Common Sense Commentary: The root of the truth about unjust, ruling minorties is that, historically, small, fanatical, elite and organized political force nearly always dominates the majority. RB
This from my friend, Rob Storey (Jim's Brother's son)
A German's View on Islam
This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I
have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear.
Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of
this email is Dr.Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected
psychiatrist. A man,whose family was German aristocracy prior to
World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When
asked how many Germanpeople were true Nazis, the answer he
gave can guide our attitude toward all fanaticism.
'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the
return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was
one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the
majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it,
they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had
come.’
‘My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and
the Allies destroyed my factories.'
‘We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that
Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims
just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be
true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make
us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics
rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.’
‘The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of
50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically
slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are
gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is
the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the
fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who
zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and
homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to
become suicide bombers.’
‘The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the
'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was
comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the
Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million
people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge
population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to
kill a staggering 70 million people.’
‘The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a
warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way
across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the
systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by
sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda , which
collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of
Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
‘History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all
our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated
of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their
silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't
speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one
day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world
will have begun.’
‘Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs,
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many
others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until
it was too late.’
‘Now Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public
schools in Ontario , and, yes, in Ottawa , too, while the Lord's
Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may
be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move
in.’
‘In Australia , and indeed in many countries around the world, many
of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on
them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate
bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on
aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority
who are now rapidly expanding within the nation's shores.’
‘In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there
are now dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country
that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails
there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to
acknowledge British law.’
‘As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the
only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.’
Sep 21, 2014
"A Strange Urge To Elect Really Obnoxious Women To High Office"
Common Sense Commentary: Here is the genius word-master, Burt Prelutsky who wrote that famous paragraph:
"Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re number one. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi , they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on “Macbeth”."
And here is the "real article" in which he wrote those words in December of 2009. RB
"Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re number one. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi , they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on “Macbeth”."
And here is the "real article" in which he wrote those words in December of 2009. RB
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The New And Improved Iron Curtain
by Burt Prelutsky
Back in 1946, Winston Churchill, in a speech delivered at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, referred to an Iron Curtain that had descended across the Continent, behind which all the capitols of the ancient states, from Berlin to Belgrade, from Budapest to Sofia, were under the boot of the Soviet Union.
Today, freedom-loving people are faced with a second such curtain. It doesn’t exist in Eastern Europe this time, but along the Potomac. On one side, there are despots like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Sunstein, Emanuel, Axelrod, Specter and Conyers. On the other side are those of us who are sick and tired of having ex-community organizers and their left-wing henchmen doing their best to enslave us. They treat the Constitution like toilet paper; they bribe millions of us, including illegal aliens, with cash and free health benefits, while simultaneously bankrupting the rest of us, along with our kids and their kids.
They have saddled us with so much debt, unemployment and inevitable inflation, one can only assume it’s their plan that we’ll be too wretched to notice that they’re also taking away our rights and freedom. This is the doing of the same people who pretended that the Patriot Act, which did nothing more than try to prevent Islamic terrorists from plotting a sequel to 9/11, was the height of fascistic tyranny.
I guarantee that if our leading leftists were characters in a movie, a lot more people would be able to recognize their villainy. That’s because they would all look like albinos and talk with funny accents.
For instance, the secret ballot has been sacrosanct ever since our nation was founded. However, we find the current administration pushing for card check, which would deprive American workers of that basic safeguard when it comes to union elections. The purpose is obvious. The goons in the SEIU and the UAW want to know whom to intimidate, whose kneecaps to bust. And Obama, whose campaign coffers benefited to the tune of at least $100 million in union dues, is only too happy to return the favor.
The truth is, most people are so easily cowed and so unwilling to deal with confrontation that if it weren’t for the secret ballot, something as utterly absurd as same-sex marriage and as immoral as abortion without parental notification for 14-year-olds would probably be legal in all 50 states.
In the first 10 months of Obama’s presidency, Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, paid 22 visits to the White House. It sort of reminds you of the old days when only Monica Lewinsky had such easy access to the president. These days, with Stern running in and out, you can’t help wondering who’s servicing whom in the Oval Office.
One of the worst things about the House passing Obamacare was having to put up with Nancy Pelosi’s patting her own back and gloating, in spite of 39 desperate Democrats who broke ranks in the hope of hanging on to their seats in 2010.
Speaking of Pelosi, considering that it’s been a very long time since the Speaker was able to blink her eyes or to look anything but startled, do you think her plastic surgeon ever tells potential clients that he’s the schlemiel who did the job?
Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re number one. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on “Macbeth”.
The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words. Burt Prelutsky.
Back in 1946, Winston Churchill, in a speech delivered at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, referred to an Iron Curtain that had descended across the Continent, behind which all the capitols of the ancient states, from Berlin to Belgrade, from Budapest to Sofia, were under the boot of the Soviet Union.
Today, freedom-loving people are faced with a second such curtain. It doesn’t exist in Eastern Europe this time, but along the Potomac. On one side, there are despots like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Sunstein, Emanuel, Axelrod, Specter and Conyers. On the other side are those of us who are sick and tired of having ex-community organizers and their left-wing henchmen doing their best to enslave us. They treat the Constitution like toilet paper; they bribe millions of us, including illegal aliens, with cash and free health benefits, while simultaneously bankrupting the rest of us, along with our kids and their kids.
They have saddled us with so much debt, unemployment and inevitable inflation, one can only assume it’s their plan that we’ll be too wretched to notice that they’re also taking away our rights and freedom. This is the doing of the same people who pretended that the Patriot Act, which did nothing more than try to prevent Islamic terrorists from plotting a sequel to 9/11, was the height of fascistic tyranny.
I guarantee that if our leading leftists were characters in a movie, a lot more people would be able to recognize their villainy. That’s because they would all look like albinos and talk with funny accents.
For instance, the secret ballot has been sacrosanct ever since our nation was founded. However, we find the current administration pushing for card check, which would deprive American workers of that basic safeguard when it comes to union elections. The purpose is obvious. The goons in the SEIU and the UAW want to know whom to intimidate, whose kneecaps to bust. And Obama, whose campaign coffers benefited to the tune of at least $100 million in union dues, is only too happy to return the favor.
The truth is, most people are so easily cowed and so unwilling to deal with confrontation that if it weren’t for the secret ballot, something as utterly absurd as same-sex marriage and as immoral as abortion without parental notification for 14-year-olds would probably be legal in all 50 states.
In the first 10 months of Obama’s presidency, Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, paid 22 visits to the White House. It sort of reminds you of the old days when only Monica Lewinsky had such easy access to the president. These days, with Stern running in and out, you can’t help wondering who’s servicing whom in the Oval Office.
One of the worst things about the House passing Obamacare was having to put up with Nancy Pelosi’s patting her own back and gloating, in spite of 39 desperate Democrats who broke ranks in the hope of hanging on to their seats in 2010.
Speaking of Pelosi, considering that it’s been a very long time since the Speaker was able to blink her eyes or to look anything but startled, do you think her plastic surgeon ever tells potential clients that he’s the schlemiel who did the job?
Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re number one. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on “Macbeth”.
The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words. Burt Prelutsky.
Wouldn't it be ironic if, in 2016, California puts another such woman over the top and Hillary Clinton is elected President? Since we are already in a national "twilight zone", that weird development would be the dawning of an aberration called
"The Age Of American Political Lunacy". RB
Sep 20, 2014
You Can Remove Print, Mint or Engraving ... But You Can't Remove God From Anything
Common Sense Commentary: Yes, you can remove print, mint marks and engravings, but you can't remove God from anything. Stop trying. You remove yourself from His grace and show your own ignorance if you think you can "remove God" from schools, courthouses, coins or the U.S. capital buildings. God Himself is immovable.
NBC, highly Liberal with a mostly Liberal viewing audience, had a poll on this question. They had the highest Number of responses that they have ever had for one of their polls, and the Percentages "For" and "Against" were as follows:
86% for keeping the words, "IN God We Trust" on our coins and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, 14% against.
Official versions
(changes in bold italics) |
1892
|
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
|
1892 to 1923
|
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
|
1923 to 1924
|
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
|
1924 to 1954
|
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
|
1954 to Present
|
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America , and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
|
NBC, highly Liberal with a mostly Liberal viewing audience, had a poll on this question. They had the highest Number of responses that they have ever had for one of their polls, and the Percentages "For" and "Against" were as follows:
86% for keeping the words, "IN God We Trust" on our coins and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, 14% against.
|
Sep 19, 2014
Update On Terrorists In U.S. Border With Mexican City, Jaurez
Common Sense Commentary: When I was young and naive, I believed everything I read in the newspapers. Time passed and a more mature mind told me some of it wasn't true. Then, more time, and experience brought news reporters to my church office in Tallahassee, FL. Being interviewed by the press, and the resulting stories they wrote, supposedly based on the interviews, was a really rude awakening for me. I was astonished to read the exaggerations, misrepresentations and outright lies these "reporters" wrote about me and my position on some issue they had asked me about. There were many such occasions when I was asked my opinion on something ... and I kept expecting a different reporter to be honest and tell the truth about the interview, thinking the problem was the previous reporter not all of the reporters at the two local Liberal newspaper. One, the City Paper, and the other the University Paper. The funny thing was, they were never more than 50% accurate and usually were about 70% to 90% totally wrong in what they reported.... about me or one of our several ministries or my opinion on an issue. I finally just refused to give interviews to either paper. They are worse today than they were back then. From that experience, I estimate that most of what is reported by the news media is as best inaccurate and at worst ... agenda based lies. To this day I do not read newspapers or news magazines , and cannot bear watching CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC or CNBC. I read and watch FOX but do not automatically believe everything I read or hear from any of the major news outlets. Thank God for those few conservative guys with their own news shows and commentary. RB
Islamic terrorists operating in Mexican border city
From Patriot Update
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Federal law enforcement sources in El Paso say that a United States congressman called their office to prohibit contact with Judicial Watch in the aftermath of a disturbing story confirming that Islamic terrorists are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez.
Sources tell JW that Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat who represents El Paso in the U.S. House of Representatives, telephoned the area offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) in an effort to identify—and evidently intimidate—sources that may have been used by JW. On August 29 JW reported that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is working in Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED).
In the piece JW cites high-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources confirming that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat. In the aftermath of JW’s story Ft. Bliss, an El Paso Army base near Juarez, increased security measures and the sheriff in Midland County Texas—located halfway between Ft. Worth and El Paso—confirmed that he received an alert bulletin warning from the feds that ISIS may have formed a terrorist cell in or near Juarez.
O’Rourke evidently believes that someone on the inside is feeding JW information because the facts in all our reporting have been correct, according to government sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter. “He called the El Paso offices of the FBI, HSI and USBP asking if anyone was talking to Judicial Watch,” one inside source told JW this week. O’Rourke’s calls were followed by a memo that came down through the chain of command threatening to terminate or criminally charge any agent who speaks to media of any kind. This would include JW, a nonprofit legal watchdog that has broken a number of government corruption stories on its website and newsletter.
Post Continues on www.judicialwatch.org
Islamic terrorists operating in Mexican border city
From Patriot Update
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Federal law enforcement sources in El Paso say that a United States congressman called their office to prohibit contact with Judicial Watch in the aftermath of a disturbing story confirming that Islamic terrorists are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez.
Sources tell JW that Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat who represents El Paso in the U.S. House of Representatives, telephoned the area offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) in an effort to identify—and evidently intimidate—sources that may have been used by JW. On August 29 JW reported that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is working in Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED).
In the piece JW cites high-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources confirming that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat. In the aftermath of JW’s story Ft. Bliss, an El Paso Army base near Juarez, increased security measures and the sheriff in Midland County Texas—located halfway between Ft. Worth and El Paso—confirmed that he received an alert bulletin warning from the feds that ISIS may have formed a terrorist cell in or near Juarez.
O’Rourke evidently believes that someone on the inside is feeding JW information because the facts in all our reporting have been correct, according to government sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter. “He called the El Paso offices of the FBI, HSI and USBP asking if anyone was talking to Judicial Watch,” one inside source told JW this week. O’Rourke’s calls were followed by a memo that came down through the chain of command threatening to terminate or criminally charge any agent who speaks to media of any kind. This would include JW, a nonprofit legal watchdog that has broken a number of government corruption stories on its website and newsletter.
Post Continues on www.judicialwatch.org
Sep 18, 2014
First This Thing Was OK Then NOT OK, Then Good, Then Bad, Then Wonderful, Then ... Maybe Not ...(Science ??)
Common Sense Commentary: A strange phenomenon is, as science has progressed over the last century, things first thought OK for your health, were then discovered bad for your health, and later found to be OK for your health, then later were absolutely terrible for your health, but new scientific studies revealed those things were NOT bad but good for your health, but new studies proved those same things were absolutely horrible for your health .... So, at this moment, artificial sweeteners, which were good for diabetics and fat people on Sept.16 are looking to be, possibly, maybe bad today for those they were good for day before yesterday. Friends ... we humans are hopelessly confused, misled, fickle, and alternately fearful, happy, horrified and rejoicing. Its so good to be a Christian ... and that pendulum is not going to swing to bad.... ever. RB
Anytime "science" has to change what it had "proven", with certainty, to be true previously, proves with certainty just one thing.... It was not true "Science" to begin with. The Apostle Paul told young Timothy to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." 1 Tim.6:20. RB
Sep 17, 1:47 PM EDT
STUDY: ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS MAY PROMOTE DIABETES
BY MALCOLM RITTER AP SCIENCE WRITER
NEW YORK (AP) -- Using artificial sweeteners may set the stage for diabetes in some people by hampering the way their bodies handle sugar, suggests a preliminary study done mostly in mice.
The authors said they are not recommending any changes in how people use artificial sweeteners based on their study, which included some human experiments. The researchers and outside experts said more study is needed, while industry groups called the research limited and said other evidence shows sweeteners are safe and useful for weight control.
The study from researchers in Israel was released Wednesday by the journal Nature.
The work suggests the sweeteners change the composition of normal, beneficial bacteria in the gut. That appears to hamper how well the body handles sugar in the diet, which in turn can result in higher blood sugar levels. This impairment, called glucose intolerance, can eventually lead to diabetes.
Some experts who didn't participate in the work urged caution in interpreting the results.
James Hill, an obesity expert at the University of Colorado, called the work good science. Still, overall, "I do not think there is enough data yet to lead to a definitive conclusion about artificial sweeteners and the body's handling of sugar," he wrote in an email.
"I certainly do not think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they are harmful."
But Yanina Pepino of Washington University in St. Louis said the results make a convincing case that sweeteners hamper the body's handling of sugar by altering gut bacteria. And it adds to her belief that sweeteners and sugar should be used in moderation, especially by children, she said.
"It's really providing strong data suggesting we need to do more research," she said.
Researchers began by testing three widely used sweeteners: saccharin, sold for example as Sweet `N Low; sucralose, sold as Splenda, and aspartame, sold for example as NutraSweet, in 20 mice. Some animals got one of those substances in their water, and others got sugar water or just water. After 11 weeks, researchers gave all the mice a dose of sugar and monitored the response in their blood sugar levels.
The mice that initially got sugar showed about the same response as those that got plain water. But mice that got any of the sweeteners showed markedly higher blood sugar levels, indicating impairment in handling of the sugar dose. Further mouse experiments linked that outcome to an effect on gut bacteria.
To gain some preliminary information on people, the researchers turned to 381 non-diabetic volunteers who filled out a questionnaire that estimated their consumption of artificial sweeteners. Forty participants who had the most showed evidence of higher blood sugar than 236 non-users.
In another preliminary test, researchers gave saccharin for a week to seven healthy volunteers who normally don't consume sweeteners. Four showed a decline in their ability to handle sugar over the course of the week. The makeup of their gut bacteria changed markedly over the week, while that of other three changed little.
___________________________________________________
My Comment: It has always been my opinion that the more pure and natural and consistent with what God created for us to eat, originally, is always best for your health. The more our food is tampered with by men ... and women, the more likely it is that it is NOT an improvement upon what God originally created. You cannot do better than eating food directly out of the ground, if possible, or if cooked, as little added as possible ... except for natural seasoning. Just my opinion. RB
The scripture alluded to in my title of this post is, Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
.
.
Anytime "science" has to change what it had "proven", with certainty, to be true previously, proves with certainty just one thing.... It was not true "Science" to begin with. The Apostle Paul told young Timothy to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." 1 Tim.6:20. RB
Sep 17, 1:47 PM EDT
STUDY: ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS MAY PROMOTE DIABETES
BY MALCOLM RITTER AP SCIENCE WRITER
NEW YORK (AP) -- Using artificial sweeteners may set the stage for diabetes in some people by hampering the way their bodies handle sugar, suggests a preliminary study done mostly in mice.
The authors said they are not recommending any changes in how people use artificial sweeteners based on their study, which included some human experiments. The researchers and outside experts said more study is needed, while industry groups called the research limited and said other evidence shows sweeteners are safe and useful for weight control.
The study from researchers in Israel was released Wednesday by the journal Nature.
The work suggests the sweeteners change the composition of normal, beneficial bacteria in the gut. That appears to hamper how well the body handles sugar in the diet, which in turn can result in higher blood sugar levels. This impairment, called glucose intolerance, can eventually lead to diabetes.
Some experts who didn't participate in the work urged caution in interpreting the results.
James Hill, an obesity expert at the University of Colorado, called the work good science. Still, overall, "I do not think there is enough data yet to lead to a definitive conclusion about artificial sweeteners and the body's handling of sugar," he wrote in an email.
"I certainly do not think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they are harmful."
But Yanina Pepino of Washington University in St. Louis said the results make a convincing case that sweeteners hamper the body's handling of sugar by altering gut bacteria. And it adds to her belief that sweeteners and sugar should be used in moderation, especially by children, she said.
"It's really providing strong data suggesting we need to do more research," she said.
Researchers began by testing three widely used sweeteners: saccharin, sold for example as Sweet `N Low; sucralose, sold as Splenda, and aspartame, sold for example as NutraSweet, in 20 mice. Some animals got one of those substances in their water, and others got sugar water or just water. After 11 weeks, researchers gave all the mice a dose of sugar and monitored the response in their blood sugar levels.
The mice that initially got sugar showed about the same response as those that got plain water. But mice that got any of the sweeteners showed markedly higher blood sugar levels, indicating impairment in handling of the sugar dose. Further mouse experiments linked that outcome to an effect on gut bacteria.
To gain some preliminary information on people, the researchers turned to 381 non-diabetic volunteers who filled out a questionnaire that estimated their consumption of artificial sweeteners. Forty participants who had the most showed evidence of higher blood sugar than 236 non-users.
In another preliminary test, researchers gave saccharin for a week to seven healthy volunteers who normally don't consume sweeteners. Four showed a decline in their ability to handle sugar over the course of the week. The makeup of their gut bacteria changed markedly over the week, while that of other three changed little.
___________________________________________________
My Comment: It has always been my opinion that the more pure and natural and consistent with what God created for us to eat, originally, is always best for your health. The more our food is tampered with by men ... and women, the more likely it is that it is NOT an improvement upon what God originally created. You cannot do better than eating food directly out of the ground, if possible, or if cooked, as little added as possible ... except for natural seasoning. Just my opinion. RB
The scripture alluded to in my title of this post is, Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
.
.
Sep 17, 2014
Making Major Issues Of Minor Trivia...Which Is The Greater Insult?
Common Sense Commentary: Considering the mammoth, world changing issues and difficulties on the front pages of our news media, this issue is only visible under a microscope; but Senator Harry Reid has his one good eye glued to it. Wake up and do your job Harry; the world is going to hell under your watch. RB
Which of these two are the greatest insult to American Indians? The Washington "Redskins" boastfully calling themselves "Redskins" or Senator Harry Reid calling American Indians in Nevada "MY Indians"? He also calls it a "Moral Issue" in the following quote from....
_______________________________________________
Moral Issue??? The Washington Redskins chose the name for "themselves" which is a compliment to the American Indians as strong warriors and a brave, valiant people. How is that "racist" or negative. This is the way Liberals think. RB
Which of these two are the greatest insult to American Indians? The Washington "Redskins" boastfully calling themselves "Redskins" or Senator Harry Reid calling American Indians in Nevada "MY Indians"? He also calls it a "Moral Issue" in the following quote from....
Inside Nevada Politics
"Yet he (Harry Reid) threw in a new wrinkle, saying Redskins owner Daniel Snyder tried to give members of the Las Vegas Paiutes gifts for them to support the “Redskins” brand.
“Redskins is a racist name and native Americans believe that,” Reid said. “They have tried to buy off some of my Nevada Indians and they have not been able to do that, giving them trucks and stuff like that.
“The Indians, they understand that this is an issue that deals with them,” Reid said. “It is a moral issue with them. And he (Snyder) can hang on for a little while but it is not going to go on forever.”
_______________________________________________
Moral Issue??? The Washington Redskins chose the name for "themselves" which is a compliment to the American Indians as strong warriors and a brave, valiant people. How is that "racist" or negative. This is the way Liberals think. RB
Sep 16, 2014
Sheriff Says Unlawful Gun Confiscation Attempt Will Lead To Civil War ... What does he mean?
Common Sense Commentary: The LAW is THE LAW is THE LAW is THE CONSTITUTION.
Our founding fathers knew the potential for tyranny and abuse from Federal Governments ... by past experience in Europe by Kings, Nobles and other Dictators. So they built into our American Constitution a separation of powers, including Individual Rights, State's Rights and Limited Federal Powers, to protect the average citizen from "wickedness in HIGH PLACES" who wielded the "Powers of Darkness" against those citizens. One of those protecting powers was on the local level .... The Elected Local Sheriff. Watch this video of a Courageous County Sheriff taking a stand for his constitutional assignment ... protecting the citizens in his county. Then read, below the link, the position of the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION ....
Our founding fathers knew the potential for tyranny and abuse from Federal Governments ... by past experience in Europe by Kings, Nobles and other Dictators. So they built into our American Constitution a separation of powers, including Individual Rights, State's Rights and Limited Federal Powers, to protect the average citizen from "wickedness in HIGH PLACES" who wielded the "Powers of Darkness" against those citizens. One of those protecting powers was on the local level .... The Elected Local Sheriff. Watch this video of a Courageous County Sheriff taking a stand for his constitutional assignment ... protecting the citizens in his county. Then read, below the link, the position of the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION ....
.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION CONFIRMS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAST LINE OF DEFENSE IS THE CITIZEN ELECTED ........
County Sheriff:
The Ultimate Check & Balance When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive.
The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain.
So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!
Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?
The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people's protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their backpeddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."
Of course, there are those who will maintain that the feds have not and will not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens in this country, the IRS notwithstanding. For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that the government did nothing wrong at the Branch Davidian church in Waco or at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when citizens were killed. Those incidents have been debated and will be forever. However, the immutable truth about both tragedies remains that if the local sheriff had remained in charge of both incidents, not one person would have died, including federal agents, and the law would still have been enforced.
Despite the frequency or the severity of government abuses, if they were to happen in your county, would your sheriff intervene? Well, don't look now, but they are already occurring and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to "enforce" their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on. The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher's cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property. Why? because they are doing their jobs that's why! It's just another way to provide checks and balances that ultimately protect and help citizens.
Criminality within the IRS has been well documented. Hearings about such crimes were held before congress in 1998. IRS employees testified of hundreds of crimes being committed against law-abiding citizens. Congress did nothing about it. They were too busy checking Monica Lewinsky's dress. The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials; does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?
Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."
Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.
But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution's structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty." (Emphasis added)
Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.
It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
County Sheriff:
The Ultimate Check & Balance When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive.
The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain.
So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!
Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?
The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people's protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their backpeddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."
Of course, there are those who will maintain that the feds have not and will not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens in this country, the IRS notwithstanding. For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that the government did nothing wrong at the Branch Davidian church in Waco or at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when citizens were killed. Those incidents have been debated and will be forever. However, the immutable truth about both tragedies remains that if the local sheriff had remained in charge of both incidents, not one person would have died, including federal agents, and the law would still have been enforced.
Despite the frequency or the severity of government abuses, if they were to happen in your county, would your sheriff intervene? Well, don't look now, but they are already occurring and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to "enforce" their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on. The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher's cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property. Why? because they are doing their jobs that's why! It's just another way to provide checks and balances that ultimately protect and help citizens.
Criminality within the IRS has been well documented. Hearings about such crimes were held before congress in 1998. IRS employees testified of hundreds of crimes being committed against law-abiding citizens. Congress did nothing about it. They were too busy checking Monica Lewinsky's dress. The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials; does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?
Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."
Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.
But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution's structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty." (Emphasis added)
Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.
It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Sep 15, 2014
Tale Of Two Funerals ...The Hero And The Thug
Common Sense Commentary: Our President and Congress need to get their priorities right. RB
TALE OF TWO FUNERALS
TALE OF TWO FUNERALS
By all accounts, Harold was a bright child. He grew up in America . He went to school and had a bright future ahead of him.
Harold’s full life was cut short in a violent moment.
While few people had ever heard of Harold before his death, many did afterwards.
And in death, something shocking happened.
What was so shocking, especially when it is compared to the death of someone else recently in the news?
Harold is Harold Greene, Major General United States Army.
On August 5th, General Greene was killed by a Taliban terrorist. He was returned to America with full military honors.
While Major General Greene was buried, Barack Obama was golfing. The Vice President wasn’t there either. Flags were not even lowered to half staff.
Four days after Harold Greene gave his life for America , Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson Missouri .
It is safe to say, Brown was at best a thug.
The media has repeatedly shown photos of Brown flashing gang signs. Some media outlets have even associated him with a specific gang. In the minutes before his death, Brown committed a robbery at a local convenience store. According to other reports, Brown struck officer Darren Wilson and shattered his orbital bone.
Obama sent a three-person delegation to Michael Brown’s funeral.
Obama would not attend the funeral of the highest ranking military officer killed in the line of duty since 9/11, yet he sent a delegation to the funeral of a thug.
When Margaret Thatcher, one of America ’s staunchest allies and Ronald Reagan’s partner in bringing down Soviet communism, died Obama sent only a small low-level delegation to her funeral. The snub was not missed by the British.
When Chris Kyle, the most lethal American sniper in history was murdered (you need to read his book “American Sniper”) there was no expression of sympathy from the White House. There was no White House delegation at his funeral.
American heroes die and Obama goes to the golf course.
A thug dies and he gets a White House delegation.
No wonder real Americans hold Obama in contempt.
.
Sep 14, 2014
To Young Pastors: Preach The Truth, Set The Example, But Don't try to Force Feed The Sheep
Common Sense Commentary: They may strangle, throw up on you or bite you.
My advice, as an 83 & 3/4 year old, 36 year former pastor:
I graduated seminary and started pastoring my first of only two churches in 1957. I was 27. For the next 36 years I made many mistakes, and adjusted my pastoral methods many times ... but not my message. Over those years I learned many new and better methods, but never changed my faith in the fundamentals of God's word. In my final few years as a pastor, my methods of dealing with people had settled on these seven things; which I recommend to you ...
1. Seek always to preach and teach God's truth, as you understood it, to everyone, every service: counsel it to seekers and witness it to the lost.
2. Set the example for the flock ... Work hard, give above the tithe, serve as faithfully as you possibly can, and don't spend too much time on hobbies, conventions, fellowship meetings or vacations.
3. Resist the temptation to enforce your own level of commitment and sacrifice on your wife or other members of the congregation. You are the pastor. Your level of service should always be greater than that of laymen or theirs will diminish rather than increase. Just be thankful they are even there ... and pray for them.
4. Appreciate each member for whatever small or great, positive part they give of themselves to the Lord, his church, and to you, as pastor. They have jobs to work, bills to pay, survival to seek, children to raise, difficulties you know nothing about and responsibilities they have not shared with you.
5. Treat the lowliest person with equal respect. Love all of the flock as equally as possible. Love them with compassionate love, appreciative love or tough love ... whichever is needed by each.
6. Single out no one publicly except in extreme and rare cases of accomplishment or detriment.
7. Maintain a steady, consistent, balanced and dependable course of action and in dealing with each individual person. You are the Pastor, but your calling is not one whit above or better than their calling if they are as faithful with theirs as you are yours. There are no big shots in God's service ...
including you and me.
That is my bottom line, in dealing with people, after 36 years as a pastor. I didn't always succeed but failures and mistakes and the hand of God brought me back on course. If you feel that, as a pastor, your calling to greater than other Christian callings, the hand of God awaits you. Nobody can do more than fulfill their own calling. Psm.115:1, Rayburn Blair
My advice, as an 83 & 3/4 year old, 36 year former pastor:
I graduated seminary and started pastoring my first of only two churches in 1957. I was 27. For the next 36 years I made many mistakes, and adjusted my pastoral methods many times ... but not my message. Over those years I learned many new and better methods, but never changed my faith in the fundamentals of God's word. In my final few years as a pastor, my methods of dealing with people had settled on these seven things; which I recommend to you ...
1. Seek always to preach and teach God's truth, as you understood it, to everyone, every service: counsel it to seekers and witness it to the lost.
2. Set the example for the flock ... Work hard, give above the tithe, serve as faithfully as you possibly can, and don't spend too much time on hobbies, conventions, fellowship meetings or vacations.
3. Resist the temptation to enforce your own level of commitment and sacrifice on your wife or other members of the congregation. You are the pastor. Your level of service should always be greater than that of laymen or theirs will diminish rather than increase. Just be thankful they are even there ... and pray for them.
4. Appreciate each member for whatever small or great, positive part they give of themselves to the Lord, his church, and to you, as pastor. They have jobs to work, bills to pay, survival to seek, children to raise, difficulties you know nothing about and responsibilities they have not shared with you.
5. Treat the lowliest person with equal respect. Love all of the flock as equally as possible. Love them with compassionate love, appreciative love or tough love ... whichever is needed by each.
6. Single out no one publicly except in extreme and rare cases of accomplishment or detriment.
7. Maintain a steady, consistent, balanced and dependable course of action and in dealing with each individual person. You are the Pastor, but your calling is not one whit above or better than their calling if they are as faithful with theirs as you are yours. There are no big shots in God's service ...
including you and me.
That is my bottom line, in dealing with people, after 36 years as a pastor. I didn't always succeed but failures and mistakes and the hand of God brought me back on course. If you feel that, as a pastor, your calling to greater than other Christian callings, the hand of God awaits you. Nobody can do more than fulfill their own calling. Psm.115:1, Rayburn Blair
Sep 13, 2014
Gov. Of Iowa Puts His Foot Down On Obama's Neck
Common Sense Commentary: Once in a while there is a spark of sanity and a courageous action which makes sense. Thank God for those few, in political power, who do the right thing. RB
Obama Flies Illegal teens to Iowa. The Iowa Governor Flies Them Back TO Honduras.Governor Bransted of Iowa had announced: "Iowa will not take any illegal children."Yesterday Obama overruled him and sent him 124 teens, aged13-19. When the plane landed in Des Moines the airport manager called the office of the Governor. The Governor drove to the airport and chartered a United Airlines plane from Chicago. Within 8 hours all the teens were fed and loaded on that plane. The plane left Iowa at 8 o'clock Des Moines time. It's next stop was Honduras. The plane landed and was unloaded. Four Social Workers from Iowa made sure the teens got safely to the terminal, and the Social Workers told the Honduran officials, "Here are your teens, they have no papers, you let them come illegally to America. We refuse to take them. Iowa has its own laws. Minors from outside our country not accompanied by adults may not enter our state."Iowa has not heard one thing from Obama's Washington so why are other Governors not doing as the Governor of Iowa ? The price of a chartered plane is fare less than keeping them here, without their parents, to raise and educate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
