible to Congress if they were to exist at all. This means I believe no higher authority within the United States ought to exist then by law of our Constitution, who holds ever Congressmen to a standard of qualification, and even holds the President to a line of qualification. Need any more be said to a Federal Reserve who believes an audit or a responsibility to Congress is troublesome?
By their own standards, the Fed has failed us without ramifications to the Glass Segal Act Repeal (GSA) that placed our economy at risk to exactly what happened with the housing bubble, that by the way was created. Yes, the GSA set up a regulatory firewall between commercial and investment bank activities, both of which were curbed and controlled. The Bank Holding Company Act further separated financial activities by creating a wall between insurance and banking. Oddly enough it was in the surplus years of the Clinton Administration that the ground work was laid that would create the housing crisis.
The Federal Reserve basically came out in open rebellion of their own founder Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury secretary and the founder of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, and the lessons learned in 1933 in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash. There is more safety in the Constitutional Restraints that require a 2/3rd majority to change Amendments than a Fed who resents the implication that they must tell Congress what foreign banks received our money.
3. What is your position on the war on drugs, and the legalization of marijuana?
It’s a States Right issue, plain and simply by our Constitution. I know $55,000 to incarcerate a prisoner in an empire building system of incarceration is breaking America’s back. It would seem the Federal Statutes imposed upon States in this regard is a form of emotional blackmail forcing States to incarceration standards and the forum to fill up their Prisons. I believe the States can make more sense of this and reduce their incarceration cost and improve their rehabilitation resource centers if the Feds would get out of the way. I think California’s bankrupt state-of-economy resounds this with “see what I mean” emphasis.
4. What is the constitutional authority for our current immigration law? What reforms, if any, do you support?
I support Federal Laws living up to the duty of securing our Nation. Ronald Reagan said a Nation without borders is no Nation. How true that is, and with Congress regulating our Sovereignty the least they could do would be to enforce the parameters of our Constitution held in high regard last I checked by the United States, and not held in high regard by any other foreign nation. I do not believe any citizen of the United States wants people in here who are not here on work permits or student visa’s.
Illegal immigration is illegal, and I think our citizens have a right to the protection of the United States. When considering work permits for a specific period of time the same consideration we give foreign exchange students, I don’t think that is unfair. What I do think is unfair is a disrespect by our own Government for the laws we expect and they are duty bound to uphold in the United States especially in a time of war. It is a dereliction of sanity and domestic tranquility to engage in 2 foreign wars but refuse to maintain the perimeters of the Nation and if any domestic crisis should occur I think it’s just compensation to present indictments towards the dereliction of protection of our People, and the commitments of our Constitution, when the least of our borders, considered our front door or those at home, are forsaken or held in low esteem in contrast to the the parameters of any military unit held in a foreign war. Is it not a breach of commons sense to open the front door of your house and then to send the military out to guard the 40 across the street you don’t own? Is this not an invitation to catastrophe whilst in the midst of two foreign wars?
5. Do non-citizen terrorists have any constitutional rights?
No, to say they do is to dilute our Constitution, our Borders, and our National Sovereignty to a foreign citizenry who has not done a thing to uphold our standard of freedom and liberty but has done everything to tear it down. Non citizen terrorist are to be treated under the rules of our military courts and Geneva Convention. This affords them protection from those who have captured them to the State and assures as prisoners of war that they will be treated humanely without any adverse discrimination and that their medical needs must be met.
They have no Miranda rights as non-citizens, and those are exclusive to the umbrella of our citizens holding in higher regard the nature of man. To serve a non-citizen terrorist the same constitutional rights as our citizens is a recipe to extrapolate the U.S. Citizen into a Global Citizenry. If the world wants our U.S. Citizen rights, then by all means they can adopt them their selves for they are not foreign to them but are known and perversely dis regarded.
6. Are you for or against term limits, and if for them, in what form?
We have them, they are called elections. Term limits further deliberated outside our Constitution were known and rejected by our forefathers as not a solution to the problems that people champion them to be.
7. Is a balanced budget inherently problematic, or only because it may possible trigger a constitutional convention?
Our Constitution if it is adhered to affords and in fact champions a balanced budget. While the reasons for going in debt such as war and protection have been diluted by Congress, The People retain the rights to vote out of office those who offer such poor counsel for our Country as to consistently waste our treasury on poor investments.
8. How should tariffs be used? How do you define economic protectionism, and do you support it?
We must return to a balance of our trade with all nations squarely in order to implement domestic solvency. To discriminate with the degree of righteousness as in MFN status, has polluted our Tariff power while we have shipped off shore our jobs and independence. One could look at this as if to say this nation is better than this nation as far as human rights but no nation has adopted our Constitution so they all fall short. We are not in the business with commerce to govern nations accepting with the use of declared embargos. Embargoes can lose their leverage with a dilution of trade, so it would sure up embargo power if we would quit discriminating among nations who all fall short of our Constitution and implement our Tariff Power indiscriminately as Congress sees fit leveling the playing field.
I believe we could sure up in this way the decision of Corporations to assume the advantages in keeping factories here rather than shipping them out. By God there really ought to be some advantage to producing here in America that we can find that is sound in a fair capitalism. The unfairness has been to tie consistently one arm behind our own backs whilst slave labor in foreign countries is said to be the winner of capitalism?
The disregard of Tariffs as protections of our Nation is as delinquent a protection of our economy as mass immigration is to our citizenry in the maintenance of the United States. Will Congress abandon the notion that slavery is un-constitutional here, but adopt through the lack of Tariffs the notion that slave labor is ok? Why don’t they, GOD FORBID, be un-hypocritical about it and just repeal Amendment XIII and XIV and bring it back to our soil?
America has always been competitive. We have won the lucrative competitive race several times over which has allowed us great abilities for charity. We need to protect that, protect our American workers, protect our independence, and use our Constitution as a first line of defense. It has been through the dilution of American principle found within our Constitution that our economy has troubled.
9- The question I’ll add to this scenario is the question addressing the Constitutional Qualification of our President, held within our Constitution. The fact is neither Mike Lee, Sam Granato, or Scott Bradley address this question on which hangs most all the socialist policies that conservatives are worried about:
Is Barack Hussein Obama Constitutionally eligible through the qualifications set for in our Constitution to be President?
On this question hangs our nation slipping into a socialistic chaotic and destructive nightmare and those running for office not addressing the most basic, yet most powerful principle in our Constitution which is our President’s pen.
Obama’s pen signed Health Care Bill into law
Obama’s pen signed The Financial Reform Bill into law
Obama’s pen that refuses to sign the Bush Tax cuts into permanent law.
Arrest Obama’s pen through his own fraud and we arrest our Country back from his madness. The following link represents the work that I’ve done in the past to bring this to Justice. I believe it is without a doubt the business and the duty of the U.S. Senate.
Cody Robert Judy
U.S. Senate 2010 Utah
Write-In Cody Judy