My Grandson is finishing medical school. He has been invited to study in Germany once he has his license in a research facility. Which is how he plans to finance his private practice when he returns.

When he told one of his class mates he intends to open a free clinic a few nights a week, his friend commented: "What the hell for? I expect to be well paid for my services. Don't be an i***t." My Grandson went into medicine because he wants to be part of the solution of helping people without insurance get quality care. When I asked him if all students felt that way, he replied no but a great number of them do.

You might have a point if the only mention of Jesus of Nazareth was in the New Testament but He is also mentioned in the writings of Josephus AND Philo, two Jewish historians in the 1st century. No, Jesus of Nazareth was real. By the way Josephus was actually the tetrarch of Galilee. Mohammad was illiterate and never wrote anything. The Qur'an and the hadiths of Tobari were not written until at least 150 years AFTER the death of Mohammad. It was all based on traditions and no eye witnesses. Did you know that Allah was actually a black rock housed in the shrine called the Ka'ba in Mecca. A rock, imagine that. Worshiping a rock is idolatry pure and simple.

It is a false Quotation which claims the Quran called for and even justified the World Trade Center attacks. In reality, the verse quoted is not in the Quran, and it is not even a close t***slation.

False Quote:
Quran ( 9:11) -- For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.

Actual Quote:
Quran 9:11 -- But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

J Anthony,

They didn't "cede" the power to business, they SOLD it to enrich themselves, and are still selling it to enrich themselves.
(The power they "ceded"...was that the power to write tax laws and regulations, and give grants, that businesses don't have?)

It seems we are both saying the same thing, except you seem to have the cart before the horse. Businesses don't write laws or regulations which create the debt and the conditions for the need of the "loans". (They pay corrupt politicians who have that power to do that.)

I'm not saying businesses are not complicit in the problems, they certainly are but are one step down the tier from where the real power is if you want to stop the process.

Your post said: "We must reclaim that right, but not until we have cleaned out those in government who are complicit in the scheme."....you are right, that would be an essential first step. BUT..you seem to be relying on honest politicians replacing those you "clean out", this is not realistic.

Have you considered that the only realistic way to stop the selling of political power is to take that power away from the Federal government politicians so they don't have a lot to sell? (Hard to do but much more possible that making all politicians honest). Go back to our founding document, the constitution, reserve the power to the citizens and the states as prescribed by that document.

Work for a balanced budget and reasonable spending, that should take care of the FED reserve problem when we start spending only what we take in (no loans needed).

1oldgeezer

BY EVAN HALPER AND MICHAEL A. MEMOLI
CONCORD, N.H. — On the second day of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s swing through this key primary state on Tuesday, her schedule included a pitch about the importance of “the jobs of tomorrow.” But as was often the case on her first trip here as a p**********l candidate, there were reminders of yesterday.
Clinton can’t help but wax nostalgic on the campaign trail even as she seeks to reboot the Clinton brand. As she hopped around New Hampshire this week, she expressed her fondness for the state by drawing on experiences that, for better or worse, reminded v**ers how long the Clintons have been in their lives. She recalled the fun of celebrating her birthday on the Granite State campaign trail for Bill Clinton — 24 years ago. As she greeted cafeteria workers, talk turned to the time they met him.
Meanwhile, on another college campus several hundred miles away in Washington, her husband was reminiscing about his interactions with such foreign leaders as Helmut Kohl and Nelson Mandela. He said in a speech at Georgetown University that he “loved being in public life,” which he equated to “peeling an onion that had no end.”
“We’re not big on quitting in my family,” he said at one point. “You may have noticed that.”
It’s been more than two decades since the Clintons first campaigned nationally with Fleetwood Mac’s anthem “Don’t Stop” (thinking about tomorrow) — a length of time that has already invited one potential foe to call Hillary Clinton a “candidate of yesterday.”
But the Clinton campaign is embracing her experience, not distancing itself from it.
Throughout her stops in New Hampshire and last week in Iowa, Clinton seemed intent on demonstrating her fluency with the issues that came through decades in public service — and suggesting that sometimes experience is needed to know when to change course.
“We’ve got to be imagining outside the old box,” Clinton said at a factory that makes play kitchens and other early-childhood furniture, as she steered the roundtable discussion to how to reinvigorate manufacturing. “It is not enough just to tread water. We need to get ahead and stay ahead.”
But as Clinton tried to frame her family’s political history as an asset, there were times in New Hampshire when it was a nuisance.
It felt like the 1990s all over again this week as she took her first questions from the media since launching her campaign. The questions related to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” against the Clintons — a term she used during her husband’s administration to describe a cottage industry of ideologically driven partisans who developed a massive following investigating alleged Clinton misdeeds.
The conservatives’ efforts have only grown bigger over the years.
The latest allegations involve the many millions of dollars Bill Clinton and the family’s foundation solicited from foreign governments — some with troubling human rights records — at the same time those governments were seeking help from the Obama administration, where Hillary Clinton was secretary of State.
But it might as well have been Whitewater, the early Clinton scandal involving a real estate deal gone bad that set off a years-long investigation by a special counsel. Eventually, the U.S. House impeached President Clinton on unrelated charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was acquitted in the Senate.
Hillary Clinton seemed to draw from 20-year-old White House talking points in responding to the new accusations involving the foundation. It all comes with being a Clinton, she told reporters, so get ready for more.
“We will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks,” she said in New Hampshire on Monday.
Some Democrats could do without the deja vu.
“I just don’t know if we need those distractions right now,” said Nancy Burke, a retired teacher who was taking part in a peace protest in downtown Concord. Asked to be specific, she responded, “The Clintons,” meant as the catchall that includes decades-old controversies as well as newer ones, such as the private email server Clinton used while running the State Department.
“It takes the eye off the main thrust of what we need to do, whether they are her fault or not,” Burke said. “I just would hope that we as a country have moved beyond the Clintons.”
In Washington, the audience that Bill Clinton addressed included a handful of longtime members of the Clinton orbit surrounded by undergrads who remember little or nothing of his time in the White House.
Clinton was asked where he saw the students’ generation going, and how their path would be different. His expansive answer covered technological and medical advances, warnings about the “calamitous consequences” of c*****e c****e and nuclear weapons and his hope that we will “more fairly apportion the wealth we are creating.”
Daria Labazova, a sophomore who submitted the question, said after the speech that most of what she knows about Clinton’s presidency comes from her parents. But she was impressed by how he related to her generation, “even though he wasn’t really our president.”
She said her peers feel “reinvigorated” by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, not just because of her potential historic role as the first female president, “but also as someone who isn’t afraid to get to the nitty-gritty problems.”
“We don’t really want to hear what our parents heard. We want to go in a new path — less about politics and more about solving our problems,” she said. evan.halper@latimes.com   michael.memoli  @latimes.com   Halper reported from Concord and Memoli from Washington.

A measure requiring schools to phase out the team name ‘Redskins’ clears an Assembly committee.
BY PATRICK MCGREEVY
SACRAMENTO — Public schools in California would have to phase out use of the term “Redskins” for their athletic team names or mascots under a bill advanced Tuesday by a state Assembly panel.
The California Racial Mascots Act would bar the use of the name by public schools beginning Jan.1. But to address cost issues, the measure would allow schools to continue to use sports and band uniforms and other materials bearing the name as long as they selected a new name for future use and did not buy all new uniforms bearing the old name.
Schools would be able to replace up to 20% of uniforms with the old name until Jan. 1, 2019.
“There is obviously a lack of respect when we allow teams to brand themselves with racial slurs,” said Assemblyman Luis Alejo (DWatsonville), the bill’s author. “The R-word was once used to describe Native American scalps sold for bounty, and in today’s society it has become widely recognized as a racial slur.”
Alejo noted that in 1972, Stanford switched its team name from the Indians to the Cardinal. “Other universities and hundreds of high schools have followed suit since then,” he said.
The Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media approved the bill, which goes to another committee before it can reach the Assembly floor.
One backer of the measure is the Yocha Dehe Win-tun Nation, a Northern California tribe that last year launched a campaign against the Washington Redskins professional football team.
“There doesn’t have to be a r****t intent to produce a r****t outcome,” tribe leaders wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
The legislation would prohibit schools from buying or distributing yearbooks, newspapers, programs or other materials that bear the name “Redskins.”
Four public schools in California use the term for their teams. One is Gustine High School in Merced County.
The bill, AB 30, is opposed by the town of Gus-tine, which has a population of about 5,500. In a letter to legislators, city leaders called for the decision to be made locally.
“At no time in the 80 years that Gustine High School has proudly displayed the Redskins mascot has any disparaging or derogatory use of the Redskin moniker taken place,” the letter said.
“The respect that the community and the School District have for Native Americans is clear and well documented,” it said.
The Assembly committee also v**ed Tuesday to support a bill that would direct the California Interscholastic Federation to develop guidelines for the purpose of classifying cheer-leading as an interscholastic sport starting in 2017.
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) said her proposal, AB 949, would provide better training, safety and facilities for cheerleaders at a time when many are injured doing complicated acrobatics.
“Cheerleaders are athletes, and it is time to recognize cheerleading as an official sport in school,” Gonzalez said. patrick.mcgreevy

Today marks the 179th Anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto. That is the decisive battle that won Texas independence from Mexico and the dictator Santa Anna. The 'Texicans' of the time led their charge upon the encamped Mexican army with shouts of 'Remember the Alamo' & 'Remember Goliad'...two battles won by Santa Anna's forces prior to San Jacinto. Texican forces in those engagements had been totally annihilated.

Texas became an independent nation soon thereafter. It was short-lived, however, as we annexed the United States less than ten years later. :mrgreen:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No it doesn't and it's all been running under a ParaMilitary MOU from way back my friend...

All of your so called Real Constitutional Rights have been suspended when they signed the Emergency declaration act that no President has ever been allowed to reverse .... among other things....

You see 8 Family Banksters running the Unites States Incorporated in the Private District of Criminals (Columbia) via extension of the Rothschilds seal ... have a secret meeting with every F**E Sworn Oath President after Inauguration...

None are allowed to undo what's been done or you get whacked like Kennedy & friends...

They all disappear for about 24 - 72 hours... and when they re emerge they've all seemed to aged years...

You can google all this yourself...

Places, times, events, campaigns, oaths, before and after... blah blah blah

Vomit !

I'm sure you get the point... but most the Clowns on OPP do not !


They aren't going to hand the keys over to Freedom and Constitutional Reversals when that time comes.. .

Convention of states
Common Law Grand Jury
etc...

They're going to Turn off the Switch, lights out, CRASH the entire system... flood our cities with every possible ASSET they have Boots & Artillery and they are going to

MURDER

AS MANY AS they can to stay in power...

Most of the people you've known your whole life... just don't really know what or who they're really dealing with !

You See ?

By Ron Ewart
April 15, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

GOVERNMENT CAN GET YOU ANYTIME IT WANTS. If a person, group of people, or a government has power over you, that means they can control what you do, or force you to do what you don't want to do. That power comes either by the force of law with corresponding punishments for not obeying the law, or by force of violence using the gun or other weapons that can threaten or take your life, or rob you of your liberty.

In many of our articles over the last 10 years, we have written about the growing power of the American government, at all levels, but mostly at the federal level. No matter what anyone thinks, the evidence points directly at a trend towards absolute power. That is what governments do over time. But the only way to project absolute power is by force and that force comes in the form of civilian or military power where that power can incarcerate you, or k**l you …... for any reason!

The Founders went to great lengths to set up a government system that was based on the rule of law, not rule by force. Overtime, as laws proliferated into millions of laws piled on top of one another, enforcement of all those laws became problematic. As more people broke the laws, many without knowing it, government's response was to increase enforcement.

In a previous article on laws we wrote: "Every Time A New Law Is Written"

"By just sheer numbers, the more laws that are written, the less likely the entire population will even know about the laws, or understand them, or know of their consequences or penalties for violation, much less be in compliance with them. The consequence of too many laws is that huge segments of the public are totally unaware of their existence. And yet, under the law, ignorance of the law is not a defense. Then, when the hapless individual comes face-to-face with the law, it results in anger and frustration for that individual and a spiraling degradation of freedom and liberty for all of us."

"Many laws are written at the insistence of lobbying or special interest groups with very narrow and purposely hidden agendas. The public never has an opportunity for real input and society as a whole is not benefited. Partisan politics often compromises a new law into meaningless, often conflicting legislation, leaving loopholes over which lawyers can argue over for decades."

"In the final analysis, extending legislating and law creation to its absurdity, one arrives at a point where there are so many laws that no one is in compliance and we end up losing our ability to enforce any of them. We become in fact, lawless by the very chaos that the policy makers have created."

UNLESS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SENDS IN FEDERAL TROOPS!

What this all boils down to is that the more laws there are and the more people there are to be controlled by those laws, the greater the need of enforcement by guns. It is clear that government will never allow the people TO BECOME LAWLESS. After all, government's role is to keep the peace and restore order no matter how many liberties the people have to give up.

As the federal government grew larger and more powerful, it became the logical repository for the military power needed to control all those millions of people to make sure they comply with all the millions of laws that the people know nothing about. They must keep order and control at all costs. But it must be remembered that local law enforcement is trained to use minimal force, where the U. S. Military is trained to use maximum, overwhelming force. That is the undeniable difference and a direct threat to individual liberty.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (Pub. L. 18 USC P 1385) was supposed to keep the U. S. Military from enforcing local and federal law, or assisting local law enforcement in that duty. Well before the Posse Comitatus Act was passed, Congress passed the I**********n Act of 1807 (Pub. L. 10 USC 331 thru 335) which was a "set of laws that govern the ability of the President to deploy U. S. troops on American soil." Such deployment could only come at the request of a governor of the state in which an event was taking place requiring a larger military force. This all changed after Hurricane Katrina where the Louisiana governor did not request federal troops to restore order. Congress went ahead and modified the I**********n Act as follows:

"Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the 'I**********n Act,' and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the I**********n Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or 'those obstructing the enforcement of the laws.' The law changed the name of the chapter from 'I**********n' to 'Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.'"

But ladies and gentlemen, it gets far worse from there. The Department of Defense (DOD) has inserted itself into the use of U. S. Military force on American soil and enforcing local law and assisting local law enforcement. In our research we ran across a 2004 DOD document (republished in 2009) that spells out in detail that Posse Comitatus is dead and the I**********n Act must be expanded. Here are excerpts from that document.



Legal Authority to Use Federal Troops to Enforce the Law

The I**********n Act is the most important legal authority for the President to authorize the use of federal troops to enforce the law. The I**********n Act (there is really no single 'I**********n Act' per se but this name has been applied collectively to the four statutes noted below) consists of four statutes enacted at different times for different reasons that, when considered as a whole, provide the power that Presidents have used many times as the legal basis for using troops to enforce the law. The four sections of the act are as follows:

• Title 10, Section 331 was enacted in 1792 in response to challenges to the taxing power of the federal government. It allows the President, at the request of a governor or state legislature, to put down an i**********n by calling into federal service sufficient m*****a to "suppress the i**********n."

• Title 10, Section 332 was enacted in 1861 at the outset of the Civil War. It allows the President to use the armed forces to enforce the laws or suppress a r*******n whenever, in his opinion, unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages or r*******n against the authority of the United States make it impractical to enforce the laws using the course of judicial proceedings.

• Title 10, Section 333 was enacted in 1869 during the Reconstruction Era. It allows the President to use the armed forces or m*****a to respond to i**********n, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracies that prevent a state government from enforcing the laws.

• Title 10, Section 334 was enacted in 1861. It prescribes that the President shall issue a proclamation calling on insurgents to disperse before using the m*****a or armed forces to enforce the law.

The I**********n Act is the most sweeping authority for the President to authorize and order the use of the federal troops for domestic operations. The President may not act on warning or even at the start of an incident, but must wait until the governor or a state legislature asks for federal assistance. This tends to discourage advance pr********ns and movements of troops-although Presidents have authorized such actions. This tiered approach in which the federal government acts only after local and state governments have failed, was workable when the cost of delayed response was acceptable, but it is inappropriate for the current situation.

This should scare the pants off you! The older I**********n Act and the revisions thereto, have all but repealed Posse Comitatus. The President can do what he wishes, anytime he wants with federal troops. That is an awesome power.

We have placed links to the evolution of the "I**********n Act" and the entire above DOD document on our website for your review at this link. You have to read the whole DOD document if you really want to understand what is going on.

Why do you suppose that the U. S. Military has been conducting massive training operations throughout the U. S., like operation Jade Helm 15 as depicted in the above image?

(Jade Helm 15 link)

It isn't all training for warfare elsewhere on the planet. It is in fact training to put down i**********n by disgruntled Americans and to maintain civil order when local law enforcement can't do the job, pursuant to the detailed outline in the above referenced DOD document.

It is no coincidence that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has put out lists of potential d******c t*******ts that include Christian groups, m*****as, patriots and returning military vets. They know what is in your mind and what you may be planning and they are planning ahead for that eventuality. It is no accident that the U. S. Military is conducting huge, multi-state training operations, or building FEMA camps for massive internment.

The Progressives have been in virtual control of America for over 100 years. They intend to remain in control, even if they can't do it by v**es. They have taken over the schools, academia, government institutions, the news media and they will maintain their control by force of arms if patriots (conservatives) even so much as hint at challenging their authority. It's been coming for a long time. It is the final evolution of a liberal, socialist, ideologically driven dictatorship.

For those in our reading audience who think that a group of armed m*****a can stand up against the full force and fury of the U. S. Military, they had better think again. If we are going to change the course that America is now on, it will have to be by peaceful means.

The only way i**********n or uprising by Americans can win against the U. S. Military is the organization of millions of armed citizens with seasoned leadership, command and control and extensive training, who will put everything on the line to challenge the final militarization of America by federal forces. And they had better hope that the federal troops don't shoot to k**l, because those federal forces are also made up of Americans. If civilian Americans are pitted against federal troop Americans in a shooting war, the U. S. Constitution will be annulled and martial law will be declared. We can almost guarantee that what comes out of that shooting war between Americans and Americans will not be a Constitutional Republic.



We are just as disturbed by Operation Jade Helm 15 as are many other Americans. Consequently, we have filed a formal FOIA request with the Department of Defense, asking some very specific questions about this operation and demanding specific documents. You will find a link to a PDF version of our FOIA request on our website at this link. We will publish responses to the FOIA request in later articles ….. if any.

Please understand that this FOIA request could put a target on our back and put us at considerable risk for having the audacity to challenge them personally. They are already monitoring us and have been for several years. We know just by observing the statistics on our website.

Why do we do this ladies and gentlemen?

Because we strongly believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States and the individual liberty it secures.

It could be considered treason that our president and all other public office holders and bureaucrats don't do the same.

It is a travesty that millions of Americans won't join us, or others, in this effort. Their silence could be America's undoing.

[NOTE: The forgoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of the publisher.]

© 2015 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved