Friday, September 21, 2012

Romney's Mormonism v. Obama's Muslim-ism

Romney's Mormonism v. Obama's Muslim for Islam?

Protecting the Right to Offend- Mormon Rising or Double Standard?

Since the unjustified assaults on the U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Libya, and over 23 countries Glenn Beck linked the Libya Cover Up and attack to an assault on free speech basically asking the question "Is Obama a Crook?".

I think just like Fast and Furious was the brain-child as a blow to our 2nd Amendment until its cover was blown, that Libya's Cover-up is indeed an aggravated assault on our 1st Amend as a 'video' up for months with only 40,000 hits prior to our U.S. Ambassador Chris Steven's last breath,finds it way into being the cause of an uproar that spans 23 countries.

That kind of reminds me of a video of Romney's "47% remark" going global after sitting for 4 months undiscovered. How convenient for Obama's campaign to have the 47% working everywhere. America might just find that her leaders are in fact unable to travel abroad because of the U.N's desire to abrogate America's will. Indeed the U.N. might find out the meaning of spiting your own nose off to spite your face. Its a lose lose proposition.

Obama himself is laid open to law suit by Iran's own “A complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for respect of faiths,” Javad Mohammadi, the deputy head of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR), said on Sunday.

Can Americans think of any other reason to celebrate the passage of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty yesterday which the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton passed off on, other than to get Obama locked up by the U.N. for Fast and Furious citing the purpose of the small arms treaty as "highlighting the international community’s renewed commitment to preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade."

So, 6 years to disarm us, at two year intervals. Can we expect legislation, more false flag operations and the continued dumbing down of America’s youth, to accept the yoke of a particular religion? Will it be Romney's Mormonism or Obama's Islam?

It sure fits the same pattern/assault on our United States Constitution Obama and his Administration has been consistent on, but you can see it took an assault on the qualifications of the Office of the President to orchestrate 'Fast & Furious' as well as 'Libya's Cover-Gate' both involving weapons going to the wrong side in the order of that agenda through the office of the President.

People wonder why the demanding qualifications of a 'natural born citizen' was instituted in our Constitution in the first place. It wisely places a two-generation gap between foreign leaders ambitions and the Office that has the power to orchestrate such things.

Now let's examine a few other things along the same line of Beck's logic:

If Glenn Beck believes in his own report, you might think it would be an easy conversion for him to be a Birther, but he remains distant from The Birther Movement, calling all the work and investigation by Sheriff Joe a 'distraction' and somehow honoring Sen.Hillary Clinton's investigation that put to rest her ambition for President. See Becks' rant here against the Birther Movement where he notes the qualification demands for President in Obama's case 'kept him up for wait half a minute.'

Now consider Utah's U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch's push to eliminate the security clause of the Constitution on the office of the President made public for Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, here,
Senator Hatch concluded: "The restriction on the foreign-born "has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American,"

Wow! Republicans' have to be so proud of that one.

2004 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a Judiciary committee member, sees merit in the restriction. "I don't think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen," she said at the hearing. "Your allegiance is driven by your birth.", but she sure as hell doesn't include Obama in that remark.

Now with the seat of the Presidency on the line Mitt Romney's line of "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that I was born and raised.", is not seen as a joke, while Mitt passed it off as one.

So which is it?

Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, and Orrin Hatch all share in common the Mormon Faith, and in 1993 I went to prison for 8 years based on an offense of words, it can't be any clearer then said exactly like that.

I made a statement to then President of the Quorum that I did not intend to hurt anyone, and claimed the "Book of Mormon" was abbreviated B.O.M., backed up with that particular evidence, in a religious meeting, where the broadest of 1st Amendment rights should be respected.

In 2002 The Daily Show even did a show about this.

Did the Mormon religion respect the 1st Amendment rights? Did Utah's Mormon leaders respect the Constitution over their faith?

The answer was clearly "no", they did not. All of them knew but none of them objected to the closure of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution for their religion.

All of them clearly understanding my case, but none of them weighing in on the side of the Constitution. Would we expect Mitt Romney to be any different than Obama?

Is it any more clear that Obama has financed the Arab Springs with American military for the Muslim Brotherhood take over instituting Islam as a religion with over a billion dollars of support and blaming it when appearing on The David Letterman Show on one 'shady character' who produced a video,then what Mitt Romney did for his religion ignoring the 1st Amendment rights of all Americans in a controversial interruption or protest in his own religion?

Is there a concerted effort to uphold or replace the Constitution by these two men?

Obama was raised Muslim and pledged peace as a Muslim following Islam. Obama as shall we say 'Christian' has been very christian to the cause and power of Islam. America has seen a spike in the upset under Obama who claims our billion dollars was not even a wrinkle in the Muslim cause in Libya and Egypt but we all know without America's fire-power the shariah law would not be instituted as it is now in those countries.
Obama in his own words:

One thing is very clear. Obama has never asked the Congress for a declaration of war in Libya, and Egypt which leads us to clearly understand that billions of dollars can cross the President's desk to any particular religion, and with the past experiences we have all suffered with Obama and Mitt Romney, they have both demonstrated the propensity to act according to their records of which I have elaborated.

There's only one problem with that. America doesn't fight religious wars because we are a Nation that respects all faiths. To ignore the principle in the office of the President is to invite disastrous consequences that the President does not need Congress's approval, and while we haven't respected the Constitution's demands for the office of the President, shall we just 'can' or 'fire' the whole Constitution and invite whatever chaos the world see's fit to bring or are we not obligated to uphold it as our Supreme Law of the Land?

We'll incarcerate anyone we want to for whatever reason we want, both Obama and Romney approve of NDAA ability to do just that and wouldn't change a thing, God forbid the wrong person actually round up Congress and incarcerate them all from the U.N. or wherever, we American's must resist the temptations of these indulgences and the immorality of our Constitution, and the world's clamor for us to join rather than lead.

Why not simply respect America's Constitution, and understand that instituting religions from the President's desk has disastrous consequences, and that defending our allies as Country's, comes when they are attacked by whoever attacks them, if they call for help and Congress approves it.

America is a Republic and that is what we pledge allegiance to. Our leaders and Representatives of Government, as well the United States Supreme Court take an oath to the Constitution, not to the President.

That is why Obama should be clearly disqualified as constitutionally eligible to serve as President or run as a candidate,by the United States Supreme Court, regardless of the power of the party. Let the party do with that ruling what they will, the Constitution is clear and so is Obama's lack of qualifications.

We'll deal with Mitt Romney after Obama is disqualified in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 set for conference Monday Sept 24th,2012 in the United States Supreme Court.

Now should a man be judged as ineligible based on his faith? Absolutely not.., but what he has done for his faith is quite another question especially when it deals with actions contrary to the morality or principles of the Constitution.

The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy for President

No comments:

Post a Comment