Is the Democratic Party Worth Saving?

FEATURED EDITORIAL
The Post & Email

Is the Democratic Party Worth Saving?

Solutions to the problems the Democratic Party faces may be so far removed from the Democratic Party Establishment that they crash through left field and knock themselves out crashing through the left field boundary wall of the United States of America political ball field. Identity Politics has paralyzed them to the point where Individuals have replaced Individual Rights and the gap left between their leaders and the Country in understanding that is unrecognizable.

 What is the classic Identity Politics Playbook? I'm black so I can win! I'm brown so I can win! Wait, I'm yellow so I can win! No, I'm female so I can win!  I'm a transsexual so I can win! I'm gay so I can win!

It's the complete opposite of being a part of the United States of America and having good ideas for Justice for ALL and if you take a look around Democrats you have lost over 1,000 Races since the King of Identity Politics usurped the U.S. Presidency because he was black and could win. The long-term affect of Identity Politics is akin to a sugar high that lifts one up quick and drops you down very low just as fast. 

This is what the Democratic Party has bought in to with "The first black President who was actually half white"; The first "Don't you want a women for President?", Candidate who has lost twice now. It is just not a unlimited magic-hat trick that is going to make the Democratic Party great again and when an Individual replaces Individual Rights the emphasis is on Tyranny of ONE and not on Civil Rights that has the Power of ALL.

An interesting experiment took place that emphasis the point brillantly at New York University (NYU).   

What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?

Eileen Reynolds

What was purposed was essentially what I would call a critique on WISDOM and the fact that regardless of gender, race, color, or any thing else, wisdom is noticed no matter whose mouth it is coming out of. Of course they conducted the experiment with the emphasis on gender and what they thought would be a slam dunk for Identity Politics.

If Trump's words were replaced by Hillary's words, and if Hillary's words were replaced with Trump's words, would the verdict of the election have been the same? You could almost sense they hoped the verdict would not be the same and that if Hillary spoke Trump's words she would NOT have won proving that a women has a proverbial character flaw which makes her a victim, and thus warrants a greater tipping of the scales for justice rooted in wisdom and understanding. 

Just the opposite happened. The Trump Actress who spoke Hillary's Lines in the debate, was disliked more. The Hillary Clinton Actor who spoke Trump's lines was liked more. 

People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”

We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.  

The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. 

What this proves is that Hillary Clinton could have easily won the Election if she was not so intensified on anti-American, and divisive Identity Politics. Hillary Clinton actually succeeded in turning off half the Country and Donald Trump succeeded in communicating to the portion he needed for the win because he was speaking to more people about individual rights as U.S. Citizens. Clinton was polluting and diluting her message with the World of Citizens, but the world doesn't vote in American Elections. 

That is a complete and utter incrimination against the Democratic Party as far as I am concerned. To have lost the debate on Civil Rights is inexcusable! And furthermore, to not get it? Why that's just plain stupid! 

Why?

Well, picture Hillary Clinton walking around looking at her pink pussy hat all the time asking for your vote? Picture Barack Obama walking around all the time looking at his skin asking for the your vote? It might work once, but it's a short term high because America is rooted in wisdom and understanding. That has won the Civil War. It may have appeared blacks were free, but whites were freed too. No one want's to be a slave and many people seem to forget that there were white slaves and black Slave Masters? 

Individual Rights are calculable only to the greatest number of people affected. If you calculate the black freedom as only a fight were blacks are involved, you will not get one white person fighting for the freedom. That is understanding Freedom and Liberty and Justice for all. [Understanding].. think about that word.

 This is why I firmly believe the only way the Democratic Party will ever return to it's greatness in America is if Obama/Clinton Identity Politics is thrown under the bus and squarely run-over. But I'm not sure the Democratic Party has the "Understanding & Wisdom" to actually conceive that is what needs to happen, or to understand that their hope of "Identity Politics" was a sugar high - great for the 15 second commercial and terribly exposed in an hour long debate.

I have long defended many things Democrats have stood up for such as equal rights for all Citizens. When Republicans refused to remove "Marriage" from State Government leaving it to the Churches, in favor of "Partnership" in State Tax Considerations, under equal protections of Citizens they trampled "Marriage" if it was trampled in allowing Same Sex Marriage in equal protection of rights to Citizens. 

Democrats didn't do that; Republicans were bent on discrimination against Citizens when it's clear both female and male can vote.

When it comes to Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, I cognitively recognize children do not  vote until the are enfranchised at age 18. Prior to that they are under a dictatorship called type of government in the household with their Parents as responsible adults for their Vote. Life in the understanding of a Soul has it's creation in the separation and its individuality which then in extinguishment constitutes murder. The State confining a Citizen's Body for 9 months without a committed crime is an abuse,nor is a man committed to prison for spilling his seed for the same period or a women for her period and flushing her eggs down the toilet. 

That a body in a casket of a man who died of natural causes looks an awful lot like a human without the spirit, needed to create the Soul constituting a [Person], the same way a 8-9 month old fetus looks whose body never received the Spirit to make up the Soul, but we have an awful lot of people declaring a vicious murder has taken place, in lieu of God's Mercy, (and in my believe Promise to every Spirit to inherit a body) as if God can't make another body for that Spirit?

Democrats were mostly Pro-Choice, and Republicans Pro-Life, I chose to be Pro-Choice-for-Life taking to heart the way in which God created man in the distinct steps. 

 Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

a- Body created first b. Then the spirit entered the lifeless body c. Soul created d. body + spirit = Soul 

The delusion of Democrats however into the delirium of Identity Politics has proven itself 1,000 times over to be a losing strategy across the Country. Rather than exposing Republicans false claims, with {Wisdom and Understanding}, that moves towards the center in Justice for All, they choose to lose by moving off the field entirely.  

I must finally add that Establishment Democrats have been hypocrites of the Big Tent Party by their own Bull in the China Room Experiment of Identity Politics episodic of discrimination against their fellows in reform, rehab, prison, and jails opting to discriminate in their own Primary Debates of the U.S. Presidential Candidates representative of those entering the Race. 

That is emblematic of what? The Elite Classes thoughts on who American's are? Who they ought to be? Well, let me say it in more simple terms. It's discrimination against middle and lower citizens by economic and class citizenship of the United States- all of who have the same power to VOTE! 

Troubling thing about that? They are willing to discriminate against me as a Candidate for having a felony 25 years ago, but not Constitutionally Qualify a Presidential Candidate as [natural born Citizen] ie. born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. Summation? Their moral compass is twisted!

Trump, Fiorina, and Carson were all Candidates who had never before held office who were also aloud on the Debate Stage by Republicans. Democrats marginalized their un-elected U.S. Presidential Candidates refusing to give them a Debate Stage in a horrible example of elite discrimination.

 They are catering to a rich elite exclusive class that is indeed getting smaller and smaller across the Country and concentrated in higher population centers. Did Democrats show America how BIG THE TENT was or how SMALL it really is? 

That is a recipe for disaster in the interest of the United States of America, and if that is not their interest, they are on a losing lunar space mission to planet WTFK that know one here can comprehend as to relativity of our United States History.

So is the Democratic Party worth saving? I tend to think of that as do they have the will to win? I think they do, and I think they are worth saving if they are willing to move towards the middle of America instead of out of the left field ballpark.

CRJ

BREAKING NEWS: HOW COULD SAME SEX MARRIAGE BE THE KISS OF DEATH FOR OBAMA'S W.H. OCCUPANCY IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

BREAKING NEWS: HOW COULD SAME SEX MARRIAGE BE THE KISS OF DEATH FOR OBAMA'S W.H. OCCUPANCY IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

Among the hardest conundrums for Prophets and People alike to understand, though they recognize it in front of their own tenants of faith in extremist example that murder is wrong, but killing in defense of ones self, family, or even your Country's defense in the line of duty is right, is that with every action under the sun one can be justified by God's Mercy and the other be damned. So it is with the 'natures' of men that God has given them and for us all to seek to understand; for unrighteous judgments are among the greatest stumbling blocks of mankind's history within all the generations of time.

DIFFERENT RELIGIONS and BELIEFS

Yesterday our Nation faced a crossroads of epic proportions in that the United States Supreme Court tread upon the State's Rights of the Tenth Amendment to protect the Liberty of the 14th Amendment in the interest of Liberty. For that word I was moved with joy and celebration in the actions of the Court. It was in the interest of Liberty that the Lord sought to recover Israel through his Prophet Moses from the chains of Egypt's Pharaoh and in the next instant begin to weed out those whose progress was 'stopped' because of their lack of Faith in the actions of suffering those to die who would not look upon the 'idol' to be saved from the serpents sting Moses held up, choosing to die instead in their "conservatism", as well those who wondered in the 'conservative' desert until the generation whose Faith had not been sufficient had passed away who were forbidden to enter into the Promised Land. Any who would not say that the Lord in some instances is 'progressive' and in some instances is 'conservative' is really missing the examples of this Story in History.

I sense people wanting a more modern day story. Ok, here's one I am familiar with in the United States of America among a people who are a very small minority but are no less famous to the world. Why would a man of devout love for God whose most famous work he never purported to author but to translate in The Book of Mormon (B.O.M) institute in the religion of Mormonism "Polygamy" that has come to be known as one of its most famous tenants after seeing this verse found in B.O.M. Jacob Ch. 3 vs. 5,9
" Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. v.9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers."

Joseph Smith Jr., the translator of this verse is recognized as having had 40 wives according to a story published in the New York Times Nov. 10 2014. This is an example of what people get hung up on in a cross over of doctrine simply understood to be the Lord's wisdom of giving more to those who are ready, and taking some from those who are not ready. We all know as Christian's Joseph Smith was not the first to be called to take on more than one wife or concubine and that many large "P" prophets were given the direction in the Old Testament including Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon. All precious sons of the Lord and those whom he called as being men after his own heart.

The Governor of Utah Gary R. Herbert wrote on his Facebook Page yesterday June 26th,2015 "Marriage, as defined by the people of Utah, has been redefined, first by the federal courts and today the outcome of that decision has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am disappointed with the decision by the court to usurp state authority and overrule the voice of the people of Utah as demonstrated by legislation with regard to marriage. I am also very concerned with the overwhelming trend to diminish state autonomy. I believe states should have the right to determine their own laws regarding marriage. Clearly, the majority of the justices disagree and their decision provides finality with respect to the law."

The rich history among the Native Americans marriage between what was termed "Two-Spirited" people were performed among other things as a sign of peace, protection, and and harmony from other tribes aggression.

The Bible as a standard many people refer to in diverse Christian Faiths also recognized those who were of a cross over between male and female with an attraction of same sex called "Eunuch". These were a class of emasculated men attached to the Courts of eastern rulers. They were employed to watch over the harems, and also were often given positions as trusted officials. See Bible 2 Kings 20:18;Isa 39:7 & 56:4; Jer. 38:7-13 & 41:16; Matt. 19:12; Acts 8:27-38. Let me just quote Matthew 19:12 as it recognizes that the differing natures of men can come from birth which many who call themselves Christians have not accepted yet even though it is in the New Testament and they often dismiss the Old Testament as invalid.
Mathew 19:12 " "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom for heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

WHY SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE UPSET ABOUT THE SCOTUS DECISIONS TO ALLOW MARRIAGES TO ANY CITIZEN?

The dissenting Minority opinions of the SCOTUS came from Justices Roberts,Scalia,Alito,and Thomas. The ratifying opinions of the Majority came from Sotomeyer, Kagan, Ginsburg,Breyer, and Kennedy. From the NY Times Article by Adam Liptack June 26th, 2015 "Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide", some poignant parts of the opinions are made from both sides.

Probably the biggest fear I've seen expressed on social media's is that many Christians view this in a way that somehow this decision would "force" varying religions to actually perform same-sex marriages within their Churches irrespective of the opposing doctrine of the particular religion. I do not see that being the case at all in America. As long as the Government provides the option of a justice-of-the-peace down at the County Court house to perform marriages, I do not see any successful law suit coming against any particular church or religion that its own particular religious doctrines or creeds as well Leaders need to fear lest that Liberty also protected by the Constitution be lost. I do not think the Government can force a particular Religion to perform a marriage in the Church anymore than I could see the Government forcing Baptist to be Baptized in Mormon Temples, or Catholics who choose to sprinkle being forced to be dunked.

The assumption that any particular religion could now be sued for not performing the will of an individual negates freedom of religion and more importantly the reason there are so many differing religions all respected in America. Rather I see this 'pretended fear' as a way to simply assert a position, which now has been exposed for what it was; a farce. I have yet to see a Scripture that says in the Bible, if that's where Christians want to go, I'll go there even if the Justices feel restricted of their own rights, that "marriages" in the first place between a man and a women must be performed in a Government Institution. For the most part, I see in the canonical text "Marriages" as originating from being performed in a Church.

Has it not been by the Christians, we call elected Leaders, that marriages wound up as a performance of a Government Institution in the first place here in America? Of course it was. If Government had instituted the requirement for Civil Unions only in Government Buildings for Tax Purposes regardless of sex, and Marriages had been kept out of the Government by those going to Church and voting for such, would there be "Marriages" being performed between two of the same sex? The answer to that question is "No". So where is this "un-righteous judgement" coming from that would deny Citizens equality of the same Liberty referred to in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? I say it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The Court can only rule upon Cases brought to it. The Court can't for instance say, ""Civil Unions" should be performed in the Government Eye, and "Marriages" should be performed in the Church Leg." Now the Legislative Branches could have said that and passed laws in that direction. As it has been the Case, your Legislatures refused to do that because they didn't want to do it themselves between their own spouses of the opposite sex. They wanted a combination to exist and in that combination a 'tradition' and 'norm' of imposing 'marriage' outlines and now you might say the chicken come home to roost for all Citizens.

Page 44 of the Dissenting Opinion from Justice Roberts said: "But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered)."

I think a quick reminder of the 14th Amendment is important here so let me quote that and think about it in the regard that it applies to you in your circumstances as a Citizen, because if it can't be thought of that way, it serves no purpose whatsoever in the first place: plus I don't think even Government Leaders read the Constitution enough.
United States Constitution Amendment 14 Section I.:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws."

Now if marriage is not a privilege, there would be no age restriction among the states to it. If "Liberty" was not among the characteristics of circumstances in Marriage and were not defined as ones choice to create unions in intercourse, prearranged marriages would still be the 'norm' and would be enforced regardless of an individuals' 'desire' or 'feelings'. Parents would be making the choice to whom their children would marry, rather than their children making that choice.

From Page 33 of the decision: "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Thus, I see Justice John Roberts assertion on page 68 opposing Justice Kennedy and the four justices who ruled that liberty and privileges include marriage under being a Citizen of the United States: ["Celebrate the decision if you favor it, he says in the concluding lines of the dissent [ON PAGE 68]. “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”], not to be based in the reality of Liberty and Citizenship 'privileges' as if there are none that don't have to do with being prosecuted.
Read other Post Cody Robert Judy has written on the Same Sex Marriage Issue here here and here

IN TOTALITY OF THE DECISION WE SEE A WIN FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN NATION

The rights we have as individual Citizens has indeed made the United States of America one of the richest Country's of the world, some might say the envy of the world when it comes to the protections of ones life, liberty, and property. Of course there are other country's who have moved in that direction, but the Case for the United States can hardly be excluded in their own decisions of modern history to balance both conservatism and progressive-ism in a balance of Justice.

We are witness to "Old Judgments" as well as "New Judgments". We are witness to "New Judgments" being right replacing old judgments that were wrong all along. We are also witness to Old Judgments being right yesterday, today, and tomorrow just as Jesus Christ has claimed all along. Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Hebrews 13:4 Reminds Also: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: ", meaning be true to your oaths that you take with your partners in marriage regardless of gender.

The "Individual's Rights" are an essential part of respecting my own rights as a Presidential Candidate in my petition to the United States Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama 14-9396, that contends my rights to run a fair race for President with the qualifications enumerated within the Constitution's bounds that the Office of the President devolve upon none other than a 'natural born Citizen', have been infringed by Obama and the DNC through their representatives also named in the action.

I have declared damages to my Campaign and Person that the 14th Amendment was not created nor did it diminish the requirements in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. that only a 'natural born Citizen' can be President, unless he was a 'Citizen' at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This gives great cause in exposing wither the Justices who decided in favor of Same-Sex Unions are true to their own words of respect towards "individuals" in "equality" and "liberty" under the Constitution's demands for the Office of the President.

Many court opinions state that if or when two aspects of the Constitution are in conflict, both must be given diligence. What that means is that 'natural born Citizen' can not be dismissed or diluted to the course of the qualifications for Representatives or Senators which is "Citizen". You can not do that. The 14th Amendment includes 'Citizens' to be anyone who is born reflecting only one aspect of 'natural born Citizen' which means "Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents" according to the Minor v. Happersett Case I have depended upon for relevance and precedent.

In that opinion it is stated,"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"- meaning to the other circumstances of Citizen there are doubts that they were not meant to be qualified to be President or Vice President, as the requirement of 'natural born Citizen' exist unique for both offices. This has been dramatized by the Legislatures eight failed attempts to change the definition since 2003.

The fact that these have failed is a witness to the Court my definition asserted since 2008 against McCain and Obama is right, but it remains a question the Court has not taken up from two Presidential Candidates; one opposed to the other's lack of eligibility or state of ineligibility.

It is also a challenge to the dissenting Justices of the Court's recent opinion that this is not found in the Constitution, for it truly is with much greater emphasis then that of Marriage. Article II, Section I, Clause 5 states even the time frame for which 'natural born Citizen' is required and that is after those who were "Citizens" at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution'
Art. II, Sect. 1, Clause 5 - "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE NEWS UPDATE

JUNE 18th, 2015 the United States Supreme Court held a Conference on my case and placed it in the "Pending Motions List" of the Court which meant my Case was not denied until the pending motions were taken care of. At issue was the informa pauperis status that I had claimed and the Court Denied.

The argument I have made for the Court to RECONSIDER THIS MOTION can be seen here and the news is that this now has indeed been placed on the Docket of the United States Supreme Court June 24th as is pictured.

UPDATED: FUND RAISING REPORT

We here at the Cody Robert Judy for President 2016 Camp would like to give you a little bit of an update on our Fund Raising. We thank those of you who are digging in and helping. We know there are many more of you out there sitting on the fence. We do not have the luxury of time to waste. Get off the fence and quit hoping for a better America Tomorrow and start helping us make a better America Today. We need your contribution today! The link here is a safe and secure Paypal account for your convenience.

Please continue to check back and we will post UPDATED information here on our FUND RAISING GOAL. We notice contributions coming in from all over this Nation and hope you will get your state on the board here. We notice FL.,CA.,TX.,OR.,PA.,N.C.,UT.,S.D, and VA., now. Thank You!
Cody Robert Judy
The Cody Robert Judy for President Camp 2016
www.codyjudy.us

Quick Reminder Cody's interview with Mike Volin is up on Demand at WOBC Radio so tune in when you'd like!Tune in here: -

HOUSE KEEPING NOTE:
Cody Robert Judy's FB page has filled up with 5,000 so we would ask you to join the new and growing list of supporters on FB here! Pass it on!
We hope you will not spare your Contribution today in the Res-TOUR-Ation of our NATION and support Cody Robert Judy for U.S. President today.

*COURT CASES AND OTHER CASES OF ACTION

1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396

Other Courts
12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial
13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008
14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case
15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin

The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.

Cody Robert Judy - U.S. President 2016
The 2016 Cody Robert Judy Campaign for U.S. President
www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

CAMPAIGN NEWS FLASH - Please visit a couple more of our Campaign Web Pages that are up, remodeled, and going. First the "Bio of Cody" page is up and also the "NEWS FLASH" page is up which details a news flash about Judy v. Obama 14-9396 in the United States Supreme Court.

Thank you to everyone who is and has contributed just a little here and just a little there, for we are working very hard in using the little that we do have as efficiently and proficiently as it comes in, as I'm sure everyone would agree. Please consider a contribution
Let's make it Official and support a Qualified Candidate whose has dedicated his time and talent to taking a stand for America. Let's raise a million dollars and give you the right to say, "I'm not an Idiot, I'm a Patriot!".

INSPIRING - I believe in You
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d-FcfeCPlI

BREAKING NEWS: JUSTICES of 10th Circuit Court WILL CONDUCT A POLL on OBAMA'S INELIGIBILITY CASE

FRONT ROW! FRONT ROW! FRONT ROW! May be a side show and a carnival but it's The Greatest Show on Earth!BREAKING NEWS: 10th Circuit Court News Obama's Eligibility Front Row Side-Show but are the Justices Carnival Barkers?
FEATURED EDITORIAL: The Post & Email
FEATURED STORY: THE BIRTHER REPORT

Obama regulated the Stand for the Constitution’s ‘natural born Citizen’ clause, held as a binding tie of honor among Americans from the Convention held September 17th 1787 to this day as a sideshow or carnival. That tie has been unchanged amid eight bombarding assaults within our modern history since 2003 and many more prior to that. Obama's contempt for it is rooted in his speeches as he's parlayed those seeking to uphold that tie were nothing more than “sideshows and carnival barkers”; a statement sprung to life in music on this blog September 30th,2012 with a song entitled “Obama’s Carnival Barker”. Its been featured in the New York Times April 27th,2011 a few days before Obama’s Mayday Mayday, Mayday kill announcement of Osama bin Laden. This was also a popular post in the TOP 10 at the CODE4PRES Channel. While a kernel of truth may be found in Obama's words American's soon will fight for a front row seat at the Greatest Show on Earth or at least in our modern day American Judicial History.



The theory is that the Judicial or Court Branch of our Government would act as a check and balance of our Legislative and Executive Branches in upholding the U.S. Constitution. The way in which the Judicial or Court Branch checks the Legislative Branch is by declaring any Acts of Congress passed by the Legislature unconstitutional; the same process can check the President’s Executive Branch. Sheriff Joe is challenging ObamaAmnesty right now and is embroiled in just that kind of a challenge. Such challenges come necessarily from The People or individuals and wind their way up the Court Ladder as infringements of rights that the Constitution was suppose to uphold for individuals.

A COUPLE OF MODERN CASE EXAMPLES

Some popular challenges exist today. You might have heard of challenges to the Obamacare Law Mandate that’s forcing people to buy health insurance and subjecting the Citizenry to tax penalties and potentially prison this year while exempting many in a discretionary prosecution. So if your friendly to the President contribute heavily you may find yourself able to bribe your way to freedom. For those who don’t have the money to contribute to the Campaigns, well you and I know we’re screwed and are not going to get exemptions. That’s so friendly isn’t it- forcing people-confiscating- herding them up in the pen- incarcerating the population. The United States Supreme Court has heard some cases already and is hearing a case this Summer about that.

Another case that’s been featured in the news quite a bit is the legal right for same-sex marriages to be honored. The 10th Court actually made a ruling this last June 25,2014 that stated the State of Utah had no right not to honor a same-sex marriage performed in another state when it came to their tax laws. Now regardless of how that sounds to you the whole state of Utah and its population that had actually passed a Constitutional Amendment by 2/3rds of their legislature based on a referendum of the population in an election that passed, has been wiped out in the respect of the “individual”.

But what of the justice of those who have suffered- Too bad so sad? The appellate ruling in the 10th Circuit comes 42 years after the Supreme Court refused to hear a case of two men who were refused a marriage license in Minnesota and their individual right to marry. The conflict of the Courts’ seems to be in honoring the individual rights of a person and the rights of a whole population in what we esteem as our Constitution or Supreme Law of the Land. This is the biggest difference between a Republic where individuals are honored and a Democracy where you say ‘might is right’ in the bully terminology to mow individuals over without regard much like the stampeding crowd killing 22 people whose families will never find justice in their sons and daughters death from those kicking, stomping, and suffocating the death blow.

The beauty of the Courts is that whole legislatures with a campaign-incentive-treasure chest, mostly filled by the wealthy can be wrong, and can at least be stopped. A small little individual has great big rights when it comes under the United States Constitution but only if they are championed by Justices that somewhere along the road have decided to take courage in the United States Constitution over Political Party Affiliation.

DO YOU WANT YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO MATTER?

When it comes to a population hell bent for water there is not much respecting of individual rights. While you might justify that as the correct way to run things, what if your the individual female being raped by the gang? Now do you want your individual rights to matter? Or what about the home-owners who have just been evicted out of their homestead because the bank changed, sold their mortgage to a different bank, and that bank changed the terms of the loan? Do you want your individual rights to matter now? How about the individual who just had their identity stolen and had their life savings stolen by thieves? Do they want their individual rights to matter now?

We could keep going all day long but the bottom line is everyone of you in this population wants your individual rights to matter when they have been stomped on. I am no different then you in this regard. I ran for President in 2008 and 2012 protesting Obama's 'natural born Citizen' qualifications stating what he released didn't amount to the prerequisite qualifications the U.S. Constitution outlined as a 'natural born Citizen' also upheld in Minor v. Happersett or case we call the precedent or U.S. Supreme Court case defining the natural born Citizen as born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

The 'natural born Citizen' requirement for a President was as distinct from those required by U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators as the age requirements and time requirement within the United States. The distinction came from the interest of our national security from 'foreign influence' derived from either birth or a parent especially in the interest of the Office of the President because that seat holds the Commander-In-Chief title or position of the Military, which of course U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators don't even come close to.

A two generation protection that is seen as a national security measure was upheld in the Congress's Judicial Committee as it held hearings on the differences and reason for natural affections to be carried over by birth place or by either parent. Painstaking deposition and testimony were had in those hearings that featured the difference between a two or second generation American and a first generation American revolving around the foreign influence of mother or father or birth place. To deny and defy these fundamental foreign influences on the individual is as absurd as saying your father and mother and place of birth have no influence on you whatsoever. You may have heard of being in denial, and we're not talking being in the Nile as in Egypt's river?

OBAMA HAS CONTROLLED THE MEDIA

Brian Williams anchored the NBC News for 12 years in a fabrication of the story which has led to his temporary leave because of the embarrassment of an exaggeration his helicopter was hit. The NBC or 'natural born Citizen' clause of our Constitution has been hit by Obama the last 7 years acting as an RPG on my Campaign and person. Both of these stories wouldn't have amounted to anything unless witnesses come forward and challenged the assertions. Brian Williams at least had the courtesy at admitting he was wrong and has stepped aside for a few days while the NBC Executives decide wither his mis-remembering or lie has permanently hurt the public trust so much that the interest in the company is at stake in proceeding with him as the anchor.

If Obama really felt like all people under the Constitution of the United States should be treated fairly, as he defends differing faiths like Muslims on record many times, I wonder why he doesn't think I should have been treated fairly in the race for President in the dignity of respecting the constitution's outline of qualification for the Office of the President? That definition had always been Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. Just take a look at the eight challenges to change it since 2003 but it wasn't changed. This then becomes the duty of the Court to uphold as its duty to uphold the Constitution. If there is no Constitution then there certainly is no Court, no Offices' in the Legislature to uphold and certainly no President which is defined in the United States Constitution. Thus the peril of the Justices denying what they are suppose to uphold. They in so much vacate their own seats of authority.

Obama has not shown me the equal respect of the law in the race we ran together. He cheated and is ineligible.
Journalistic integrity needs to be earned - wouldn't it be great if Brian William's would ask him, "Do you think the qualification for the Office of the President should be uniform and equal for all candidates?" What irony- the NBC News Network anchor gets called out for fabricating a story, and Obama's Ineligibility revolves around the NBC (natural born Citizen) clause of the U.S. Constitution, shamefully the biggest fabrication in American History. Obama's belief in unfairness, inequality, and justice for a few is well documented. With guys like ‪#‎BrianWilliams‬ protecting Obama what chance do we have except to ask..whose next in the same fate the American People have suspended Brian Williams?

The Mainstream Media anyway has not covered Judy v. Obama et.al., 14-4136 in any degree of journalistic integrity to the individual rights of a Presidential Candidate to run a fair and transparent race of at least the principles set up to outline the qualifications of the people in the race. They've been so busy in declaring any challenges 'racist' that they have not noticed, or in Brian Williams Case refused to own up to the truth that I have upheld in a bi-partisan platform requiring the challenge to be met by Sen. McCain first in U.S. Federal Court and Sen. Obama in their Campaigns and races for President the Article Two Patriot Platform represents, as a Candidate myself.

I challenge all those who have denigrated themselves as racist by accusations that are clearly unfounded in reality of the record in court, to come clean like Brian Williams did. You have thought of me as less than a human being qualified for the Office of the President as the Constitution we honor demands by the Will Of All The People we include in our History and our modern day! There is a way to change the U.S. Constitution it hasn't been done by the will of the People through their legislatures and the Court's agree in precedent. Therefore my stand is honorable and as transparent as the public record, something Obama for certain can not say about his fabrications according to criminal investigation reports by Sheriff Joe's Cold Case Posse who are a lot better than me in crime investigations. I respect their authority and experience as well their conclusions.

BREAKING NEWS: JUSTICES of 10th Circuit Court WILL CONDUCT A POLL on OBAMA'S INELIGIBILITY CASE

Chief Deputy Chris Wallberg of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has informed me today, Feb 9th, 2015 of the processes that will be carefully conducted by the Court two fold consisting simultaneously of the 'recusal issue' within the Court, and the Petition for Rehearing en banc.

1) In addressing the RECUSAL'S of two of the Justices in the panel handing out a Denial Feb.3rd,2015,
2) In addressing the Petition for Rehearing by the whole Court.

I did write as a mistake en blanc instead of en banc on my Rehearing petition (hahaha) which there might be a kernel of truth to in the fact that it be transparent, fair, equal or white and not draped in black, unfairness, inequality, and crooked corruption that I know any color of people don't appreciate as individuals when it comes to Justice. You know people think you do this full time like some kind of a job that you get paid for. I don't. I'm behind on just about every bill I have because of this, and my Mom in the hospital for a scary Friday and Saturday, but I think its very important to everyone and I know more then half of my time has been given to this effort for six years. Haven't really received any help yet, but if your so inclined I'd appreciate it. We have trials and tribulations like I know you all do and God willing we will fight for middle America, assist the poor when we can, and appeal to the rich who have been blessed this day with charity from God who holds all men in the balances and can ruin in one day just as Job was ruined and in such rescued from his tests.

Along that line, Did you all see Katy Perry bust out that song “By the Grace of God” at the Grammy Awards last night? Wow, that was good! Just had to throw that in here. Back to the Court now..

If you don't understand what a Poll is in a Court I'll briefly explain what Chief Deputy Wallberg made very clear to me in a very concise and polite manner. What is going to happen, (most likely in a couple of weeks is all, this is not a long drawn out decision that takes 60 days or anything), is that every one of the twelve Justices will receive a poll which includes the three questions I have written in the Rehearing Request en blanc that include:

You can read the ORDER and JUDGEMENT here and... you can read my RESPONSE or request for a REHEARING En Blanc here.

Update: Here are the three very important questions I posed to the Court to justify Rehearing if:

Question #1- Does Justice Gregory A. Phillips having ENTERED FOR THE COURT the ORDER AND JUDGEMENT on this case February 3rd,2015 having been considered to the U.S. Senate for Confirmation with the favor of the Appellee/Defendant in this case, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro in the nomination process and thus his very employment as a Justice in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals constitute an prejudiced dismissal summarily instigated upon the Plaintiff that would seem at best a compromise of judicial discipline in recusal decorum and at worst an impeachable offense?

Question#2- June 25th, 2014 this Court handed down a decision favorable to ‘individual rights’, considered standing and upheld marriage in Kitchen v. Herbert No. 13-4178 and considered the rights of an individual who is unpopular more important per the conflicting referendum of all the people in the entire State of Utah and it’s Constitutional Amendment in the State, which does not come on political easy street; isn’t the ORDER AND JUDGEMENT of this case dismissing it as frivolous a conflict of the Court’s own interest and judgment in that case in the interest of Individual Rights?

Question#3- The conflicting statements in the ORDER and JUDGEMENT asserted by the Court leave criminal mischief, fraud, forgery, and a declaration of the precedent case in Minor v. Happersett regarding a natural born Citizen being “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents” by the U.S. Supreme Court undefended and a wreck; and fair elections on equal terms for all the Candidates, per race, per qualifications within the U.S. Constitution in total disarray and the Appellant/Plaintiff without recourse in the infringements of his Civil Rights to a fair race; Does this not deserve the attention of the full Court and the political corrections that might be made for the next general election where the entire U.S. population has a stake and claim for fairness, equal treatment under the law in the considerations of our Republic?

These three questions will no doubt be circulated to the twelve Justices. Now it can be granted in two different ways. The first way is that a individual Justice calls for a Poll to be taken and affirms. In other words if this goes out to every one of the twelve and one Judge calls for a Poll it is taken. The second way it can be granted is if any single Justice does call for a Poll and more then six of the Justices of the twelve agree to rehear it, then we will be given a rehearing. Remember this rehearing is not a win on the case, its just that the audience of the Court will be bigger. They could give me an ear and I could still lose once the whole court heard it.

This is pretty intense as it happens very quickly in relative Court performance, and also as a matter of Justice hanging in the balance on the issues of those three questions. Will the Court decide I am sub-human not worthy of a fair or equal race by the virtues of principles found in the Constitution? Will the whole Court choose not to even give me an ear and not see Obama and Clinton's appointment of the two Judges in question as a favor to their employment at the Tenth Circuit? And of course will they consider the legal investigation proceedings of Sheriff Joe's Cold case posse as evidence they must take into considerations due to the legality of my reporting those to them in the legal manner laid out by the Sherman and Clayton Acts of Congress?

In football parlance what just happened? Well, I found myself on the defense all of a sudden in the middle of the field, with the kick-off team running up the middle unstopped. I looked around and hadn't been called for a penalty so I attacked. I didn't just go for the tackle and went for the ball. The guy running down for his touchdown didn't want to give it up, but I forced a fumble, picked the ball up, and ran it the other way ... hopefully for a touchdown which would be my being given a rehearing- 7 points, but not the end of the game.

I'll keep you updated as things happen and discuss this more in detail so pass it on and keep checking back. Thanks so much for your help and support needed at this time more then ever. Remember every "like" and every "share" is very important America!

Part II

Yours Truly
Cody Robert Judy

We need your help. Will you help us or are the outrageous lies your being told by your elected leaders okay for you and your children? If you won't defend your children and their future who will you defend?

The 2016 Campaign begins now. Please send your contributions and help with the ABC (American Birther Campaign) today and my election for President in 2016 and Join the 257 of us now on my Facebook Cody Robert Judy for U.S. President 2016 site.

Cody Robert Judy for President 2016
3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah 84401

Thank you
Cody Robert Judy
Candidate for United States President 2016
www.codyjudy.us

CONTRIBUTION REVOLUTION



The Commercial is simply called "America"


Join the new CODY ROBERT JUDY FOR PRES 2016 FB SITE Here