Monday, October 25, 2010

These pro-amnesty incumbents in trouble‏

A timely post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about vulnerable Amnesty Candidates!! This follows this post about the Republicans running for Senate in 2010. This follows  this post about the Falcon Lake murder and this post  which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE!

These pro-amnesty incumbents in trouble‏

If you want to make a last-minute campaign donation where it can make a difference for better immigration policies . . .




HERE ARE THE HIGH-IMMIGRATION INCUMBENTS

WHO ARE IN TROUBLE AND COULD LOSE

-- and who have anti-amnesty challengers

who probably could use a contribution



The pro-amnesty vs. anti-amnesty balance of power could shift a lot in the next Congress.



A number of you have been asking where final campaign contributions might be the most helpful in pushing out high-immigration congressional incumbents in favor of low-immigration challengers.



I asked my staff to prepare the list below without regard to Party affiliations. These are the races where contributions might be helpful (BUT DON'T GIVE TO THE INCUMBENT WHOSE NAME IS LISTED.)



Every incumbent in this email meets the following criteria:



1. Incumbent has failed to use his/her time in Congress to protect unemployed Americans from unfair competition with foreign workers (legal and illegal).



2. Incumbent is considered by the pundits to be in danger of losing his/her seat (but still close enough to keep it).



3. Incumbent has a challenger who is promising to work for less immigration. (A few of these challengers are not promising much at this point. I leave it to you whether you think they are worth supporting.



In other words, the low-immigration challenger is given a good chance to replace the high-immigration incumbent but probably needs extra money to do the job.



I am not endorsing any of the challengers, because we don't endorse anybody. But our research definitely finds that the incumbents listed on this page are the immigration bad guys and their challengers promise to be immigration good guys.



There are many more high-immigration, pro-amnesty incumbents who are in election trouble, but their challengers have not promised to fight open-borders efforts.

When you click on any of the incumbents listed below, you will see our grid that compares the immigration promises of the incumbent and of the challenger.





You can click on the name of the challenger just underneath the photo to find the campaign web page and a way to donate.





If you live in any of these jurisdictions, you may want to go to the webpage and find out how you can help with the last days of campaigning.

Take a look at these names. They are all Members of Congress who failed in the last two years to feel any urgency about protecting unemployed Americans from unfair foreign labor competition.

NOTE: IF YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE LINKS BELOW, THEN GO TO THE TOP OF THIS BLOG POST WHERE IT SAYS "THESE PRO-AMNESTY INCUMBENTS.." AND CLICK THERE


ALASKA


Sen. Murkowski






ARIZONA


Raul Grijalva


Gabrielle Giffords






CALIFORNIA


Jerry McNerney






COLORADO


Sen. Bennet


Ed Perlmutter






CONNECTICUT


Joe Courtney






FLORIDA


Ron Klein






GEORGIA


Sanford Bishop






IOWA


Bruce Braley


David Loebsack






ILLINIOS


Phil Hare






KENTUCKY


John Yarmuth






MASSACHUSETTS


Ed Markey






MAINE


Mike Michaud






MICHIGAN


Gary Peters






MINNESOTA


Collin Peterson


Jim Oberstar






MISSOURI


Ike Skelton






MISSISSIPPI


Bennie Thompson






NORTH CAROLINA


Bob Etheridge


David Price


Brad Miller






NEW JERSEY


John Adler


Frank Pallone






NEVADA


Sen. Reid


Dina Titus






NEW YORK


Steve Israel


Carolyn McCarthy


Mike McMahon


Brian Higgins






OHIO


Dennis Kucinich






PENNSYLVANIA


Mark Critz


Tim Holden






TENESSEE


Jim Cooper






TEXAS


Ruben Hinojosa


Ciro Rodriguez


Lloyd Doggett






VIRGINIA


Gerry Connolly






WASHINGTON


Sen. Murray


Rick Larsen


Adam Smith






WISCONSIN


Ron Kind



In addition, there is the amazing race for governor in Colorado.



One latest poll shows a statistical tie between pro-enforcement champion Tom Tancredo and sanctuary city Mayor Hickenlooper.



You can get to Tancredo's webpage here.

Do Good People Really Go to Heaven When They Die?

An interesting article from http://www.gnmagazine.org/ about going to heaven. This follows this post about the Spirit World. For a free magazine subscription click HERE!! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Do Good People Really Go to Heaven When They Die?


Most churchgoers believe that when they die they will go to heaven, But will they? The Bible reveals some astounding truths about the mystery of life beyond the grave.

by Jerold Aust

William was a teenager when his father died. He was devastated because he loved his dad. He remembered the times when he walked beside his dad with his little fingers clutching his father's much larger hand.



He couldn't help but wonder why a loving God, if indeed there were such a Being, would allow his father to die prematurely, before his time. It just didn't make sense. His anger turned him away from the God that he had learned about in Sunday school. "If God works this way, I want nothing to do with him," he lamented.



He sought answers from his pastor, but the minister said he didn't understand it either, that God worked in mysterious ways. This didn't help young William get over his anger. After a few years, he simply gave up in frustration with the thought that there was no answer as to why or where God took his father.



Sometimes, thinking his father was up in heaven and could somehow hear him, William would try to talk to his dad—but, as always, there was no response. Little did he know that what the Bible revealed about where his father went and his father's future were quite different from what he had been taught.



Are good people promised heaven?

When good people die, do they go directly to heaven as so many believe? Since life here is so short and eternity is so very long, shouldn't we want to clearly understand the truth on this crucial subject?



To comprehend what the Bible teaches about heaven, we first need to understand that there is more than one heaven. Often the Bible refers to heavens, plural. In fact, three distinct "heavens" are mentioned in the Bible.



The first of these is simply the sky above us—earth's atmosphere, containing the air we breathe. It is in this heaven that birds fly and clouds give rain and snow (2 Samuel 21:10; Job 35:11; Isaiah 55:10).



The second biblical heaven is the realm beyond earth's atmosphere, what we commonly call outer space. Here we find the "stars of heaven"—the planets, stars, constellations and galaxies of this awesome physical universe (Genesis 22:17; 26:4; Deuteronomy 1:10; Isaiah 13:10).



The "third heaven" is different still—it is the location of God's majestic throne (2 Corinthians 12:2).



Obviously the deceased, Christian or not, are not floating around unnoticed in the first two heavens. No one seriously believes they can be found drifting about the sky or in outer space. Therefore they must be in the third of these heavens, right?



Many people assume so, but the whole argument about heaven being the reward of deceased Christians runs into a brick wall with these words from the apostle Peter's first sermon: "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day . . . For David did not ascend to heaven . . ." (Acts 2:29, 34, New International Version, emphasis added throughout).



God called this same King David "a man after My own heart," one who would "do all My will" (Acts 13:22). Surely, if anyone had a right to heaven, wouldn't it be a person such as David? Yet Peter tells us God did not carry David off to heaven. The only one who had ascended to heaven, said Peter, was Jesus Christ (Acts 2:29-35).



Was Peter mistaken? Did he simply misspeak?



We might assume so, but notice what the Gospel of John says: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man [Jesus Christ]" (John 3:13, NIV).



Jesus never promised Christians heaven after they died. The New Testament plainly says that of the faithful men and women who had gone before—such spiritual giants as Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses, to name some of those listed in Hebrews 11—not one has ascended to heaven. In fact, says verse 39 of Hebrews 11, "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised" (NIV).



If they aren't in heaven, where are they? And what was it they were promised, if it wasn't heaven?



No consciousness in the grave

Many people are surprised to discover what the Bible really says about what happens to us when we die. Yet, when we remove our preconceived notions, the answer becomes quite clear from the Scriptures—and it is immensely encouraging to all.



Notice what God inspired King Solomon to write about the state of the dead: "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten" (Ecclesiastes 9:5).



Scripture clearly tells us that at death we cease to know anything. The dead are unconscious and unaware. All our emotions, thoughts, knowledge and feelings go to the grave with us. No consciousness continues living in another place or state. We do not have an immortal soul that goes on living somewhere else. In Ezekiel 18, verses 4 and 20, God plainly tells us that "the soul who sins shall die"—not continue living apart from the body.



The patriarch Job echoes Solomon's words. He writes: ". . . Man dies and is laid away; indeed he breathes his last and where is he? As water disappears from the sea, and a river becomes parched and dries up, so man lies down and does not rise. Till the heavens are no more, they will not awake nor be roused from their sleep" (Job 14:10-12).



Job goes on to ask the most crucial question about life after death: "If a man dies, shall he live again?" (verse 14). His answer is found in Jesus Christ's own words.



Death's mystery solved

The key to the mystery of life after death is revealed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die" (John 11:25-26).



It is because Christ was resurrected from the grave that we can be assured we, too, will be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:12-21). Throughout the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, the apostle Paul eloquently argues this important fact—that since Jesus was resurrected from the grave, He will resurrect all those who have been faithful to Him.



Job, as we saw above, raised the question of life after death. Notice how he answered it: "O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time [the time of the resurrection], and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee . . ." (Job 14:13-15, King James Version).



Job understood that life after death comes about by God's divine power. Speaking of each person whom the Father would call to understand His truth, Jesus explains, "I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44).



The promise of life after death hinges on Jesus Christ's resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). The fact that Jesus Christ was resurrected to become "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5) means that He has opened the way for others to follow in a resurrection from the grave. The raising of the dead is a mighty and magnificent part of God's great master plan. Through it, mankind has the opportunity to live again, as faithful Job knew and confirmed.



The doctrine of the resurrection is listed among the fundamental doctrines of the Bible (Hebrews 6:1-2). It is the hope of all true Christians, for it nullifies and makes void death itself (1 Corinthians 15:54).



The resurrection voids death

Paul confirms that many people were eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus Christ had indeed risen from the grave:



"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve [apostles]. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep [in death]. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time" (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).



Too many credible witnesses saw and interacted with Christ Jesus after He was raised from the dead for His resurrection to be denied.



Paul also offers a simple but incontestable logic about how our resurrection from the dead is directly tied to Jesus' resurrection: "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.



"More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.



"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep [in death]. For since death came through a man [Adam], the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man [Jesus Christ]" (1 Corinthians 15:12-21, NIV).



The mystery of what happens to human beings after they die is incontrovertibly solved in the vibrant life of the resurrected Christ. Our future life beyond the grave is directly connected to the resurrected Jesus Christ and the fact that He is the One who will raise us from the dead. When this happens—and it surely will—the Bible reveals it will not be so that we can go to live in heaven forever.



Death likened to sleep

When Christians—or any others—die, they do not go directly to heaven or to any equivalent of heaven. Their bodies simply decay in the grave, returning to the dust from which they were made (Genesis 3:19).



Solomon confirmed the fact that the dead are unconscious, knowing nothing. He illustrated the superiority of life over death with an interesting analogy: "Anyone who is among the living has hope—even a live dog is better off than a dead lion! For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing . . ." (Ecclesiastes 9:4-5, NIV).



The writers of the Bible describe our experience after death not as going to heaven or hell, but simply as sleep. Notice, for example, how Daniel refers to the state of the dead in this prophecy of the resurrection: "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2). When an individual is in a deep sleep, he has absolutely no conscious awareness of the passing of time nor any knowledge of events that are occurring while he is asleep.



Paul repeatedly compared death to sleep (1 Corinthians 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15). Peter similarly writes of the patriarchs who "fell asleep" in death (2 Peter 3:4).



Jesus Himself also spoke of death as sleep. Speaking of a deceased girl whom He intended to raise from the dead, He told the mourners, "Do not weep; she is not dead, but sleeping" (Luke 8:52; compare Matthew 9:24).



Before He resurrected Lazarus, He told the disciples, "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up." The disciples misunderstood, thinking Lazarus was sleeping because he was ill. "However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep" (John 11:11, 13).



When will the dead be resurrected?

We can see that the Bible clearly teaches that good people don't go to heaven at death; instead they sleep in the grave awaiting the resurrection of the dead. All of the dead —good and not so good alike—will eventually be resurrected, each in his own time (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).



The dead in Christ will be resurrected to immortal life at Jesus Christ's return to earth, and those faithful servants who are still alive at that time will be changed from mortal to immortal. Specifically, this happens at the sounding of "the trumpet of God" (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), called "the last trumpet" in 1 Corinthians 15:52 and corresponding to the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11:15.



This event is called "the first resurrection" in Revelation 20:5. In John's vision of the future, those in this resurrection came to life and "reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (verse 4), during the period commonly known as the Millennium. Notice that they do not go to dwell in heaven—they live and reign with Jesus on earth, to which He has returned to establish God's Kingdom!



Verse 6 goes on to explain: "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power [because they will then be the resurrected, immortal children of God], but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years." Revelation 5:10 confirms that they will be "a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth" (NIV). (For more details, see "God's Awesome Purpose for Those in the First Resurrection,".)



Since Christ is coming back to earth (Zechariah 14:3-4), it makes good sense that that's where we will be. After all, Jesus said that we would be with Him: "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:3; compare Isaiah 11:1-9). Clearly, Jesus is coming back to earth and we will reign with Him here, not in or from heaven.



Another resurrection follows

So if there is a first resurrection in which God's faithful servants are raised to immortality to reign with Jesus Christ, will there be other resurrections? And what happens to those who lived and died without ever knowing or hearing the name of Jesus, the only name by which we can be saved (Acts 4:12)?



Those who died without knowing Christ will be resurrected to physical life and given their time to repent and receive salvation 1,000 years later (Revelation 20:11-13). Verse 5 tells us clearly that "the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished."



Ezekiel 37 vividly describes a second resurrection to a temporary physical existence, when human beings who have never understood God's truth in this life will be raised from the dust of the earth to learn God's way for the first time. God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" and "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4). He will not unjustly condemn those who never had an opportunity to come to that knowledge, repent and receive His gift of eternal life.



Each person raised to life again in this great resurrection will be given sufficient time to learn God's way of life (see Ezekiel 37:12-14, 23-24), during which they will be judged or evaluated according to their works, by the standards and values "which were written in the books" (Revelation 20:12).



These "books" (biblion in Greek, from which we get the word Bible) are the Scriptures, the only source of the knowledge of eternal life and the basic standard by which all are ultimately judged. Most, probably the vast majority, will go on to receive eternal life because the Bible tells us that "all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26)—and by extension most of the gentile world likely will be saved as well. (To learn more about this resurrection, see "All Those in the Tombs Will Hear His Voice".)



Some individuals, regrettably, will stubbornly choose to reject this marvelous opportunity for eternal life. But rather than suffer torment for eternity in hell (as many people incorrectly assume the Bible teaches), Scripture shows their fate will be to be consumed in the lake of fire, "the second death." As Malachi 4:3 states, they will be burned to ashes and simply cease to exist.



You can take something with you

People of many ancient cultures, such as the Egyptians, buried items of physical worth with their dead. They believed that the deceased would be able to use those important things in the next life. Yet the patriarch Job refuted this idea: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there" (Job 1:21). This may be where we get the oft-repeated saying, "You can't take it with you."



However, this old cliché is not entirely true. In a sense, God will allow you to take something with you when you die—godly character. A true Christian is one who builds God's character for the duration of his Christian life (1 Corinthians 3:9-15). When raised to life again in the resurrection, that same character will be a part of us in our new life. For the true Christian, that godly character will be with him forever (1 John 2:15-17).



The Egyptians and many other long-dead peoples didn't know this, or they would not have buried valuable physical objects with their dead. But a young teen learned this truth from God's Word, the Bible.



A teen learns the truth

Do you remember William, whose father died prematurely while he was a teenager? That youngster is the author of this article; William is my middle name. Eventually I came to understand the purpose of life and the fact that the dead are not lost in the grave, that all men, women, children and babies who have ever lived will be resurrected, each in his or her own time. All will eventually have the opportunity to learn God's truth.



In time I came to comprehend that the common denominator to all human death was and is the resurrection of Jesus Christ to eternal life, and that His resurrection guarantees our resurrection, too. Although death is a great enemy of human beings—and it has hurt and stung me deeply three separate times—we can take great comfort in God's truth. As Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:54-58, the resurrection from the dead removes this great enemy and its sting!



Jesus Christ reveals that in time God the Father will come to the earth (Revelation 21:1-3, 10). Listen to Jesus Christ's description of this time: "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).



Knowing God's ultimate plan for mankind—that human death doesn't end it all—gives us a great and wonderful comfort and sets us free from the myth of a passive eternity in heaven or eternal torment in hell. Finally, the apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:18 urges us to share this holy truth with others: "Therefore comfort one another with these words." GN







Related Resources

What Happens After Death?

Few understand what the Bible really teaches about life beyond the grave. This booklet will guide you through the Scriptures to discover the encouraging and awe-inspiring truth so few understand.



What Does the Bible Say About the "Immortal Soul"?

Many people think the Bible says we have an immortal soul destined, at death, for heaven, hell or purgatory. What does the Bible say?



The Resurrection of the Dead: What Does the Bible Really Teach?

Many people have at least a vague notion that the Bible teaches about a resurrection. But what is the resurrection all about? And how does it fit into God's overall plan for salvation?

Friday, October 22, 2010

Republican Senate Candidates Opposing Illegal Immigration—But How Will They Govern?

A timely post from http://www.vdare.com/ about the Republicans running for Senate in 2010. This follows this post about the Falcon Lake murder and this post  which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE!




Republican Senate Candidates Opposing Illegal Immigration—But How Will They Govern?


By Washington Watcher


Until recently, I viewed the power of one senator equal to that of 4.35 congressmen. But when Lindsey Graham opposed birthright citizenship, it completely changed my view.



Congressman Nathan Deal’s perennial bills to end birthright citizenship often attracted over 100 co-sponsors or 22% of the House—yet the issue barely registered in the national consciousness. But when Lindsey Graham and five other Republican Senators—representing 6% of the Senate—discussed interest in considering birthright citizenship, it became headline news for weeks. (To be fair, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) had earlier introduced a resolution to end birthright citizenship with very little fanfare and no co-sponsors and it too managed to escape attention).



Generally, however, Senators are simply taken much more seriously than congressmen. Just a few of them willing to make a stink can completely shift public debate.



Unfortunately, there are very few Senators willing to make a stink. Other than Vitter, and the empty rhetoric from Graham and Co., Republican Senators are still refusing to get serious about birthright citizenship. None are dealing with asylum fraud or chain migration either.



Republican Senators do a fairly good job of stopping bad ideas from the Democrats. But they are not proactive. Numbers USA recently added a "Challenge the status quo" grade that gives low marks to politicians who do nothing about immigration. Vitter’s C grade is the highest in the Senate in this Congress.



However, the influx of Tea Party candidates in the Senate races gives hope that this may change. So it’s worth taking a close look at a few of these races.



Nevada: Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle (R) vs. Incumbent Harry Reid (D).

Without a doubt, the Nevada race is the most significant. As Senate Majority Leader, Reid used his power to try to block even the most mild security measures such as reauthorizing E-Verify, while trying to force the DREAM Act amnesty to a vote, knowing his own party does not want it.



He’s made wonderful statements, like saying that Republicans have "either taken leave of their senses or their principles" for taking up birthright citizenship; and telling a group of Latinos that he didn’t "know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." [1993 flip-flop: Sen. Reid introduced bill 'clarifying' birthright citizenship, by Kelly Picket, Washington Times, August 13, 2010]

Some 12% of Nevada’s electorate is Hispanic and Reid has made it clear that his strategy is to turn out the Hispanic vote.



Sharron Angle, in contrast, is putting opposition to Reid’s illegal immigration policies at the center of the campaign.



Angle calls for cracking down on illegal immigration and ending birthright citizenship. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is campaigning for her.



Angle has released two hard-hitting ads attacking Reid’s record. One ad aired after Reid tried to force a vote on the DREAM Act:



"First Harry Reid votes to give special tax breaks and social security. Then Reid cheers as the President of Mexico slams Arizona's tough illegal immigration law. Now Reid has introduced a plan that gives illegal a pathway to amnesty and even special tuition rates with money coming at your expense.

“Harry Reid: the Best Friend Illegals Have Ever Had."

[Sharron Angle TV Ad: "At Your Expense", YouTube, September 23, 2010]

Unfortunately, Angle has done a little bit of pandering herself, by releasing Spanish language ads. Her "At Your Expense" TV spot featured images of people crossing the border, but when asked if they were Hispanic, she tried to claim that she was so-colorblind that she couldn’t identify races, telling an audience of Hispanic students "Some of you look a little more Asian to me."



This has led to a flurry of attacks from Reid, the DNC, and Hispanic groups calling her insensitive or worse. [Harry Reid blasts Sharron Angle on ‘Asian’ comment, by Molly Ball, Politico, October 19, 2010]



This episode is a lesson to pandering Republicans everywhere. Angle should have said: "Virtually everyone who crosses the border illegally is Hispanic. The ad simply reflected that reality. If Hispanics who are here legally or are US Citizens feel stigmatized by the ad, they should blame the Hispanic illegal aliens who give them a bad name".

This would have been unimpeachably true and she would not be subject to ridicule.



On legal immigration, Angle filled out all of NumbersUSA’s questions about reducing overall numbers and ending chain migration perfectly. Yet she’s been silent on it in the campaign.



Despite these setbacks, if a virtual political novice can take down the Senate Majority Leader by attacking him on illegal immigration, it will send a huge message.



Kentucky: Doctor and Political Novice Rand Paul (R) vs. State Attorney General Jack Conway (D)

Rand Paul shocked the GOP Establishment and gave the Tea Party its first major victory when he beat Mitch McConnell-backed Trey Grayson in the Republican primary. While he is certainly much more willing to compromise than his father, Rand Paul still seems to echo his father on immigration. Paul deserves great credit for vocally opposing birthright citizenship. Prior to Graham’s aforementioned semi-support for ending birthright citizenship, the fact that a Senate candidate championed the cause created a media firestorm and helped bring the issue to the forefront of the immigration debate, quite possibly forcing the establishment GOP to address it.



As an advocate of States’ Rights, Paul stands firmly with Arizona’s SB 1070.



As a relative foreign policy non-interventionist still trying to appeal to Red State voters, Paul wisely puts border security and immigration restriction at the center of his National Defense platform.



"I believe our greatest national security threat is our lack of security at the border. On 9/11, 16 of 19 hijackers were here on ‘legal’ student Visas but were not in school or in the states they were supposed to be in … I propose a moratorium on Visas from about ten rogue nations or anybody that has traveled to those nations. I would keep this in place until our government proves they can manage intelligently our Visa process." [National Defense, Rand Paul for US Senate]



So where is Paul on a moratorium on legal immigration? He utters the usual platitude ("I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves") and the usual naïve libertarian cliché ("Once [welfare programs] for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common") [Illegal Immigration, Rand Paul for US Senate]. So it’s harder to tell.

My biggest concern with Paul: would he support E-Verify? His father is one of a handful of Republicans to oppose reauthorizing the program on libertarian grounds, much less mandating it. In the Senate, Republicans have admirably been unanimous in their support for reauthorizing E-Verify and requiring it for government contractors, so this might be the one issue where positive legislation might pass. But one dissenting Republican vote could give cover for moderate Democrats to peel away.



Democrat Jack Conway tries to stay as silent as possible on immigration. His website does not contain a peep about the issue. When pressed, he said he had "real concerns" over SB 1070 and "We have 12 million illegal immigrants in this country right now…The problem is we're not going to be able to round them all up and ship them away." [Democratic Senate hopefuls debate, Associated Press, May 7, 2010]



To his credit, Paul is attacking Conway on immigration. For example, when the DREAM Act came up, Paul made his opposition clear and then sent out a press release attacking Conway for his silence.



An October 19 Rasmussen Poll found Rand Paul five points ahead of Conway. If elected, Paul could help force issues like birthright citizenship to the forefront. But his silence on E-Verify is very worrying.



Arkansas: Congressman John Boozman (R) vs. Incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln (D)

Blanche Lincoln has about the worst record on immigration among Democrats in relatively conservative states, with a D grade from Numbers USA with an F- for increasing legal immigration and amnesty. Lincoln co-sponsored the DREAM Act, and voted for the 2006 and 2007 amnesty.



Lincoln does not have an immigration platform, but her "Latinos and Amigos for Blanche" website states "Senator Lincoln continues her support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the DREAM Act". She touts her A+ rating from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda and her "Capitol Award from the National Council of La Raza." [Latinos & Amigos for Blanche, Blanche Lincoln for US Senate]



Lincoln is in big trouble, and in the last few months she has done a complete 180. She was one of only two Democrats to vote against cloture for the DREAM Act—which she co-sponsored—claiming to have procedural scruples. She was one of five Democrats to vote for Jim DeMint’s motion to block Obama’s lawsuit against Arizona.



In contrast, Numbers USA shows John Boozman tied for second place for the best immigration voting record, with 97% rating. He’s co-sponsored bills to end chain migration, birthright citizenship, and the diversity lottery. In his ten years in office, his only bad votes were for Free Trade agreements with Singapore and Chile that included some guest workers.



In this election, Boozman’s actual platform is disappointing. Despite his strong record on reducing legal immigration and birthright citizenship, it does not mention either issue. Instead, it proclaims: "We are a nation of immigrants and must remain welcoming to those who come to achieve the American Dream." It also does not use the word illegal alien or even illegal immigrants, instead using "undocumented immigrants." [Immigration, John Boozman for US Senate]. Nor does Boozman appear to be running ads or press releases on the issue.



Polls consistently show Boozman up by over 20%—which could make this race one of the biggest landslide against an incumbent Senator in history—so I won’t say that Boozman needs to bring the issue up to win. Still, Lincoln’s flip-flops demonstrate that she knows that her position is at odds with Arkansas voters and I don’t see why Boozman wouldn’t want to add a few more percentage points to his victory.



Florida: Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Marco Rubio (R), vs. Congressman Kendrick Meek (D) vs. Governor Charlie Crist (I).

In Florida, Marco Rubio—darling of both Tea Party and Hispanic Republicans—defeated Establishment-backed Crist and even more conservative former Senator Bob Smith in the Republican primary. Crist promptly rewarded the National Republican Senatorial Committee for supporting him by running against Rubio as an independent.



Both Crist and Meek are terrible on immigration. Meek has a career F grade from Numbers USA. His platform states:



"Kendrick is the only candidate who has consistently supported comprehensive immigration reform to provide a pathway to citizenship, secure our borders, uphold the rule of law, protect workers, and unite families. He firmly opposes the recent Arizona immigration law and would fight against any attempt to bring a similar measure to Florida. It is time to create a pathway to legalization for the nearly 12 million undocumented residents in the U.S. and provide them an opportunity to become tax-paying citizens and step out from the shadows of society." [Immigration, Kendrick Meek for US Senate]



While Crist pretends to promote a middle ground, his platform is nearly identical to Meek’s—except he prefaces his support for amnesty by saying he’s against it:



"Governor Crist is not in support of an amnesty program. Governor Crist supports immigration reform that provides an earned path to citizenship…Just imagine if these 14 million illegal immigrants became law abiding, tax-paying citizens and paid into the social security system how much better off America would be."

[Charlie Crist on Immigration, Charlie Crist: Independent for US Senate]



As I reported in an earlier piece on Rubio, there is good reason to be wary of him. He has indicated support for increasing legal immigration and as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives blocked half a dozen tough anti-immigration laws from coming to a vote. (To his credit, Rubio did support David Vitter’s attempt to prevent illegal aliens from being counted for Congressional reapportionment in the Senate).



But Rubio’s response to Arizona SB 1070 is both concerning and telling. After the bill passed, he objected,



"States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile."

[Marco Rubio, Arizona Law understandable, but goes too far, by Michael Thomas, Orlando Sentinel, April 27, 2010]



Shortly after Rubio made these comments, Arizona passed a few minor amendments to SB 1070 hoping to ward off the inevitable lawsuits. Jason Mattera of Human Events then interviewed Rubio, and found he had suddenly become a supporter of the law. The interview is worth quoting at length.



JM: Now that the Arizona legislature has amended the law so that police can only question a person’s legal status if there’s a lawful stop, detention, or arrest. Have your thoughts or feelings changed

MR: Well, I congratulate them on doing that… And the reason that [the law] was inevitable is because the federal government has failed to provide border security, has failed to provide a legal immigration system that works. [emphasis added]

“But right now, for the people of Arizona, this is not (from I gathered) [sic] this is not even an immigration issue. This is a public safety issue. And the fact is that Mexican drug violence has tragically crossed over the border and into an American state and American cities. So I congratulate them on taking steps to clarify even further the intent of the law.

JM: If you were in the Arizona state legislature, would you have voted for the law?

MR: The second one that passed hit the right note. Yes.

JM: The first time around, would you have?

MR: Well, I would have wanted to see changes like the ones that were made because I know that that’s not the intent of the bill… Understand that what Arizona is facing is different from anything Florida has ever faced... Frankly, very few states in the country can imagine what that’s like.

[Exclusive: Rubio Clarifies Critique of Arizona Law, Jason Mattera, Human Events, May 6, 2010]



It is completely unbelievable that those minor changes to SB 1070 are why Rubio changed his position on it. They did not address his fundamental objection to "states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem." Obviously, it just became clear to him that any conservative worth his salt supported SB 1070 and he didn’t want to be at odds with Sarah Palin or Sean Hannity. The revisions merely gave him an excuse to flip-flop.



However, while giving the now-obligatory support of the bill, Rubio implies that there should be increases in legal immigration—and that no other state should pass such a law.



Even though Crist left the GOP, he is taking more votes from Democrats than Republicans and Rubio is polling comfortably above both candidates.



Assuming he does take office, I think Rubio’s record will be mixed. It is no secret that Rubio aspires to be the next Jim DeMint—the leader of Senate conservatives. He is politically savvy enough to know that this is not possible if he supports amnesty, as Congressman Mike Pence’s temporary fall from grace demonstrated. But his heart is clearly closer to the usual Cuban Florida Republican line of Mel Martinez and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. His repositioning on Arizona shows that he will weasel his way to do whatever is necessary to be the darling of Fox News, but will move to the left on immigration as much as politically possible.



So what can we make out of these candidates? It is encouraging to see support for Arizona and opposition to amnesty become a litmus test for conservative candidates. However, it is still disappointing that no-one is openly supporting cuts in legal immigration, much less a moratorium.



Still, we can hope that Angle will stay true to her Numbers USA pledge or that Boozman will carry on his strong record in the House into the Senate—or that some new champion will emerge among the freshman Senators, perhaps Alaska’s Joe Miller, who has a perfect NumbersUSA score.



At the very least, the next Congress seems sure to be a different world.



"Washington Watcher" [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Texas: Imam who donated to terror-tied Islamic charity arrested for marriage fraud

A very interesting post from http://www.jihadwatch.org/ about a Texas Imam. This follows this post  about a terror-friendly treasonous Congressman and this article  about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran  and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE!







Texas: Imam who donated to terror-tied Islamic charity arrested for marriage fraud


Well, they got Capone on tax evasion. "Arlington imam, wife accused of marriage fraud," by Jason Trahan for The Dallas Morning News, October 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):



A prominent Islamic scholar who has battled accusations of extremist beliefs has been arrested along with his wife on federal charges that they married other people to get U.S. citizenship.

Ibrahim Abdelrahman Dremali and Safaa Rashad Eissa were arrested by immigration agents, Arlington police and the FBI on Oct. 6 on a warrant out of Des Moines, Iowa. They were released on their own recognizance after appearing before a federal judge in Fort Worth the same day.



They are scheduled to enter pleas Nov. 12 in Iowa on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, which can carry a five-year sentence, and procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully, which can result in 10 to 25 years in prison.



Dremali, who earned degrees in geology and Islamic law in Cairo, immigrated to the U.S. in 1989 and has served as an imam, or Muslim spiritual leader, in south Florida, Iowa and Austin and worked at Islamic schools.



This summer, he and his wife moved to a house on Virginia Lane near the Islamic Society of Arlington, where he helped lead a local Islamic school....



Reached by phone this past week in Arlington, Dremali said he was too sick to talk. He was originally supposed to report to court Wednesday in Des Moines. His attorney, Alfredo Parrish, sought a delay because doctors treating Dremali, who has hepatitis C and is awaiting a liver transplant at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, said he cannot travel....



After Dremali emigrated to the U.S., he co-founded the Islamic Center of Boca Raton in 1998. In 2000, the Gaza native, participated in a pro-Palestinian rally in Miami that featured the burning of Israeli flags and a mock funeral for Palestinians killed in the Israeli conflict. According to a published report, Dremali told the crowd "not to be sad for those who were martyred, and to not be afraid to die for what they believe in."



After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Dremali denied making the statement amid criticism from conservative bloggers about his role in the rally and other associations.



In 2002, Adham Hassoun, a Palestinian activist and computer programmer in Florida, was detained on immigration charges. Dremali was one of four people called to speak about Hassoun's "peaceful and generous character" at a hearing, a court record shows.



Hassoun attended the same Fort Lauderdale mosque as Jose Padilla and was thought to have helped convert him to Islam. Padilla was later accused of planning a dirty bomb attack in the U.S., but authorities ultimately convicted him, and Hassoun, of coordinating aid to al-Qaeda.



Ties to terrorists?



Dremali later said he barely knew Hassoun.



"You can judge a person by the company they keep," wrote Joe Kaufman, a conservative activist in southern Florida, in one of several blog posts accusing Dremali of being a radical Islamist. "Will our government sit back and let things happen, or will it begin to take action, so that the next 9/11 never becomes reality?"



Last week, Kaufman said in an interview with The Dallas Morning News that he is not surprised to hear of Dremali's arrest. "Regardless if they prosecute him on terrorism or immigration, I think it's a good thing to take him off the streets," he said.



Kaufman has also highlighted a more than $16,000 donation by Dremali's Islamic Center of Boca Raton to the Global Relief Foundation, one of several Muslim charities shut down by the Bush administration for funding international terrorism.



Dremali has said that he did not know Global Relief had terrorist ties when the donation was made....



Posted by Robert

Purple Homosexualist 'Spirit Day' Saturates U.S. Schools, Media, Stock Exchange

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ about Purple Homosexual Spirit Day. This follows this post about the D.C. campaign. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE!





Purple Homosexualist 'Spirit Day' Saturates U.S. Schools, Media, Stock Exchange

By Kathleen Gilbert



October 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An Internet-born movement to encourage solidarity with teen victims of gay bullying has spurred several celebrities, schools, and media to officially promote the pro-homosexual campaign by wearing purple this past Wednesday.



A young woman named Brittany McMillan, who spread the idea on her Tumblr account, and was championed by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), reportedly began the movement, which is intended to memorialize homosexual youths who have killed themselves.



Several media outlets endorsed the movement, including CNBC, the Today Show, E!, HGTV, Philadelphia Magazine, Ms. Magazine, The View, and numerous Spanish-language media. Even the New York Stock Exchange building was illuminated purple to celebrate the event.



But not everyone is pleased with the Spirit Day, which has been officially adopted in several U.S. schools, including high schools and elementary schools.



Carlos Barrera, a freshman at Fremont High School in Sunnyvale, CA, said that his school announced Tuesday that it would sponsor the color-themed event "to stop hate and discrimination" against homosexuals.



"I saw on the news something about wearing purple, but I didn't expect them to make the announcement during school, over the loudspeaker," Barrera, 14, told LifeSiteNews.com. "If you didn't have purple, one of the teachers was passing out rainbow ribbons to the students to wear."



Barrera said he thought "a pretty good part" of the student body participated, but not everyone was pleased. "A lot of [the students] were disappointed, they were pretty upset," he said. "I didn't like it at all." Barrera said that all of the faculty appeared to participate.



Daniel Perez, a teacher at Fremont who was in charge of the homosexualist Spirit Day, did not return calls as of press time Friday.



It's unclear from the Facebook event page dedicated to the campaign how many actually signed up on the social network to attend: the number of those “attending” fluctuates intermittently from about 10,000 to over 1.7 million. The number “not attending” also appears to fluctuate between 10,000 and over 1.2 million.



The site states that, “Purple represents Spirit on the LGBTQ flag and that’s exactly what we’d like all of you to have with you: spirit. Please know that times will get better and that you will meet people who will love you and respect you for who you are, no matter your sexuality."



Homosexual individuals have been found to suffer a significantly increased risk of mental health issues, including drug abuse, depression, and suicide; a UK survey in 2008 found homosexuals twice as likely as the rest of the population to take their own lives.



While homosexualist leaders often attribute these symptoms exclusively to bullying and discrimination, pro-family experts, such as the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), contend that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder, and that engaging in the dangerous gay lifestyle presents a major threat to an individual's physical and mental well-being.



PFOX executive director Regina Griggs says that school groups that encourage vulnerable teens to identify as gay or lesbian too early are doing them a great disservice by fostering a deep confusion about their own identity.



"Sexual attractions are fluid and do not take on permanence until early adulthood," said Griggs in response to news of a young man's suicide in 2008. "Rather than affirming teenagers as 'gay' through self-labeling, educators should affirm them as people worthy of respect and encourage teens to wait until adulthood before making choices about their sexuality.



"If teens are encouraged to believe that they are permanently 'gay' before they have had a chance to reach adulthood, their life choices are severely restricted and can result in depression."





See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:



Homosexual U.K. Documentarian Says Gay Lifestyle a "Sewer" of Casual Degrading Sex, Drug Abuse and Misery

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html

The Spirit World's Dangerous Dark Side

An interesting article from http://www.gnmagazine.org/ about the Spirit World. This follows this post about the afterlife. For a free magazine subscription click HERE!! or call 1-888-886-8632.

The Spirit World's Dangerous Dark Side


Strange practices and religions such as Wicca, Santeria, voodoo and channeling are growing in popularity. What's behind them? Are such things harmless, or is there more to them than meets the eye?

by Mario Seiglie

As traditional Christianity has lost its appeal for many people, growing numbers have sought to fill that vacuum in their lives in other ways. Some turn to alternate religions popular in other parts of the world. Some turn to witchcraft and pre-Christian paganism. Some seek answers in the occult. A few even knowingly turn to Satanism and evil spirits.



Some are simply curious; others are very serious. But whether they recognize it or not, all are dabbling in dangers that likely are well beyond their limited comprehension. That's why these dangers are often referred to as the occult—things that are secretive, mysterious and concealed.



Maybe you've never directly seen Satan or his demons, but certainly those familiar with the Bible recognize their influence in this rapidly degenerating world. No wonder the Scriptures describe Satan as "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4).



His influence is not new, but its prevalence in modern society certainly is. What was once banned or very limited in dealing with the dark spirit realm is now mostly out in the open. Satanism is rampant in movies, and movements based on it, such as Wicca, Santeria, voodoo and consultation with mediums, are thriving, especially with the young.



The apostle Paul tells us we should be wary of such practices, "lest Satan should take advantage of us, for we are not ignorant of his devices" (2 Corinthians 2:11).



Wicca, Santeria and voodoo

One of the fastest growing movements in Western nations is Wicca, a modern version of witchcraft. Part of its popularity is due to American TV programs such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angeland Charmed. Wicca is so popular that the United States, Great Britain and many other nations now recognize it as a legitimate religion with legal rights.



The term Wicca was popularized in 1954 by the British leader of the movement, Gerald Gardner, who described it as a return to the "Old Religion" popular in Europe before Christianity.



Wicca, from on an Old English word for "witch," incorporates many of the trappings of ancient British witchcraft practices. The satanic pentagram is used as its symbol, and one of its main tenets is adoring nature through different rituals and deities. Some, but not all, covens, or groups, practice casting spells, divination and magic. Wicca is an umbrella group or movement that gathers under its fold very different beliefs and practices—but is at its core a thinly disguised type of old-fashioned witchcraft.



Santeria is a Caribbean religion based on mixing African witchcraft with Roman Catholic beliefs—similar in many ways to voodoo or pure African witchcraft. Its followers practice animal sacrifices and perform feverish dancing during Santerian rituals that can lead to possession of a person by an orisha or "saint" being invoked. The individual then is said to speak and act as that saint. If this is an actual spiritual experience, however, it is nothing more than demonic possession.



All of these practices have this in common: Satan is their originator and they should be absolutely avoided. God, who knows exactly how Satan and his demons work, emphatically warns us not to have anything to do with them. He tells us to not "give the devil a foothold" (Ephesians 4:27, New International Version).



We should not consult with people associated with these practices, in spite of what they claim are good intentions to help us. God says: "There shall not be found among you anyone who . . . practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord" (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, emphasis added throughout).



What are mediums and familiar spirits?

What about mediums and people who use such things as tarot cards and Ouija boards to consult with the spirits?



Mediums—also sometimes called "seers" or "clairvoyants"—are people who may be used by the fallen angels the Bible calls demons. They might appear normal and helpful, but those who are not fakes (and many are) can genuinely have contact with deceitful spirits who seek to attract and use human beings for their own evil purposes. For this reason these evil angelic beings are called in the Bible "deceiving spirits" (1 Timothy 4:1).



A true medium has a "familiar spirit" in him, and the term comes from the Hebrew word obh, meaning "a leather bottle." To the ancient Hebrews, the hollow sound of the voice of a familiar spirit, speaking through a medium, sounded as if it came out of a skin bottle. Just as a skin bottle is a type of vessel, so a person who has a familiar spirit serves as a vessel or a "medium" that contains the spirit.



Familiar spirits, in reality disguised demons, can have an intimate knowledge of people, alive or dead. They have at their disposal an extensive network of information from fellow demons who are more than willing to share their knowledge with the deceived "host." In this way, they will entice many more people to be deceived and hooked—ending sometimes as pawns to these spirits.



This is the grave danger of participating in any of these practices—at first these spirits appear as willing servants, but inevitably they end up as harsh taskmasters.



That is why we should avoid coming into any contact with people who claim they can communicate with the dead. God, who is intimately familiar with this spirit world, warns us that "the person who turns to mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people" (Leviticus 20:6).



The Scriptures candidly admit that legitimate mediums do exist and can establish contact with demons, who disguise themselves as departed loved ones, to attract the unsuspecting into their dark spirit world.



Tarot cards and Ouija boards

Some use manual devices such as tarot cards or Ouija boards to consult directly with these familiar spirits. These objects should be avoided at all costs—they are not innocent "games" but ancient ways of attracting these familiar spirits.



Think of these instruments as potential passports into your mind—possibly opening an entry to the zone that should only be inhabited by your own thoughts and God's Holy Spirit. If you do not invite these evil spirits, they cannot enter. Yet sometimes even an unsuspecting invitation through these devices can give demons a green light! Sadly, many people have unknowingly invited evil spirits into their minds—never to be quite the same again.



As the Scriptures reveal, these spirits need to be cast out by genuine ministers of God. Acts 19 records an instance where some would-be exorcists tried to cast a demon out of a person and the demon turned on them, saying, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?" Much to their surprise, "the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded" (verses 15-16).



This is therefore no laughing matter or cute entertainment—it is deadly serious! Scripture records several instances of people falling into such forbidden practices with disastrous results.



Saul and the medium of En Dor

In the Old Testament, we find the tragic example of King Saul going to a medium. He had first tried to consult with God, but because of his multiple sins, especially his slaughter of 85 priests and an untold number of innocent inhabitants of the town of Nob, he did not receive any answers (1 Samuel 22:18-19).



Saul then broke God's law and consulted with a medium at En Dor (1 Sam- uel 28:7). She invoked a figure of one appearing as the prophet Samuel. Yet Saul never saw him; he only heard a voice. This is one reason why God prohibits such consultations—demons are very clever and can impersonate the person being summoned. Notice the Bible had said God would not answer Saul's inquiries "either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophets" (verse 6). This clearly was not the prophet Samuel!



The spirit the medium saw ascending out of the earth (verse 13) was in fact a demon. Saul only thought it was Samuel, but this demon had tricked him. As the apostle Paul explains: "For Satan himself transforms himself into [or disguises himself as] an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into [or impersonate] ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).



It was not unusual, therefore, for a demon to have impersonated the dead prophet Samuel. The Scriptures clearly tell us Samuel was dead, buried and unconscious: "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5).



Saul was left with the dire prediction that he would die the next day. He never did turn back to God. That is one of the reasons he is such a tragic figure in the Scriptures.



Paul confronts a spirit of divination

Another case of a medium is found in the New Testament, and it is quite instructive.



We read in Acts 16:16-19: "Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, 'These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.'



"And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, 'I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.' And he came out that very hour. But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities" (emphasis added throughout).



This passage tells us quite a bit about the dark side of the spirit world. First, it reveals there are some cases where people actually do have the spirit of divination and are quite economically successful at what they do. Nowhere does this section deny the fact that people can tap into this source for valuable information. Also, it shows there are others willing to promote such a business, which can be quite profitable. Today, millions if not billions of dollars are made from this ancient and harmful practice.



One can find many programs on radio or TV, backed by successful businessmen, where people with a spirit of divination can greatly impress audiences with their apparent intimate knowledge of those they interview. Most of the time these persons openly call themselves channelers, psychics or mediums. Of course, not all who practice this profession are genuine mediums, for there are many clever charlatans as well, but some are authentic!



As the biblical case in Acts 16 shows, the slave girl with the spirit of divination was a real medium. We know this because when the demon left her, she could no longer reveal intimate details of a person's life or predict the future.



Another insight from this account is that the message from a spirit can be positive and true. After all, the Bible plainly says the young girl used by the spirit of divination announced that Paul and his companions came from God and preached the way of salvation. This was true, so what was the problem?



The problem wasn't the message itself, but the source of the information. We see here the subtle element of deceit. Many times, the initial message of a spirit of divination, or a demon, can seem positive, harmless and helpful. Just as a fisherman entices fish with succulent bait, so these spirits know they must attract innocent victims with something useful and agreeable. They know, once their victims are hooked, there will be plenty of time later for them to change their message.



Simply say "No!"

We must simply say "No!" when enticed to play with this dark spirit world. Don't fold under pressure from friends, family or anyone else. Put God and His Word first! Literally, your life and your mental welfare could depend on it!



God, who knows exactly how Satan and his demons work, emphatically warns us not to have anything to do with them. We should not consult with people associated with these spirits in spite of any stated intentions to help us. God's Word is clear: "Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:31).



Ask, "Would Christ approve of this?" Certainly He would not! So we should avoid all contact with mediums, fortune-tellers, witches and their devices—and not be fooled by whatever means they might use to try to entice us. GN









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



Recommended Reading

The dark side of the spirit world is very real and nothing we should dabble in. The Bible has a great deal to say about the leader of that dark side, a powerful and evil being called Satan the devil. Where did this being come from? What are his goals, his methods? What are his followers, the demons? To learn more, request our free booklet Is There Really a Devil?

Thursday, October 21, 2010

NPR Fires Juan Williams For Telling the Truth

A very interesting post from http://www.redstate.com/ about Juan Williams being fired!! This follows this post  about a terror-friendly treasonous Congressman and this article  about the recent news about the former ban on offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved  click HERE!!



NPR Fires Juan Williams For Telling the Truth

National Public Radio has fired Juan Williams, its long time correspondent, over remarks Williams made on the O'Reilly Factor.




Specifically, in a conversation about Islamic terrorism, Williams said on the O'Reilly Factor that he sometimes had fear on airplanes seeing muslim passengers in Islamic garb.



NPR said Juan Williams' comments "undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR" and "his remarks on the O'Reilly Factor . were inconsistent with our editorial standards."



For reference, NPR recently ran a segment on how to speak "tea bagger".



All Juan Williams did is say both exactly how he feels and how many, many other Americans feel on this subject.


I would encourage you to go here and tell the NPR Ombudsman what you think considering NPR is perfectly willing to teach you how to speak tea bagger, but cannot let one of its contributors express his feelings on Islam and terrorism.



Please click here for the rest of the post.