Wednesday, October 3, 2012

MEDIA Gloating over Obama's Eligibility Defeat Stranger than SCOTUS Anti- Natural Born Citizen?



FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:

MEDIA Gloating over Obama's Eligibility Defeat Stranger than SCOTUS Anti- Natural Born Citizen?
Update:
Inteview tonight - Wensday 8pm MST I'm being interviewed for about an hour on this show tonight by Mr. Donald Rutledge
www.truthfindersnetwork.com


Amidst the hoop-la and media frenzy surrounding the debates is the 'stone-cold-silence' that something really horrific has just happened in the United States Supreme Court. You don't have to be a Birther, only a part of the silent majority to understand this.

The media has covered very well over the last four years the reasons that the eligibility challenge to Obama's qualifications has failed, and the biggest reason if you were paying any attention at all, was that 'standing' had not been fulfilled. There was not a presidential candidate in the race, in the same party, suffering a loss because Obama was running under a different set of rules and in such was cheating in the race within his own party, and in such depriving eligible qualified candidates of everything he was siphoning off, including campaign contributions, free media spot-lights, and a framed window to the general electorate that was skewed in fraud and forgery.

All the cases that were trumpeted with horns and fanfare by the Media were dismissed over something even Birthers came to grasp as understandable with the three legs of standing once again if you missed they are:
Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

'Staying in the race and competitively making commercials, having everything necessary to compete as a campaign for President isn't cheap", says Cody Robert Judy, "We all recall John Huntsman getting out at 12 million dollars in the middle of January, Rick Santorum in April after 23 million, so we understand fundraising cost money, commercials cost money, staff, web sites, travel, the list goes on and on and on. So I hope people understand the level of commitment it has taken to stay in and here it is October, with our last 3 commercials being made just a couple of weeks ago. As a Campaign we had to be able to present ourselves ready and able to step in and be competitive with Mitt Romney at any time a Court made a decision."

The campaign was actually forced to go on because of the case in the United States Supreme Court Judy v. Obama 12-5276 appealed all the way through the Supreme Courts of New Hampshire and Georgia early in the presidential contest. Every Court we legitimately gave the benefit of the doubt to even if it was simply that through the State Supreme Courts the hand off might be made to the United States Supreme Court to ultimately decide a federal election question for all 50 states.

When Cody was asked if he thought the Monday decision to deny his Petition for Certiorari was made with an informed Court rather then glossed over or thrown in the same category of "no standing", Cody re-iterated, " I actually have no official way to calculate that. I know Analyst are in charge of breaking cases down for the Justices and there are so many cases in conference on those days my guess is they are more or less debating the ones that are fed to them, and I actually could clearly understand how for instance my case and Weldon v. Obama's case could be thrown into the same pot of 'no standing', but that case and mine are so far apart in the calculations and losses that our standing is clearly not even in the same category or realm as far as losses due to Obama's eligibility. WELDON was not running a presidential campaign, how could they be even close to the same financial scale or loss and injury?"

"If that's what happened, I can understand it, and I could understand how that could happen, but it clearly doesn't represent justice, or, the standing argument put to rest and Obama's eligibility considered with the evidence we had supporting fraud and forgery, which ultimately means a fraud committed with every single vote placed for him,or campaign dollar contributed."

"I actually think the media would be writing BIG STORIES and celebrating the fact that Obama has won the eligibility question without hiding behind the 'standing' argument. That in itself has been shouted upon the housetops of the anti-birther blogs as a calculation that in fact the United States Constitution has been changed without the legislative branch having to vote on the approval by 2/3rds majority."

" This is big news, the "natural born citizen" qualification clause of the United States Constitution has been really officially changed by this precedent with no standing dismissal coming in between the argument and the decision."

Anti-Birthers have blasted such things as " You see it takes more than 'standing!'", so they have celebrated this big time. The Main Stream Media I would think would grab a hold of this and tell it to every house-hold in America.

To fully appreciate the magnitude of the decision, and the equivalent of the loss, one must quantify the mentality to hide or keep secret the decision of the United States Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court in denying my Petition for Certiorari. This is really an embarrassment to the anti-Birthers celebration, and that's why if one suspects its legitimate and the Justices were informed of the differences of our cases, a full and intelligent decision has been made and basically ceded the qualification of president understood in the Constitution which has not happened in legislative history!

Does anyone understand here that the Constitution has been re-written by the Justices with this decision? That's the magnitude of this decision. Now I didn't think the Constitution could be re-written by the United States Supreme Court under the laws prohibiting construction, but that has obviously happened also. There is no reason any foreign ruler cannot come over to America and one day be President with this ruling.

Now what is not to report to every house-hold in America? The Conservative leg of SCOTUS are not NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

Cody continued, " Now what is not to report to every house-hold in America, unless, there is a little different thing going on? I suggest, if a decision has been made re-writing the Constitution, and that is not being celebrated by the Media, more then likely, ,my case was not represented to the Justices by the case analyst as very different in standing and circumstances then Weldon v. Obama."

"I really think this shows all of us, they through all of the Georgia cases in the same pot, which would be about as educated decision as throwing everyone in prison for a death sentence. It doesn't even make sense."

"In fact the following comment I received on my blog makes much more sense if indeed my case was not thrown in the same pot, and under these circumstances, the conservative branch of the whole United States Supreme Court really has grounds for being removed from the bench, and a Congressional Hearing and investigation needs to be undertaken immediately."

Anonymous Comment made:

[ It wasn't so much the clerks laughing but justices Scalia, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.

All three of them have one or more foreign parents, and all three naturally tend to believe that their allegiance to the USA is not affected by whether the parents were naturalized before or after the justices were born. They are likely to have had friends who had foreign-born parents who were naturalized after their children were born---and they did not notice any difference in the behavior of these friends from people whose parents were naturalized before the children were born.

The laugh is that Judy was asking Scalia, Alito and the chief justice to vote that they believed the writers of the US Constitution may have believed that the US-born children of foreigners (who the justices ARE) are not as good as the US-born children of US citizens. Well, they do not believe it, and the certainly would not vote that the writers of the US Constitution believed it unless there were actual evidence that they did---and there isn't any.
That's quite a laugh. ]


Cody Robert Judy's Response:
[That is a good laugh for them I suppose.., and a good reason they should lose their nice cushy jobs because they failed the Constitution. There's a legislative mandate that says so, as we all know how many times the 'attempt' was made to change it in the Legislative Branch and the attempts failed. Its NOT their job to re-write it, and the construction prohibitions of the Constitutions say so. I do think your comment was very insightful, and I appreciate it.]

The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign - Cody Robert Judy - www.codyjudy.us - www.codyjudy.blogspot.com - YouTube: CODE4PRES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cCOHC2hW5A



8 comments:

  1. OSCAR Y. HARWARD
    3314 WATSON CHURCH ROAD
    MONROE, NC 28110
    TEL: 704.288.3515
    TEL: 704.989.0044
    E-mail: oharward@carolina.rr.com

    October 1, 2012

    Spineless Court Of The United States (SCOTUS)

    By Oscar Y. Harward

    Our Constitution was originated by our Founding Fathers with three equal Branch components; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary.

    Each of these components have its own checks and balances; specifically, with “responsibilities” in confirming or countering the others.

    Traditionalists have seen GW Bush’s appointment, John Roberts to SCOTUS, to contain a lack of Conservatism “judgment” since reviewing Roberts’ decisions.

    There seems to be “adequate to overwhelming” evidence that President Obama may not be a “natural born citizen” and whereas, is not qualified to serve as President as defined by SCOTUS in MINOR v. HAPPERSETT.

    Over the recent years, “legal professionals and scholars” have prepared cases to bring reasonable and justifiable cases before the Supreme Court seeking a hearing in proving that President Obama may not be qualified to serve as President. All cases have been “rejected” from presentations without comments before Chief Justice John Robert’s Court. Why? Isn’t the responsibility for SCOTUS to monitor the two other Branches of government and apply the law as empowered under our Constitution? I say “yes” and our SCOTUS is “failing in its Constitutional responsibilities”.

    American History may discover that John Roberts, appointed by President GW Bush, and sworn in as Chief Justice on October 3, 2005, is not a “true” Conservative as advertised earlier.

    John Roberts’ Court may end up serving as the Chief Justice’s most Spineless Court Of The United States (SCOTUS). Americans are seeking Constitutional protections from without and within.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You lose. We the people just aren't that into you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting perspective you have in reference to "We The People", which there is none of without upholding the Constitution. You can kiss your individual rights good bye.

    I have a news flash for you. I will never lose the war and here's another one for you. WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    ;) I'm happy you included yourself, but you need to think about this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

    And yet you seem to believe that Scalia and Alito and Roberts and Obama and Jindal and Rubio were all not created equal to US citizens whose parents were US citizens. Millions upon millions of Americans who either had parents who were not US citizens at one time or grandparents who were not US citizens at one time, and they were perfectly loyal and fought in two World Wars.

    If you think that Scalia and Alito and Roberts are disloyal, and that those millions of Americans are disloyal--well, it says something about you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you don't think "discrimination" is good, why not let all the Dictators in the world, have children with American women, and finance their way to the Presidency as an off-shoot of tyranny?

    What I don't think you understand was that the 'grace' of the Constitution allowed the example I just gave to actually do that the very next generation.

    The consideration was only for the Pres and VP, that much we agree. Hey, Congress was a pretty big olive branch and Sen. Rubio has done great and is an honor to his country. His children could be President if they're born in the U.S.

    We both know "Citizens" before the Constitution was adopted was the grandfather clause of not being a'natural born citizen', so why has it failed to change through over 200 years of attempts through the Legislature? That's were it should be changed, not through the Judicial Branch.

    If you had read the transcripts to hearings held in Committee's of Congress assigned to this matter, you would see and read that two generations in America brings something more to the character and loyalty of a family, and rushing it to include only 1 generation as you advocate leaves an open door for an anchor baby to be born, and taken to another country and raised, and implanted/financed into the Presidency, just as Barack Obama was.

    The question is does a tradition of 2 generations make a difference?

    It places distance of a whole generation of leaders, not just our leaders, beyond the reach of influencing, controlling,or manipulating the Presidency.

    All the leaders would have died by the time the 2nd generation natural born citizen comes along and "nature" as well as "nurture" has done its best.

    Obama bowed to the Saudi Prince very low. Obama used America's military to place into power the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law.

    The evidence you suggest is needed will without a doubt dawn upon you way to late, and with no available recourse, because the office of the Presidency is a commander-in-chief.

    There is already little doubt thousands would still be alive in Egypt and Libya if our Military sequestered by Obama without Congressional approval had not been used at all.

    Instead our military was used to implant a theocracy. Such a move would have never been undertaken by a natural born citizen.

    What 'vital' U.S. interest was in Libya and Egypt? No, Obama has proven himself not a natural born citizen defending, preserving, and protecting, the U.S. Constitution not only with his identity but with his actions.

    And we wait for further proof. Well perhaps his words caught unawares with Putin would be a matter for you to research, something along the lines of, " I will have more latitude to implement after my second term"

    Obama himself acknowledges he's only got one more election and in his mind leveling the playing field is a truth he holds self evident that all men are created equal, and so we should level the playing field with every enemy of the the United States. That is a recipe for much more blood shed.

    And to think just adhering to our Constitution might have saved so many lives? Indeed, it was wise and sound wisdom that a check be given to the office of President and Vice President, which created the necessity for the grandfather clause for our Founders that expired long before Obama was born.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Re: "If you don't think "discrimination" is good, why not let all the Dictators in the world, have children with American women, and finance their way to the Presidency as an off-shoot of tyranny?"

    So long as the child is born in the USA, she or he would be eligible. What that means is simply: (1) American citizens have the RIGHT to vote for the US-born child of a dictator, just as they have a right to vote for every US-born citizen. That right has not been taken away. (2) It is the RESPONSIBILITY, of the US voter to vote against that child of a dictator if the voter feels that the child of that dictator will be like the dictator (or, if not, then to vote the other way). NO court has taken away that RESPONSIBILITY, and having responsibilities is a good thing. People who desire to take away the responsibilities of Americans want to treat them like children. That is what conservatives say that liberals want to do, but in this case the conservatives are acting like liberals, desiring to take away a right and a responsibility.

    It is also common sense to recall that the children of dictators are sometimes not like their parents, just as the children of ministers are sometimes not like their parents at all. Svetlana Stalin, who became a naturalized US citizen, was certainly not like her father at all.

    So who would and should have the right and RESPONSIBILITY to decide whether a child of a dictator is like the dictator or like a good American citizen? The Constitution says that it is the voters. That principle holds under both libertarian and civil rights principles as well, and so why should Alito, Scalia, Roberts---or any other member of the court---vote against it?

    Re "saving lives"----I do not know what you are getting at. Americans still have the right and responsibility to vote against Obama if they feel that his election will cost lives. I would fight to the death for your right to do that. But recognized that there are a lot of people, who think that there are more benefits for voting for Obama than for voting for Romney (and vice versa, of course).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, there is a "Responsibility" to be a defensive driver, but not a "right" for a 13 year old to drive or run for President.
    If you have a choice of dual citizenship at birth, you don't have a 'right' to run for President.
    The Constitution contains the term "natural born" for a US president. This term was used to prevent anyone with the possibility of having a foreign allegiance from becoming commander-in-chief of US forces, for obvious reasons (super fifth column, anyone?) A person with dual citizenship owes allegiance to both the US and the foreign government. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, which of course for a sitting US President would be disastrous to the US nation.

    The term "natural born" is used to mean a singular allegiance to one and only one nation. Dual citizenship contradicts this.

    (Note that it is unique that the US president is also the commander-in-chief, which entrusts the office of president with great power, so a concern of allegiance was on the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Senators and Representatives can be naturalized; the President cannot, because of the Commander-In-Chief power.)

    All NATURALIZED citizens have to take an oath of ALLEGIANCE, to confirm they only have allegiance to the US and no other country. But this is not enough to fully repudiate possible allegiances to other countries.

    So "allegiance" is the key here -- at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, "natural born" was a term carefully chosen to define that allegiance - it means having a singular allegiance that derives from one's having been born of the soil of the nation - in this case, the US nation. This results in a kind of "super-allegiance".
    That is what the framers meant, and Constitutional lawyers have always recognized this to be the meaning.

    So according to the Constitution, which explicitly and unambiguously uses with the term "natural born" when referring to qualifications for someone to be the US president, no, a US president cannot have dual citizenship. They must have that singular allegiance that can only be derived from having been born of US soil - "born here" to Citizen parents, simply because one can take the foreign parents citizenship at birth, that right always exist.

    Loyalty to first generations citizens does not abdicate the "responsibility" to follow the Constitution, as we are a Nation of laws.

    Again the Article II,Sect I, Clause 5 itself is the law and abrogates a "Citizen" can run if they were such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, thus the "natural born citizenship" was given an exemption.

    "Citizens" of the 14th Amendment source, dual citizens, and or 'native' citizens - anchor babies were not given that exemption.

    This is the Supreme Law of the Land, and there is a method of changing it, but it doesn't exist through the Judicial Branch. It remains in the Legislative Branch.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_president_have_dual_citizenship#ixzz28TQ31D3m

    ReplyDelete