Bernie Sanders suffered his heart attack in the first week of October.

I seriously doubt if Bernie connected any dots regarding his heart attack and his anti-Israel platform.

You see, Bernie is only culturally Jewish. Bernie does not believe in God.

Most Jews in America are secular. They love to speak about the traditions of Judaism. < Think “Fiddler on the Roof.”>

But God?  Nah… they’ll take a pass on that.

And Israel? Since secular Jews exclusively follow Leftist news sources, they are brainwashed into being anti-Israel. Never mind that Israel only defends herself from attacks perpetuated by Hamas and Hezbollah.

And never mind that Israel is in a constant state of fear because Iran wants her wiped off the face of the earth – sent into the sea and never to be heard from again.

After all, to Iran, America is Big Satan and Israel is little Satan.

Bernie Sanders Does Not Read the Bible 

If Bernie did read the Bible, he might read the following verse of Scripture, and might think about his heart attack in a different way. But because Bernie is Lost and a rabid Israel-hating Leftist, he cannot understand the Word of God.

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).

He may be one of the people whom our God has given over to a depraved mind. And if that is the case, Bernie has no chance to be saved.

Bernie almost entered eternity without Jesus Christ in early October. He would have been eternally damned to a fiery hell. Absolutely no way to be reconciled with God – the God whom Bernie does not believe is real!

The Return of Bernie 

It seems that the Lord was very gracious to Bernie Sanders. He allowed him to survive the heart surgery in which doctors placed two stents into his heart.

But I fear for Sanders. As you will read in this article from the Times of Israel, Bernie is now a favorite among Muslim Americans.

He is much like George Soros – different times, but the same evilness towards his own people.

I want the readers to remember that the Times of Israel is much like our NY Times.

From timesofisrael.com

JTA — Bernie Sanders was one of only two Democratic presidential candidates to address the Islamic Society of North America Convention in August, the largest annual gathering of Muslim Americans in the country.

Organizers invited the 10 highest-polling contenders at the time to the Houston event, but the Vermont senator and Julian Castro were the only ones to accept. Sanders received loud applause and a standing ovation for a speech that repeatedly invoked his refugee father’s flight from poverty and anti-Semitism in Poland.

Among a crowded field of Democratic hopefuls, the Jewish candidate is one of the few who have made repeated efforts to reach out to Muslim Americans, community leaders told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“Sanders has taken an active role in elevating Muslim communities and Muslim spokespersons in the national presidential debate,” said Robert McCaw, director of the government affairs department at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “He’s not shy in going into Muslim spaces publicly and endorsing our issues and making them a part of the campaign.”

Sanders was the first presidential candidate to visit a mosque following the March shooting at two mosques in New Zealand. With his appointment of Faiz Shakir as campaign manager, he became the first major presidential candidate to appoint a Muslim in that role. He has picked high profile Muslims as surrogates — including Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour and comedian Amer Zahr, both Palestinian Americans.

Prominent Muslim politicians, in turn, have endorsed Sanders. They include Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who came out for Sanders last week. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., is set to join Sanders at a rally in Detroit this weekend and reportedly is going to endorse him as well. Omar and Tlaib, the first Muslim women elected to Congress, have been the repeated target of attacks by President Donald Trump.

It’s hardly a given that Muslim Americans would support a left-leaning Democrat.

The Muslim-American community is estimated at 3.45 million and it’s diverse, including immigrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, as well as a sizable number of African-Americans born in the United States. The community is close to split evenly between self-described liberals and conservatives.

The 2000 election is often seen as a turning point. That year, a political action committee made up of Muslim groups endorsed Republican George W. Bush, who had made efforts to reach out to the Muslim community, over Democrat Al Gore. Polls are inconsistent on how Muslims actually voted in that election. CAIR said 70 percent of Muslim-American voters backed the GOP candidate, while a study by the pollster Zogby International said the number was just 42%.

But the Iraq War and the Patriot Act were unpopular among Muslim Americans, and by the next election both Zogby and CAIR were showing overwhelming Muslim support for John Kerry, the Democrat running against Bush.

The situation has scarcely changed. In 2016, CAIR found that only 13 percent of Muslims voted for Trump. A Zogby poll ahead of the election found that only 12 percent of Muslims said they would vote for Trump.

“The Democratic Party has more appealing factors right now than the Islamophobic sentiment that is seen exuding from the Republican Party,” McCaw said.

Still, a 78-year-old Jewish socialist from Brooklyn isn’t an obvious favorite among Muslim Americans, whose relations with US Jews have often been complicated by differences over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“The conversation and the relationship between the American Muslim community and the American Jewish community has done a 180-degree change, and that’s reflected in the support for Bernie,” said Khan, who doesn’t support Sanders but understands his appeal to fellow Muslims.

Sarsour, the Sanders surrogate and former Women’s March organizer, did not respond to requests for comment, but she told the Los Angeles Times last month that Sanders “crushes the stereotype that Muslims and Jews are natural enemies.” Sarsour also cited Sanders’s defense of Tlaib and Omar in the face of Trump’s attacks and his being “outspoken on Palestinian rights” as reasons for Muslim support.

Sanders has stood out among Democratic contenders for his willingness to criticize Israel. He was the first serious candidate to suggest that aid to Israel could be contingent on its compliance with US policy, although Sen. Elizabeth Warren has now embraced that view. He has also said that he supports Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and called himself “100 percent pro-Israel,” but repeatedly has come down hard on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, including calling it “racist.”

“There is a sense that this is a guy who would do with us and respect us in a way that other candidates wouldn’t,” said James Zogby, a former Democratic National Committee member and director of the Arab-American Institute who has endorsed Sanders.

For some Muslim voters, Sanders’s Jewish identity makes them even more likely to support him.

“I think in terms of being a socialist Jewish guy from Brooklyn, it appealed to me because I know a couple of socialist Jews from Brooklyn and my parents grew up around lefty Jewish people,” said Hamzah Raza, a 23-year-old graduate student in Islamic studies at the Harvard Divinity School.

Raza, who grew up in Maryland and New Jersey, organized a group of young Muslims to pray for Sanders following news earlier this month that he had suffered a heart attack. Some 40 young Muslims from around the world ended up taking part in a complete recitation of the Quran on behalf of Sanders on the messaging platform WhatsApp, as first reported by the Religion News Service.

“They were really eager,” Raza told JTA. “People really wanted to be a part of it.”

Raza said the candidate’s outreach to the community and his progressive stances on a number of issues appeal to him, including health care, foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“I wouldn’t say Muslim Americans are a monolith,” Raza said. “I don’t think we’re behind any particular candidate. But I would say Bernie Sanders is by far the most popular.”  source

I am actually glad that my father is not here to see Bernie Sanders disparaging Israel. He would have been furious.

Bernie Sanders learned nothing from his brush with death. In fact, it’s as if he returned to the campaign trail with even more resolve to bash Israel and thumb his nose at God – the God he says is not there.

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!!

grandmageri422@gmail.com

Articles at grandmageri422.me

First of all, I want to apologize to those who have been patiently waiting for my article on this subject, occasionally giving me a nudge with a polite email.

There is just so much to write about in this often unrecognizable world we live in. The wickedness has now made me certain that demonic possession is rampant. The demons seem to be laughing at us through drag queens either reading to children in neighborhood libraries, or like yesterday, one in NYC simulated an abortion – blood and all, and then turned cannibalistic when the drag queen drank the fake blood pouring from the plastic doll. “He” (I refuse to use politically correct pronouns; and if anyone has a problem with that, I will gladly go to jail) ended this satanic display by pulling the head off of the doll and licking the doll’s face.

All of this disgusting display was done with a song called “Cannibal” playing in the background. I don’t know who I am more disgusted with – the drag queens or the parents who gleefully bring their tiny tots into libraries and encourage their little ones to sit in the laps of these depraved and possessed humans. Most of these drag queens have been arrested for pedophilia in the past, but that doesn’t bother the parents of these children – not one bit.

Onto Fluoridation of our Water:

Years ago, when I first battled hypothyroidism, I began to research fluoride. I remembered how our dentist pushed this chemical on our kids. They even wanted our children to have “Fluoride treatments” which I finally stopped allowing the children to have.

Getting back to my research, I was shocked to find that most of the developed world did NOT add fluoride to the water supply. That sent red flags up immediately for me. Almost all of Europe does not have added fluoride in their water supplies. So, why did we have it here in America?

Then I began to read that the whole “Fluoride is great for your teeth” rubbish that we all believed – was not proven, and I read many papers from scientists and doctors claiming that this was just not true.

We all know that fluoride is added to most all toothpastes. You can get Tom’s of Maine toothpaste without fluoride.

Something a bit funny

I have absolutely no idea why this would stick in my brain as a young child – but it did. I told my husband about this last night, and we had a good laugh over it.

“Crest has been shown to be an effective decay preventive dentifrice, when used in a conscientiously applied program of oral hygiene and regular professional care.”

Now WHY would a child of 8 or 9 memorize that? I haven’t a clue.

But the big selling factor of toothpastes back then was that they had added fluoride to the toothpaste. Everyone thought that this was the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Many states and counties in America have given their residents the choice to fluorinate the water or not. I believe that we have been indoctrinated with the lies about fluoride; so when it is put out as a referendum to be decided by the people, they balk at any change from the norm.

Back to Europe

As I said, most of Europe does not add fluoride to their water supplies. I have read that Hitler used fluoride in the death camps to sedate the people. Of course, he used a much more concentrated amount, but I thought that it would be worth mentioning. Rather creepy, don’t you think?

Bottled Water

My husband and I decided years ago to find out which bottled water had the least amount of fluoride and to only drink that. At first we drank Deer Park, and for the last few years we drink bottled water from Wegmans.

Before this time, we used filters on our tap. They did a good job of ridding the water of bacteria and other things that we would not want in our bodies. But we found out that the water filter – no matter how expensive – could not rid the water of fluoride.

We read that the only way to do that is a process called reverse osmosis. That would have been extremely expensive, and that is when we decided to drink bottled water. You can actually look up online various bottled waters and find out how much fluoride they contain.

From scholarship.law.wm.edu

Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent?

Most Americans are under the impression that compulsory water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to fight tooth decay. Pro-fluoridation campaigns by the American Dental Association and the Department of Health and Human Services have ensured this perception, successfully obscuring the more disturbing reality that a significant number of leading scientists, medical and dental professionals, and educated members of the public continue to repudiate both the medical necessity and ethical legitimacy of compulsory water fluoridation.

¹ In truth, scientific evidence is steadily mounting against water fluoridation, with emerging studies showing that not only is fluoridation not effective at achieving the stated public health goal of combating dental caries, but also that excess exposure to fluoride contributes to a host of far more serious health concerns, particularly in the very population the public health measure was originally alleged to benefit: children.

² With growing evidence suggesting that systemic intake of excess fluoride is linked to dental and skeletal fluorosis, endocrine disruption, hypothyroidism, bone cancer, and lowered IQs in children, it is not surprising that hundreds of U.S. and Canadian cities and towns have now opted to either reject or cease fluoridating their water supplies, joining over 97% of Europe and most of the developed world in rejecting compulsory water fluoridation.

³ In 2011, in light of new scientific evidence as well as a recommendation by the National Research Council (“NRC”), Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced its intention to reexamine its currently allowed Maximum Contaminant Levels (“MCL”) of fluoride in drinking water.

⁴ EPA’s decision was based on a 2006 report by the NRC, which considered numerous studies linking a variety of serious health problems with excess exposure to fluoride, and concluded that EPA should lower its current maximum contaminant levels for fluoride in order to minimize the risks of severe dental fluorosis, bone fractures, and possibly skeletal fluorosis.

⁵ The Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) shortly thereafter recommended that community water districts lower their allowable fluoride levels to 0.7 parts per million (“ppm”), the lowest level in a range earlier recommended by DHHS.

⁶ This recommended change sprang from DHHS’s recognition that original “optimal” fluoride levels were set without considering human fluoride consumption from other products, including fluoridated toothpaste and food and beverages made with fluoridated water.

⁷ As of the writing of this Article, EPA has not yet come out with any revised MCLs, and it is doubtful that a recommendation to entirely eliminate artificial fluoride in the public water supply will come easily from a federal agency long in support of the benefits of compulsory water fluoridation. Regardless of the outcome, federal agency reconsideration of the safe levels of fluoride in the drinking supply already raises significant questions about the continued public health justification of compulsory water fluoridation.

Over the last sixty years, courts have been highly deferential to state and local governments challenged on compulsory water fluoridation, generally applying the minimal scrutiny of the rational basis test to uphold the practice as a legitimate public health measure.

⁸ Yet even rational basis scrutiny requires that the public health measure be “reasonable and necessary to secure the . . . health . . . of the public.”

⁹ But what constitutes an unreasonable public health measure? Is there a scientific tipping point after which an entrenched public health measure is no longer justifiable? A number of public health law scholars have suggested that existing public health laws be continually reevaluated in light of current scientific knowledge and evolving public notions of personal liberty and bodily integrity.

¹⁰ Under one proffered system of evaluation, public health laws are only justified when public health authorities are able to demonstrate: (1) a significant risk to public health based on scientific evidence; (2) the intervention’s effectiveness by showing a reasonable fit between means and ends; (3) that economic costs are reasonable; (4) that human rights burdens are reasonable; and (5) that benefits, costs, and burdens, are fairly distributed.

¹¹ This Article argues that under this systematic approach, compulsory water fluoridation is no longer a justifiable public health measure, and continued fluoridation schemes veer dangerously close to ongoing human research experiments without informed consent.

Read rest of article HERE

Brethren, I believe that what we have read here clearly shows that there is a problem with continuing the fluoridation of drinking water without definitive research and a coming together of scientists, doctors, dentists, and environmental experts; a cross section of professionals (who have no vested interest in fluoride), and finally make an informed decision for the benefit of the people of our country.

When a referendum has been done here and there in America, the people do not have the necessary information to make good decisions. I believe that the EPA should come out with a condensed booklet which is comprehensive and can be understood by the average American. This booklet should be mailed to every home in our country. This is the only way that people can be informed so that they are able to make good decisions if a nationwide referendum is put to a vote nationally.

If this is just not feasible, then I believe that our government should make the decision to no longer fluoridate our drinking water to keep the public safe.

Of course, this decision would affect companies which sell toothpaste and mouthwashes which contain fluoride. I’m sure that a decision to end fluoridation of drinking water would have a tremendous impact on these companies, as the big selling point for their products has always been about fluoride.

Until then, we will drink bottle water. I hope that this article has helped some of you to understand fluoride a bit better. I also hope that you will pass on this information to your loved ones.

This is definitely a topic that needs to be discussed across our nation.

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!!

grandmageri422@gmail.com

Articles at grandmageri422.me