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
-- 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.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Friday, November 24, 2017

Guest Blog: Harvard Immunologist: Tetyana Obukhanych's Open Letter To Legislators That "Unvaccinated Children Pose ZERO Risk to Anyone"

Harvard Immunologist: Unvaccinated Children Pose ZERO Risk to Anyone and Here’s Why

Nov 8, 2017

Creative Commons Attribution 

(Informational sharing and repost from TSM  http://truthstreammedia.com)

Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) 
cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.

is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.

The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine)
now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.

[[[[Addendum example:  May cause Autism (per FDA warning label):


Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.
Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f).These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children. The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.

Hepatitis B 
is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. 

Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.

In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.
How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment.
When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.

Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?

Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:
“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”

Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called low vaccine responders. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.

Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.
Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.

It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.

Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.

Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?

The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15. Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.

Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism. The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.

Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure.

In summary: 

1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all;

 2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 

3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 

4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.

Taken together, these four facts make it clear

 that discrimination in a public school setting

 against children who are not vaccinated for

 reasons of conscience is completely 

unwarranted as the vaccine status of 

conscientious objectors poses no undue 

public health risk.

Sincerely Yours,



Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Happy Thanksgiving 2017!

Happy Thanksgiving 2017!

First Thanksgiving at Plymouth” 
  above, is that of an oil painting by Jennie A. Brownscombe,    created about A.D. 1914

53 Pilgrims were at the first Thanksgiving.  

 22 were men,
 4 were married women, 
 9 were boys of adolescent age, 
 5 were girls of adolescent age, 
 and the remaining 13 were young children, with no certainty as to their ages be they from months to 10 years of age, and  not all of whose names affirmed their sex.  For example, the names of those 13 smallest children in attendance were called:  
Bartholomew, Mary & Remember Allerton; 
Love & Wrestling Brewster;
Humility Cooper;
Samuel Eaton;
Damaris & Oceanus Hopkins;
Desire Minter;
Richard More;  and
Resolved & Peregrine White.

The first settlement was actually a commune called a Plantation.  Plantation is taken from the Latin and had the meaning of "Paradise", and the new continent began as a place where one could come and set up one's own paradise away from the tyrannies and oppressions of Europe and European tyrannical religious and political systems, and rise or fall by the work of their hands and the live almost wholly off the fruits of their own labors, as part of a joint commune or community, or by their own family or even in and of themselves.  

    In the late 1620s, along with the rise of religious oppression in England, only then did the colonization of America explode with upwards of 1200 and more one-way to America intercontinental passages a year...just less than 8 years later.  

But in 1621, the entire European population of this one lone (in the wilderness) commune rested at 26 adults (age 21 and above), and 27 children who ranged in age from birth to age 19 or 20.  These 26 adults and their children shared a feast of 3 days duration with some 90 Indians of a local tribe with which they had made peace with.  The Pilgrims carried their firearms openly and always had them openly carried and on their person or in less than arm's length reach, always about and handy,  during this entire feast, just in case, and there were no incidents of any hostility whatsoever. 

 In effect, our Second Amendment to the Constitution (effective as of December 15, 1791) 
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
was based in part on a then 170 years before ratification and implementation tradition that goes right back to the first Pilgrims themselves and by example to the very first Thanksgiving itself. 

According to the historical account taken by a co-participant William Bradford, in "Of Plimoth Plantation":

"They begane now to gather in ye small harvest they had, and to fitte up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health & strenght, and had all things in good
plenty; fFor as some were thus imployed in affairs abroad, others were excersised in fishing, aboute codd, & bass, & other fish, of which yey tooke good store, of which every family had their
portion. All ye somer ther was no want. 

And now begane to come in store of foule, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, &c. Besids, they had about a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since  harvest, Indean corn to yt proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largly of their plenty hear to their freinds in England, which were not fained, but true reports."

Fellow co-participant Edward Winslow,  summarized the same event from a different set of eyes and separately wrote:
"...our harvest being gotten in, our governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labours ; 

they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoyt, with some ninetie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine and others.

 And although it be not always so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie."

In 1623, the first cattle were migrated from Europe, along with goats, on a ship called "Anne".  About this time, perhaps as early as 1622, pigs were also imported to the Americas from Europe as well.  

We are a nation founded and established in FREEDOM  because we were founded and settled through a core belief system of Protestant Christianity.  All other religious belief systems are ALIEN to this core National Faith and National Identity, even though the parasite faith system of the Luciferians known as the Masons have corrupted the political and religious belief systems so that the core foundation is mostly unknown or ignored by most of the current generations now inhabiting the United States of America.  The Supreme Court records are not as yet destroyed, and the fact that this nation was once truly a Protestant Christian nation is a matter of Court record just 125 years ago.  


Page 143 U.S. 465
But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.

The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the 

Page 143 U. S. 466
ocean will be discovered," etc. 

The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, Queene, defender of the faith," etc., and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England."

The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words:
"We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well intended Desires."

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611, and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.

The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:
"Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration:
"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence

Page 143 U. S. 467
so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike state or Comonwelth, and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, 

enter into Combination and Confederation togather, 

to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus weh we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, weh according to the truth of the said gospell is now practiced amongst vs."

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:
"Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,"

Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . We therefore the Representatives of the united states of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,"

"And for the 

Page 143 U. S. 468
support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, 

    [Divine Providence simply means "GOD who foreknows /foresees, directs, provides for and takes care of".  It is the confession of GOD as a Being directly and though unseen, being involved in the affairs of men...to the good of those who love GOD, to the hurt of those who don't by a withdrawal of His support / provision/protection.  -- Brianroy]

 we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states 

[Remember, this decision by the US Supreme Court is written in 1892, almost 126 years after the Declaration of Independence, and going on 271 years after the first Thanksgiving of 1621.  -- Brianroy]

contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.

This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870:
"We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,"

It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." 

It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4:  
"The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God."

Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867:
"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he 

Page 143 U. S. 469
believes in the existence of God, 

[Note that the Court deems Atheists as generally incompetent witnesses and jurors by this decision.  Something that should have been pressed in later cases, but to my knowledge never used, though it should have been.  -- Brianroy] 

and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution."

Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780:
"It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832:
"No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state."

Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration:
"I, A. B., do profess 

Page 143 U. S. 470
faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.

While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:
"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious 

Page 143 U. S. 471
subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. 

Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion
of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, 
and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 43 U. S. 198, this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: 
"It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;"

the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of  charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.   ...."

To which I say, Amen.  Let us return to our true National Religious Heritage, and truly give thanks to GOD the Father through the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.  

Protestant Christianity is the TRUE NATIONAL HERITAGE and Religion of the United States of America that its people need to return to, and/or come to.  -- That's my input.  

Happy Thanksgiving.  

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

The Las Vegas massacre of October 1, 2017? Was It a Saudi Paid For Contract Terror Attack By Saudi Prince Talal Using Diplomatic Immunity Saudis As Shooters and U.S. Intelligence For Logistic Support?

This is an update addendum to my post of 
Thursday, October 19, 2017
"Las Vegas October 1, 2017 Massacre by Multiple Shooters and Multiple U.S. Intelligence Agencies Against WE THE PEOPLE As A Joint Exercise In Murder? Almost Transparently So."  

Note:   The following is an opinion by me and editorial conclusion by me.  -- Thanks.    Brianroy

It now appears that the primary killing action was done as a Saudi Prince contract (probably unknown to the King of Saudi Arabia, and certainly not sanctioned by him) and  there are indications that update us to the likelihood that the only real correction to the previous analysis less than 3 weeks after the event, is that the Las Vegas active shooters themselves were likely NOT U.S. Intelligence, unless they were dual U.S.-Saudi  Intel agents, and likely those who specifically had Saudi Diplomatic Immunity while active shooters and are so protected by that status.  It is a reasonable, but UNCONFIRMED allegation and an UNCONFIRMED conclusion at this point.  

During the October 1, 2017 Las Vegas Massacre, while I count at least 9 or 10 likely different shooters present, on the ff. video, it lists at minimum there were at least seven different shooters 

See also:

It appears that in direct connection to this Las Vegas terrorist incident of October 1, 2017, but as yet not publicly affirmed, it was NOT just a coincidence that there was a Saudi Royal Family arrest spree by their king, and it was NO COINCIDENCE that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal was among a number of Saudis that were arrested in Saudi Arabia, and their assets frozen, 

allegedly it seems, in connection with the Saudi King's own internal AND diplomatic response to the USA regarding Saudi involvement, allegedly, with the October 1, 2017  Las Vegas massacre of 58 U.S. Citizens, and murders of various more witnesses challenging the lone nut fiction with their clear counter-testimonials that seemed to seriously threaten the CIA contract public relations contrived  pseudo-narrative of the lone shooter.   

It is MORE than just a coincidence that at Mandalay Bay, where Saudi Prince Talal literally OWNED 5 floors of the Mandalay Bay that the patsy murderer was killed

and it is MORE than just coincidence that it was at the Mandalay Bay by alleged reputation that allegedly those who worked directly for Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal allegedly engaged in international arms deals, and various forms of espionage and terrorist activities that included liaisons with the CIA, but that he apparently was also involved DIRECTLY with known anti-America and to the subversion and overthrow of America agenda Islamic terrorist activity by a group of alleged to be Saudi SHOOTERS, ALL of whom had DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY on the night of October 1, 2017, who allegedly murdered United States Citizens, and allegedly got a free ride home on an aircraft allegedly owned by  Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal himself.  

There is also the presence of those Saudi Intelligence Officers who worked under the SAUDI company called ETS Managagement as part of their "employee" cover that very same night in Vegas.  But because of non-disclosure clauses, the U.S. Intelligence Community refuses to talk about it, except for one who leaked the factual data out.  

When the United States illegally went to war in Libya, Saudi Arabia's ETS Management team of Saudi Intelligence Officers were also on the ground there, again, allegedly helping conduct violent subversive warfare there as well.  Whoever the actual shooters were, two things seem apparent: alleged Saudi Diplomatic Immunity, and alleged deep ties and protection to the Saudi Royal Family through Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.  

The specific identities of these Saudi Mass murderers (be they the alleged ETS Management or other of Saudi Intelligence with Diplomatic Immunity), the specific identities of these men are allegedly known to a select group within the high echelons of our United States Federal Government that is allegedly something to the effect of less than 40 people within the Federal Government, and generally known by hundreds more, allegedly including POTUS Trump, Vice President Pence, and White House Chief of Staff General Kelly.  

 The allegation is as yet unconfirmed, but it appears to be true, and indeed clearly appears to be the case of why the news blackout and FBI acting like a cross between buffoon Keystone Cops and paid off Saudi compromised United Nations allegiance Police State forces, rather than those having ANY obligation to protect United States Citizens or maintain their oath to the United States Constitution.  

The corruption inside the Federal Bureau of Investigation gets worse, as the FBI directs an exclusive list of Las Vegas shooting victims to join a class action by their own hand selected Las Vegas / Los Angeles Law Firm who clearly are allegedly working as double agents for the behest of the FBI and the Saudis against the victims themselves.  http://rootforamerica.com/story-shocking-fbi-scandal/

Says Root in one of his Vegas Insight commentaries regarding the MGM CEO who effectually made MGM fertile ground for Islamist Terror to even migrate to Vegas through Mandalay even BEFORE the event could even be conceived to happen by Root until he saw it weeks later :
"MGM CEO Jim Murren...hitching MGM’s wagon to a front group for Hamas.
...giving millions of dollars to CAIR- an organization tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Really? "  -- W. A. Root on August 31, 2017

It is NOT enough for a bunch of Saudis to merely be arrested, if they are indeed the guilty parties.  The TRUTH must be made manifest to the world, and these men who were directly the Vegas shooters and those who gave the order,whoever they are, be they including Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal himself, if he gave the order or even merely financed the operation,  should damn well be publicly outed for roles in specifics and details, and then executed.  And it should be done quickly in a matter of days or weeks, certainly before the end of 2017.  Nothing less the full penalty and public outing of what they did, if these specific people indeed are responsible, will suffice.  

[[[[Update November 21, 2017:  

More Video -

23 minute video with many witnesses mentioning the Helicopters at Vegas...You know, the ones that included a machine gun strafing the crowds below

Shepard Ambellas of Intellihub lays out the helicopter proof 

in this ff. video:

And also please check out and save a copy of Niall Bradley of Soft.net's October 21, 2017 assessment MUST READ AND SAVE article
Las Vegas Terror Attack: Clear Evidence of Multiple Shooters at Multiple Hotels

End of November 21, 2017 update]]]]