Election 2012 - What Went Wrong? Reasons Republicans are reeling to Socialist

Election 2012 - What Went Wrong?

Reasons Republicans are reeling to Socialist

Ann Coulter today on Glenn Beck stated that she thought Republicans had run the best candidate they have had since Ronald Reagan. She said Romney was far better than John McCain and that the incumbency factor was a bigger factor than she had thought it would be.

Now, I like Ann, and have written about her beautiful hair before, and she is a crack-’n-whip that is faster than a bug zapper in a mosquito infested swamp with her tongue when she has to make a point fast, but occasionally she says something that is really dumb-founding that makes her sound like a socialist loving creature, and that brings me up to my topic today.

Coulter said something today that also was reiterated to me on Facebook yesterday by a dis-enchanted and bitter Republican. So I thought I’d shine a little light on it to focus a little attention on the issue Republicans are having with the Constitution, which ultimately was their Achilles heel in the election as I’ll explain.

You may have heard yesterday that with the votes Gary Johnson and a few other independent candidates for president got that Mitt Romney would have won the election and been pushed over the 270 electoral votes needed to win the electoral college vote. That theory has been circulated. It was in this context that Ann said she thought that unless you were a Governor or a member of Congress that you shouldn't run for President.

Is that a qualification Ann in the Constitution?

The facebook acquaintance I had a brief exchange with said that people like me and Gary Johnson made him want to puke and added heap upon his vocabulary onslaught by calling those “Independent Candidates” Egomaniacs that were insane for running in a race we could never win. He also mentioned that he thought I had about as much chance of winning President as a snow ball in hell.

I responded, “Well, .. you never know, Hell might be just around the corner.”, considering Obama’s second term.

What Ann Coulter said, ( I really feel like coming up with a nick name for her, maybe the Republican Rapunzel? That might work) ,was poignant to the elitism infesting both major parties but really was a crippling blow to Mitt Romney that Obama sold effectively. Nowhere in our Constitution has a pre-requisite of being a Major, Governor, Representative, or Senator in order to be President or run for President ever been instituted and there are good reasons for it, Ann never took the time to mention, but they certainly contributed more to a Republican loss.

Romney’s not “going to apologize for being successful”. How many times did Romney say that? A lot, but maybe that wasn't so much the issue as the elitism mentality that was exposed. What if Romney would have said to that kind of barb,“you know I respect that anyone who is 35 years old and is a natural born citizen can run for President.”?

Wow! That’s powerful! It recognizes the power of all Citizens and their rights in the context of the Constitution instead of zeroing the focus on his success as a businessmen compared to everyone else who hasn't been as successful.

What is absolutely hysterically about that is the Ruling Class of Republicans can’t even get the current demands of the Constitution for the Office of the President right. How does Ann expect them to adhere to even more qualifications, than being over 35 years of age and a natural born citizen?

Republicans ran John McCain, a foreign born naturalized citizen as their nominee in 2008 which is why they are winking and smiling out of the back of their mouths about Obama, and he received more votes than Mitt Romney. What does that tell us?

See Additional Info at bottom of this page.

Well I hate to tell Republicans, but there are Americans that actually agree with the Constitution and for those who don’t there is an agreement on how to change that, but rather than spot light all the legislative acts to change that which have failed, they are winking and smiling why they ultimately break the law and then many of the “Party faithful” call their representatives “good guys” rather than acknowledging the Constitutional cheats and liars that are making a mockery of our The Supreme Law of the Land.

That is stunning! You want to talk about the ultimate lessons in hypocrisy in Republican form?

The Natural Born Citizen clause is so fundamentally understood to mean, “Born in the United States to Citizen Parents” that it represents a Yes or No answer. Any type of citizenship that is questionable to the contrary, warrants a “No”, and that to error on the side of safety. This is a National Security major fundamental error on the Republicans part that has dis-enchanted those who have seen Republicans as strong on defense.

Now do you hear Republican talk-show host talking about their failure in this? No you don’t. You hear them talking about appeasement and yelling about how minority friendly they are with Sen. Marco Rubio ,Allen West, and Rick Santorum, and wondering if they ran the wrong Vice Presidential Candidate who couldn't even help them carry Wisconsin.

I’m telling you Republicans started this dirty little “Birther” game with McCain, and it’s come back to bite them in the behind, and it’s looking like with Rubio and Santorum they just might be on the path to McCain again , which is why I have thought and continue to think that there just isn't a Presidential game in town the Republicans are ever going to win again.

Ann said it, they ran their best and it just wasn't good enough to win. Mitt Romney considered by many to be squeaky clean on family, a detailed businessman, and experienced as a Governor who worked with Democrats. What’s missing for Republicans? Mitt Romney even had more hair than Obama.

How in the world do you come to terms with running your best and failing? Well, you never come to terms with it unless you have the ability to step back and look at a bigger picture.

Now one thing I do believe many Republicans have, and that’s the ability to do and to grasp the concepts of Jesus without being offended. The concept of loving chastisement has given way to “think tank” in the Republican Party in many respects I’m afraid, which has led to the huge factor of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy was the biggest turn off to Jesus, and continues to be to the American public. It was the one thing over adultery and what seemed like every other sin , he’d really lose his cool over. The merchants in the temple selling merchandise might seem like good capitalistic idea with Republicans but Jesus wasn't going for it.
You know I love Jesus and that is one of the reasons I do. He is strong on forgiveness to those who are penitent, and very strict on the concepts of hypocrisy.
Sweeping dirt under the carpet as the Republicans have been responsible for with Obama’s identity is a complete and utter hypocrisy to our Constitution and then to hear Republicans say they are the champion party of the Constitution is about as big of a joke as you could come up with.

Republicans can hardly exact the price for the truth from Obama in Benghazi or Mexico’s Fast & Furious because of the hypocrisy of the ineligibility represented by their own cover-up of Obama.

There is no way the Republicans are ever going to win the Presidency again. I think it’s over for them. They are unwilling to make a reckoning and want to pick and choose the lies they get Obama on, in the order of covering their own asses. It seems tentatively, that they are completely unwilling to repent of this error either.

Until they are willing to consider their hypocrisy on our national security and economy, they, Republicans represent, with the very big issue of the qualifications of the President, it is very unlikely that they will ever regain the trust of Americans again.

I believe whole heartedly that if they had taken a stand for the Constitution on the demands of the Constitution in the eligibility department of Barack Obama, and fully investigated it with hearings in Congress or the Judicial Committee of the House in 2010, that ultimately they would have represented much more of a trust with the Constitution to the American People and that might have translated into votes in the Independent Parties, Tea Parties, and Libertarians who are all very Constitutionally oriented citizens of America winning the White House.

The Republican repeatedly have ransomed the Constitution wondering in astonishment why the Democrats who have the walking talking violation of the Constitution in the White House have been allowed by God to get away with it.
The answer is reflected for Republicans looking in the mirror. They have no one else to blame but themselves.

One very interesting thought is that Democrats have always gotten Republicans to play their game. That game consisted of Republicans playing the game with one arm tied behind their back. That arm is the principles of the Constitution. As long as Republicans continue to play the game with one arm tied behind their back, does anyone beside me think it’s hilarious that they expect to win?

You know if I was so anti-Republican would I even bother wasting my time? You know for me I think there are principles that Republicans represent that are very good and there are some principles that the Democrats represent that are very good but our Constitutional principles are those we can come together on.

I believe that as Americans we have the ability to decipher a good combination of these and ultimately we don’t have to choose the lesser of two evils. WE can form a more perfect Union together.

Cody Robert Judy
www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
YouTube: CODY JUDY CODE4PRES

I AM AMERICAN - FIRST 2016 COMMERCIAL




http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621
Abstract:
Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the United States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born Citizen" and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the Constitution.

Additional Info:
Here's John Birth Cert: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36320205/Republican-John-McCain-Birth-Certificate-from-The-Panama-Canal-In-1936

Here's the Law suite Judy v. McCain - http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_028.htm

U.S. Supreme Court Case Minor v. Happersett Judy v. Obama 12-5276 - Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
Two prongs..1 prong) born in the U.S. McCain was not 2 prong)To Citizen parents

2008 Judy v. Obama with much information on McCain


2012 Judy v. Obama 12-5276 SCOTUS

In 1936, the Canal Zone fell into a gap in the law, covered neither by the citizenship clause nor Revised Statutes section 1993 (passed as the Act of May 24, 1934), the only statute applicable to births to U.S. citizens outside the United States. As then-Representative John Sparkman explained in 1937: "the Canal Zone is not such foreign territory as to come under the law of 1855 [Revised Statutes section 1993] and, on the other hand, it is not part of the United States which would bring it within the fourteenth amendment." The problem was well known; Richard W. Flournoy's 1934 American Bar Association Journal article, Proposed Codification of Our Chaotic Nationality Laws, explained "we have no statutory provisions defining the nationality status of persons born in the Canal Zone . . . ."

Because the Canal Zone was a "no man's land," in the words of Representative Sparkman, in 1937 Congress passed a statute, the Act of Aug. 4, 1937 (now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a)) granting citizenship to "[a]ny person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904" who had at least one U.S. citizen parent. This Act made Senator McCain a U.S. citizen before his first birthday. But again, to be a natural born citizen, one must be a citizen at the moment of birth. Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President."