Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2017
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.




Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.





Sunday, July 31, 2011

Marco Rubio gives a speech to the Senate in vain. Also, my 2012 Budget Plan Proposals DC can start any Budget talks with.



Senator Marco Rubio points out that for 822 days, the US Senate has offered NO BUDGET, and the Democrats don't want one.  Kerry in standing up repeatedly to oppose him in "asking questions" and cast blame, rather than solutions, proves Rubio's points.




Why won't anyone dare even start with suggestions for a 2012 Fiscal year budget?  Then let me start the debate with a few suggestions on where to start. 
   ---My tentative Theoretical Budget Proposal if I were on the Hill, and even though this pragmatic straight talk shows why I would never be voted into Congress, or simply stopped by the Political Machines and Media prostitutes of both major parties, because I would only about doing an honest and forthrightly unapologetic action of "doing what's right for this Country as a Republic in need of rescue from dissolvance and overthrow by the Corrupt and Lazy in Congress."  In other words,  were I there now, these are the 7 points I would probably have slammed the lazy and treasonous guilt-ridden Congressional consciences with, and caused a necessary National Uproar and the debates we need to resolve the Debt Crisis, by introducing real solutions in the below proposals:



1. Defense Spending for 2012 should be capped at $600,000,000,000

 $570,000,000,000 for regular operations budgetary authority, $30,000,000,000 for removal of troops from Afghanistan and last operations while pulling out.

a. Pensions freeze for retirees for 10 years

b. Pension reductions to a $4,000 a month cap regardless of rank

c. Defund the Afghanistan War and pull the troops out

d. Option: Up to $50,000,000,000 of Military Budget may be set aside for discretionary surgical strike spending (being pre-approved by Congress for this contingency) that can be rolled over into the next fiscal year for discretionary covert and surgical strike operations to a maximum fund of $80,000,000,000 in any given year, the surplus used to pay down the National Debt. Congressional Oversight and Intelligence will still need to be informed of the finances used, and pre-authorize use when operations not self-defense contingencies for being fired upon or specific rescue operations to recover personnel.

e. Reduction in top wage earners above$ 120,000 to that wage, and frozen for 5 years

f. Veterans Medical Services salary caps, reducing Administrator and Medical salaries to a cap of $85,000.

g. Reallocate surpluses saved in wages and pensions to Veterans Medical Service expenses, with the goal of increasing services and procedures for military veterans directly wounded while in performance of Military Service or in Military Transport.



2. Building of 4 US Military Oil/Gas Refineries and fuel storage Depots to be located on Atlantic Ocean US Coast,  Gulf of Mexico US Coast, Pacific Alaska US Coast, and Pacific Continental United States Coast.
     
Each facility will accommodate a storage of 20,000,000 barrels of oil (ca. 110,000,000 gallons), and have a capacity to convert a minimum of at least 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Congress will allocate and set aside a total of $6,000,000,000 per facility, and all 4 facilities must be fully built and operational by January 1, 2015. They will be manned by US Military personnel and a force of no more than 5% Civilian sub-contractors, and require Secret Clearances.



3. Social Security and Welfare

a. Remove all non US Citizens, remove all  non-seniors (exceptions 80-100% disableds) from receiving Social Security Checks and US Federal Government Aid of ANY Type, including Student Loans and Grants. 

b. Recatorgorize Food Stamp and Welfare into its own Government Resource, and prevent any cash out or cash back issuance on food stamp debit cards. 
c. Utilize a database user of card and thumb-print program entered nationwide (into a variation or advanced parallel system comparable to CJIS - the Criminal Justice Information System) to clamp down on massive fraud in the system.
     Thumb prints into national computer identity index for every food stamp and welfare recipient (both primary and claimed beneficiary) with a feedback within 5 minutes or in real-time to prevent fraud, with arrest and prosecution and property recovery on those convicted (with a mandatory 5 years hard labor for each identity fraud duplication) to be served consecutively.  Hence, all recipients will thumb-print on a checkstand scanner and swipe the food-stamp card prior to the ringing up of the first transaction, for time expediency.  If fraud is detected as a multiple user of identity, having 3 or more welfare identities, the system will self-call the local Police who will be dispatched to the location to verify accuracy of thumb-print and identity on scene, and thereafter (if necessary) take into custody if multiple identities / fraud is verified. 

d. Reduce all payments of Social Security and Welfare to a maximum issuance of no more than $2,000 per month.

e. Allow cost of living increase of 10% for any Social Security payments under $1,500 per month, and then freeze at $1,500 for Fiscal year 2012

f. Social Security payroll tax increase of 1% on wage earners January 1, 2013 to be locked in and not increased for a minimum of 10 years.

g.  Goal is to reduce Social Security and Welfare payouts by 25% within 3 years, and pay only those in need.  Multiple Home owners or those possessing assets and real estate above the value of $600,000 are to be disqualified from collecting Social Security as of January 1, 2012 (according to my plan).

4. Income tax rate

a. An across the board 5% tax rate cut for incomes between $30,000 – $100,000

b. An across the board 3% tax rate cut for incomes $100,000.01 and up

c. Exemption deduction, fixed for 5 years @ $8,000 Single or Married filing Separately, $10,000 Head of Household or Married.


5. Corporate Tax Rate to be lowered to 20% for businesses inside the US

For US businesses overseas, the Coporate tax rate for those assets and services is to be given a 40% tariff increase (in order to ship their goods and services INTO the USA) in 2012, followed by an increment of 10% a year for 3 years.  Tariff will be against US Companies and their goods shipping in, regardless of who ships it, not specifically against nations unless they ship as middle men or what have you.   Goal is to bring "Jobs" back into the USA.  Tax incentives to be issued to those US businesses which dismantle foreign assets and build and employ US Citizens on US Soil. 


6.  Any Budget is to have no more than a $400,000,000,000 deficit under ANY Circumstances for fiscal year 2012, with a goal of  no more than $200,000,000,000 in Fiscal year 2013, and a balanced budget in Fiscal year 2014 and thereafter.


7.  There will ABSOLUTELY BE NO RELINQUISHING OF US CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to either a smaller Congress or Congressional Committee, nor to anyone in either the Executive or Judicial Branches of Government.  Any inclusiveness of such a proposal should bring the charge of Treason against those proposing the Super Congress Oligarchy, regardless of Party affiliation or membership. 
-------------------------------
 
Again, this is just a tentative proposal as a PLACE TO START discussing the issues toward the creation of a sound Fiscal 2012 Budget, and where I think we can go to implement cuts on waste and fraud, etc., to help get us to a sound and fiscally responsible National Budget.  That's my input. 

---------------------------------------------------

[[ Update 9:45 pm PST  July 31, 2011


The leadership of both parties and both chambers (the US Senate and the House of Representatives) are doing a victory boast of raising the debt ceiling by $2,200,000,000,000, and lying about how this is enough to fund the US Treasury until after the 2012 election cycle.  Remember this lie of theirs, as they act as if they are a Congressional Mason Coven of Druids.  In actions and deals contrary to the majority desires of their constituents, the leaders of Congress appear to claim NOT JUST  amorality claims in the NOW justifying their deals, and how it is that 2.2 trillion dollars is enough of a raise to the Debt Ceiling; but in all likelihood, it seems to me, in 9 -10 months or less they will again as if in coven both party unison together, come clasping hands and howling in a staged angst, perhaps at that time, doing thus in order to fully transform our Republic prior to the 2012 elections in November 2012, it seems to me.  That appears to be where this is all going.  I can only hope that it is not so, but this bogus Presidency of a non-Constitutional occupant and his anti-Constitutionalist Executive Administration Compulsions and Motus Operandi EVERY DAY of his occupancy of the Office, leaves no other truly rational conclusion other than he has an end-game to destroy the Republic of the United States, and replace it with a Socialist or Communist Dictatorship or Oligarchy, or a combination thereof. 

Tonight, in their agreement, both Parties of Congress kept the Legislative language to keep a Super Congress Oligarchy of 12.  It seems to me by being acutely aware of the combination of this Super Congress and the financial figures agreed to, this is what creates the projected time-line that the Communist-Socialists will be made aware of in a matter of seconds, perhaps using their cell phone calculator, perhaps later hearing or reading about it in their spheres of influence and comfort zone groups.  It is all about the Congress de facto announcing (in their open and slightly veiled lingo) of the creation of a future crisis in the language of Legislation now, which  will likely seek to take over on or about April 1, 2012 to May 1, 2012 based on the amount the debt ceiling was raised.  How so?  The US now spends at a rate of almost 4 trillion a year, or about 320 billion dollars a month.  Inflow is about 200 billion a month.  2.2 trillion will therefore dissipate under normal frozen projection in 18 months.  However, based on the frivolous nature of Congress getting excited about new cash to waste, we can look for another crisis in half that time or by May Day 2012 at the latest, May Day being the Communist Holiday...and April 1 being April Fools Day on the American people.  In either case, the Communist-Socialists will probably soon be laughing and saying quips such as "How convenient." 
I can only hope I'm wrong, but the pattern of the Obama Administartion and Congressional Lawlessness increasing at the pace of apathy and reckless it is increasing at, leads me to only question the EXACT timing of WHEN (instead)...NOT "if."
The traitors of the Obama Administration (mostly key executives and various executive staff) and the Congressional Leadership will be joined by the Major Media in any overthrow of the Republic, because it is most often the Major Media who continuously run a cover for the heinous sins of deception and omission of the Obama Administration and of Congressional Leadership in Both Major Parties.   It is clear that the Major Media have no excuse for their fraud and propaganda upon the American public, and perpetuation of fraud in their news cycles, along with their pretentious "oh, I'm so insulted you could even suggest that" hypocrisy. Follow what news they are willing to report and how, and the facts that commentators who have NO CLUE of the facts, report their opinions as if facts by the majority of the time spent in the news cycle.  News in 2011, has become 80-90% editorializing or otherwise called: "propaganda".   Even with just a casual read of the 2009 "10 year projection report table"  put forth by the Obama Administration, the Media needed only to edit a few of the Obama Administration's own words of chastisement against 8 years of George Bush to show and report on the flagrant Obama "blame others and do worse thyself"  hypocrisy and criminally gross misconduct.  But will they be fair and balanced?  No.  It is up to others to figure it out for themselves.  

 By editing out blame the Obama Budget Report attributes to others, and the sure knowledge that they have already eclipsed those 8 years of more appropriate and accountable debts in less than 3 years, it would be so easy to report the contrast.  Again, instead of the media reporting (rather than grossly editorialing the facts / news),  it is up to all of America to themselves sift for the facts, facts that now almost by themselves seem to accuse the Communist-Socialist Obama Administration and the leaders of Congress during those Obama years of Fiscal 2009 following of acting criminally reckless misconduct and producing criminally frivolous waste of taxpayer monies that almost jsutifies the wicked thefts of those like Ponzi rip-off artists like Bernie Madoff..  Let's look at two examples of very minor word edits and how they could just as easily be turned against Obama reckless waste of taxpayer monies. 
For example:

[Note: The Obama projection for 10 years is on page 117 of the ff. pdf link.]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf

Page 14

Fiscal Irresponsibility


Another manifestation of irresponsibility is


the large budget deficits ... These


deficits, over time, will harm economic growth


and impose burdens on our children and grandchildren.


...[T]he Government spent recklessly


on ... hand-outs for the welloff


and well-connected, mismanaged billions of


dollars in taxpayer money, and failed to honor the


responsibilities we have to future generations.


Massive new programs have routinely been omitted


from the Budget to mask their true cost....
 
--------------------------------- 

Page 34
 
Planning for the Future



Over the past ... years [under Obama], fiscal recklessness


replaced fiscal responsibility. Huge tax cuts and


spending increases were undertaken without being


paid for. Large extra-budgetary expenses put


a veneer on our fiscal situation. Special interest driven


spending grew out of control. Long-term


challenges to our country and our fiscal situation


were ignored. Taken together, this has put the


Nation in an even more precarious fiscal position


as we confront this economic crisis.

---------------------


 
End of update ]]


{{{Update - August 1, 2011   The House of Representatives voted to absolve its ability to legislate taxation per Article 1.8 of the US Constitution, and give that power to the Super Congress of 12 unelected members of the New Oligarchy.  
     The vote passed the House at 269 - 161.  Even the reporters at Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" join in sugar-coating the vote, and closing their eyes and minds to the reality of what an event this is in US Politics.

It is the vote which once and for all enables "the Cessation",  or should we say the "Fall of the Republic of the United States as a Government" whose beginnings were on July 04, 1776 and whose Constitution written 13 years later was a model and example of the pinnacle of modern Governments.  The Fall was accomplished  by the creation of an Oligarchy "Super Committee" or "Super Congress". 

 The Republic of the United States as of August 01, 2011 is now on "life support" status .

-- End of August 1, 2011 update, abridged on August 8,2011}}

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Letter to my Congressman, and an open letter to Congress - July 27, 2011

My topic is on the UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Super- Congress" aka. Oligarchy/Politburo Committee being pushed to have a 12 member Committee legislate, and make the other 523 members of Congress so moot, that Obama may as well disband both the House of Representatives and Senate altogether. This is Constitutional Treason on the part of those in Congress and the White House pushing this Communist-Socialist re-engineering of the framework of the US Government's Legislative Branch!



RE: The Super-Congress Committee was reported here:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/super-congress-debt_n_909018.html


This Super Congress was then confirmed in essence by Speaker Boehner to Rush Limbaugh July 26, 2011 on his radio program here:



It is with great difficulty for me to refrain from the fury and outrage that I have for those like Boehner, and Obama and others who so openly and IMPEACHABLY defy the US Constitution, and want to alter this Republic into a Communist-Socialist framework. Boehner and Reid and others ignore that it takes an Article 5 "2/3rds Congress and 3/4ths of the States" to alter the US Constitution after the manner they seek to illegally use section 4 of the 14th Amendment.


Further, repeatedly, YOU and the rest of Congress ignore that Obama is a usurper failing the Article 2 Natural Born Citizen Requirement by having more than a sole US Citizenship at birth, making everything he does illegal per Marbury v. Madison by being unConstitutional, etc.



Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180


states that

“a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” and “in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land,

the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;

and not the laws of the United States generally,

but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution, have that rank.”



I demand Boehner be Impeached and Removed, and someone with backbone and Constitutional Conservative values be installed as Speaker instead.

After which, following 333 US 640 (1948) @653 and 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62, that Congress demand legal proof admissible into a Court of Law, that Obama proves his Social Security number identity (as his SS# was stolen from someone born in Connecticut in 1890 and used by him since 1979) and US birth (something he will NOT produce into a Court of Law) to US Citizen parents / both parents being US Citizens at the time of his birth (the de facto and de jure legal requirement cf. the Venus, Minor v. Happersett, Perkins v. Elg, etc.)or be Impeached himself for High Crimes.

You may also wish to refer to such attorney blog articles such as:




---------------------------------------------------
 
The above letter was sent to my Congressman minutes prior to this posting.  I post this to deny their office  staffers running interference any deniability that such informative letters were ever sent them.  -- Brianroy

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Alert!!! A Super Congress or Oligarchy to be installed in spite of the US Constitution



"...Create a new Congress.



This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers.

Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.


Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable ...."
 
Source, The Huffington Post, {pulled up on and quoted on July 24, 2011}
 
------------------------------------------------------
 
The US Constitution states in:
 
 
Article V


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...."

In other words, a 51% majority passing the House and the Senate, and a signing into existence by an unConstitutional President implementing such a Communist-Socialist Oligarchy justifies what kind of a response? 

Be mentally and physically prepared for a Communist-Socialist anti-Republic Obama-issued Martial Law, and a dismissal of the Second Amendment with confiscations by Executive Order.  If you are not prepared, it is my opinion that you had better damn well hurry, if you have the finances to do so.  If you have any kind of political influence, you had better use it now, because the kind of above unaccountable Oligarchy proposals are to the United States what the Enabling Act did to Weimar Germany.  Turning it from a Republic to a Dictatorship within the same year. 

-----------------------------------  

{Update:  About 2 hrs after posting, via Trevor Loudon's site posting...http://trevorloudon.com/2011/07/super-congress-echoes-of-tyranny-rising/

I read an Excellent and more detailed "super-congress tyranny" post on this same issue originally found at

This article is a recommended read.  }

---------------------------------------------

{Update 7:25pm Pacific

On July 20, 2011 Dick Morris reported that what we now know as the Super Congress Oligarchy, started out as a Senator Conrad of North Dakota “Politburo” Политбюро (i.e., comprise a US oligarchy made up of top members of the Communist Central Committee) suggestion...and appears to have morphed from there into a political monster:


[Quote]
“…to establish a commission to monitor the deficit reduction measures to assure that they unfold as planned. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has been pushing this idea for more than a year now hoping to equip the commission with automatic authority to cut spending and to raise taxes without legislative authorization.

It would allow a tax increase without requiring any member of Congress to vote for it.”

[Unquote]     ---  end of update}


----------------------------------------------------------------

[Update 8:35 pm.   UK Daily Mail also reports on Super Congress oligarchy proposal


{Quote}

A new 'Super Congress' or 'super-committee', comprised of members of both chambers and both parties, is part of a new plan proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.




The proposal includes an unprecedented formation of a 12-member panel of lawmakers, in addition to legislation to lift the $14.3trillion debt ceiling.


Legislation approved by the proposed committee is intended to move quickly through both chambers and could not be amended by lawmakers by casting an up or down vote, reports the Huffington Post.


The panel would thus be 'less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits,' the report suggests.


Lawmakers are scrambling to assure investors before Asian markets open on Monday that America can avert a catastrophic default which would have devastating effects on the global economy.

...House Speaker John Boehner has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say.

{Unquote}

What is not reported that a default on the August 02, 2011 debt ceiling deadline merely causes a $29 billion dollar late fee, just like you and I get charged $29 to $39 by the bank (or what ever like fee) if we make a late payment.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/07/23/mark-levin-29-billion-is-the-cost-of-not-defaulting-and-senate-never-voted-on-cutcap-and-balance/


See also the ff. link article reminder of how that from November 1995 to March 1996, the US Government already came through the very same debt ceiling pseudo-crisis Obama seeks to create hysteria over (a crisis he hopes to use to ram fundamental changes to the US Government's Structure without abiding by US Constitutional restraints ).
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/07/22/the-debt-ceiling-was-not-raised-for-five-months-from-1995-1996-with-little-interruptions/

So who is at fault, and where is the outrage of the leadership of all parties and their constituents around this Nation?  And what about those in the Intel Community and the US Military?  What ever happened to that oath of protecting and upholding the US Constitution against Domestic enemies as well as the foreign?  Just asking.

End of update ]



The below video is appropriate in the sense of Congress itself is creating the notion that every individual is no longer a citizen of a Free Republic, but some sort of monster to be hospital contained, and seen as sick...even as monsters.  The video also shows the perspective that one can see and apply in 2011 where the citizens just want a way out of this Obamacare Death Healthcare Institutionalization coming to pass which threatens the very existence of the individual, not just their freedom and liberty. Try and watch the video from this new artistic expression, and it drives home a new and powerful message to consider.




---------------------------------------------------------------

[Update July 25th
The Huffington Post again reports:

{{Quote -- in yellow}}
    "A powerful coalition that includes Tea Party members of Congress rejected a debt ceiling offer from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Monday, calling a proposed bipartisan, bicameral committee that would draft deficit-reduction legislation "troubling" -- not because it would afford too much power to too few people, but because they said it could lead to tax increases." 
{ ^^^ Insert your own profanity here. ^^^     Any Super Congress Committee is Unconstitutional and violates Article 1.8 and Article 5, etc.  It is an offense that deserves a severe rebuke firstly because it subsumes illegal and unConstitutional powers of Governance designed to remove 523 of the 535 members of Congress, and make the chosen 12 the Governing Legislative Politburo while the rest of Congress is shut down and outlawed, pending a transition to a Communist-Socialist Government Structure.  America has been undeniablly BETRAYED by these Scumbag Politicial Leaders of both major Parties.  -- Brianroy}

    Nevertheless, separate proposals put forward by Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday each included versions of a Super Congress -- referred to on the Hill as a Super Committee -- that would write laws that could not be amended by the regular Congress, only voted up or down. In Boehner's version, the debt ceiling would be raised a second time if Congress approved the cuts decided on by the Super Congress.

    ....Boehner described the new legislative body in a summary of his proposal released by his office Monday afternoon:

The framework creates a Joint Committee of Congress ...(e)ach Chamber would consider the proposal of the Joint Committee on an up-or-down basis without any amendments. If the proposal is enacted, then the President would be authorized to request a debt limit increase of $1.6 trillion.

The structure of Reid's proposed Super Congress is similar to Boehner's, though the legislation it would consider would not be tied to an increase in the debt ceiling. Reid and the White House insist that the debt limit must be increased enough now to extend past the 2012 election....


The Super Congress amounts to an institutionalization of the gang structure that exists informally in the Senate, where a small number of lawmakers write legislation behind closed doors and then announce it to the public. Legislation written by the Super Congress would be extremely difficult for individual members of Congress to stop.


{{Unquote -- in yellow}}



End of July 25th update]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Update July 26, House Speaker John Boehner  pitches Super Congress Committee as if a good idea to Rush Limbaugh and his millions of listeners.  Rush is then either oblivious or intentionally deceptive, it seems to me, in his comments of the consequences of the Unconstitutional New Legislatiture designed to replace the current Congress.



Says Boehner: 
[Quote]
"Secondly, though, it sets up a joint select committee of the members of Congress: Six members from the House -- three Democrats, three Republicans -- and six members of the Senate. And they're charged with finding an additional $1.8 trillion worth of deficit reduction over the balance of this year. And they all meet. Any proposal that gets seven votes out of that group would go into a package where there's an automatic up-or-down vote in the House and Senate.
...
Well, some people are concerned that the joint committee, "My God, they might raise taxes." Well, I'm gonna tell you what: It's gonna be pretty hard for the joint committee to do that. I don't believe that the Republicans on this committee that get appointed are gonna vote to increase taxes -- and if they did, I don't believe the House of Representatives would approve the report of the joint committee. So I don't fear that problem -- and, frankly, I'm not afraid of the debate. If they want to have that debate, let's have it.

[Complete B.S.  He won't debate on the US Constitution or of his unpardonable compromises in the House or anywhere else. 
Nor will radio hosts hold him to that and discuss relevant legalities (e.g., US Constitutional Article  1.8, or Article 2.4, or Article 5, or the 10th and 11th and 14th Amendments or what have you in any serious at length challenging argument.]

...What I'm trying to do is set up a scenario with this bill that we're trying to move through the House to force the Congress to finally act.
...frankly this joint select committee was set up to facilitate a real vote to cut spending in the United States Senate. "
[Unquote]

[Then Rush, gives this totally irresponsible and Constitutionally ignorant response about it].
[Quote]
RUSH: Well, in a nutshell, Speaker Boehner seemed to be saying that ...we got another congressional commission, blue ribbon or whatever you want to call it, we've had one of those. It's called Simpson-Bowles, and everybody's ignored it, forgotten about it. [Unquote]

This intentional and willful blindness on the part of Boehner, Limbaugh, etc. I say, is absolutely INEXCUSABLE.

------------------------------------------

End of July 26 Update ]]

 ------------------------------------------------
Final Update to this posting : August 19, 2011

The Oligarchy Committee is now known to be these:

Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA): 202-224-4254

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ): 202-224-4521

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH): 202-224-3353

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA): 202-224-2621

Senator John Kerry (D-MA): 202-224-2742

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT): 202-224-2651

Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX): 202-225-3484

Representative Fred Upton (R-MI): 202-225-3761

Representative Dave Camp (R-MI): 202-225-3561

Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD): 202-225-5341

Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA): 202-225-6235 

Representative Jim Clyburn (D-SC): 202-225-3315


Friday, July 22, 2011

Guest Blog: The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans, The 14th Amendment -- by P.A. Madison


(Only emphasis emboldened, mine.  -- Brianroy}


The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans



The 14th Amendment


By P.A. Madison


Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies


February 1, 2005







We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.






We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.






Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:





Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.






The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.






The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]






It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:





[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.






Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]






Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:






Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]






In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:






[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]






No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:






In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]






Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:






[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]






Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:





I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...





Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.





It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.






Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own home grown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."






Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."






The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.






A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.






James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:






When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]







What does it all mean?






In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?






The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.














Footnotes






[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (view actual page)


[2]. Id. at 2893


[3]. Id. at 2895


[4]. Id. at 2893


[5]. Id. at 2897


[6]. Id. at 1291


[7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.







Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.



Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Bohemian Grove , 2011, still on-going -- The History Channel Investigates




See also the prior post, including Alex Jones July 2000 video crashing of the Bohemian Grove, and the text and words of Sacrifice Ritual  @
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/01/insane-cultist-mentality-of-elite.html

$25,000 induction dues and 15 year waiting list to be one of the 2,700 plus leaders and members who attend. 

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Excerpts of: The Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence by Calvin Coolidge

The Declaration of Independence  July 4, 1776 opens with these words: 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it; and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—  ....


Excerpts of:
The Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence by Calvin Coolidge

At Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Recognize the 150th Anniversary
of the Declaration of Independence

July 5, 1926

whose mission statement is found at



We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. 
...
It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. 
...

It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. 

...
We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them. 

The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action. 

While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.
...
It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land. 

When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity.  

There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed. 

If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. 
...

It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization. 

The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. 

 Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.
But if these truths to which the declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that--
“The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people”
“The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.”
 
This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise, entitled “The Church's Quarrel Espoused,” in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers. 

While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise, It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his “best ideas of democracy” had been secured at church meetings.
That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that “All men are created equally free and independent.” It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, “Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man.” Again, “The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth . . . .” And again, “For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine.” And still again, “Democracy is Christ's government in church and state.” Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker as early as 1638.
When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature's God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say “The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven.”

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. 
...
We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that “Democracy is Christ's government.” The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.
...
We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship.  ...

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped. 

 The Religious History and Foundation of the United States has been assaulted until it has been largely purged by Progressives and haters of Christianity, and in its place, useful idiots of the masses, supported by a now dominant Communist-Socialist Agenda driven zealot Leftist Media attempting to rewrite and fabricate America's past as if by peer pressure consensus.  Pretend it never was, and poof, it never happened.  Fortunately, the US Supreme Court Cases, Presidential Speeches, old history books, etc., have not yet been purged of the facts and reality of America's history.  We must preserve the facts of the past, and the Conservative Protestant Faith into Jesus Christ as part of the unique American Experience in US Government in order to preserve the Republic of the United States.  

Some readers here might not know who Calvin Coolidge is on sight or have read any other excepts by him.  So here is the following speech,which if updated with new numbers / figures is just about as relative today, some 87 years later, as it was in 1924.  This is the first film of a US President speaking with the accompanying sound of his to match his voice with himself speaking on the film.  Please consider the ff. with a mind of a researcher and speech-writer that can update this very same speech, and it will become apparently relevant.