Asking Him

Friday, February 26, 2016

Recent Republican Debate

In the most recent Republican debate, some very revealing information was given on where the Republican candidates now stand regarding the support of Israel.

This may be the most important question before the United States today because the Word of God has not changed. He said, "I WILL BLESS THOSE WHO BLESS YOU AND I WILL CURSE THOSE WHO CURSE YOU." Genesis 12:3

We quote excerpts from that debate, below:
During a wildly animated GOP debate Thursday evening, GOP front-runner Donald Trump asserted that, as president, he cannot side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because doing so would "demean" Palestinians.

Trump's comments brought an onslaught of criticism from Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both of whom vowed to stand by Israel.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer moderated the debate, and Telemundo's Maria Celeste Arraras, Salem talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt and CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash asked questions of the candidates.

During the debate, Blitzer began a round of questions on foreign policy by addressing the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. He quoted Trump as having previously said, "Let me be sort of a neutral guy. I don't want to say whose fault it is. I don't think it helps."

Blitzer then asked Trump, "How do you remain neutral when the U.S. considers Israel to be America's closest ally in the Middle East?"

"Well, first of all I don't think they do under President Obama, because I think he has treated Israel horribly," began Trump. "Alright? I think he's treated Israel horribly."

Trump added, "I was the Grand Marshal down Fifth Avenue a number of years ago for the Israeli Day parade. I have very close ties to Israel. I've received the Tree of Life Award and many of the greatest awards given by Israel. As president, however, there's nothing that I would rather do [than] bring peace to Israel and its neighbors."

He then insisted, "I think it serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy."

"Now, I may not be successful in doing it. It's probably the toughest negotiation of anywhere in the world, of any kind, OK? But, it doesn't help if I start saying I'm very pro-Israel, very pro-Israel, more than anybody on this stage. But it doesn't do any good to start demeaning the neighbors. Because I would love to do something with regard to negotiating peace, finally, for Israel and for their neighbors."

Trump said he can't do that as a negotiator while taking sides.

Cruz then responded, "This is another area on which Donald agrees with Hillary Clinton. And on which I disagree with them both strongly. Both Donald and Hillary Clinton want to be 'neutral,' to use Donald's word, between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Let me be clear, if I'm president, America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel. The notion of neutrality is based upon the left buying into this moral relativism that is often pitched in the media. Listen, it is not equivalent. When you have terrorists strapping dynamite around their chests, exploding and murdering innocent women and children, they are not equivalent to the IDF officers protecting Israel. And I will not pretend that they are.

Blitzer asked Rubio what's wrong with the U.S. being an "honest broker" in negotiations, as Trump has proposed.

"Because, I don't know if Donald realizes this, I'm sure it's not his intent, perhaps, but the position you've taken is an anti-Israel position, and here's why," Rubio said.

"You cannot be an honest broker in a dispute between two sides in which one of the sides is constantly acting in bad faith. The Palestinian Authority has walked away from multiple efforts to make peace, very generous offers from the Israelis.

"Instead, here's what the Palestinians do: They teach their four-year-old children that killing Jews is a glorious thing. Here's what Hamas does: They launch rockets and terrorist attacks against Israel on an ongoing basis.

"The bottom line is, a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, given the current makeup of the Palestinians, is not possible. And, so the next president of the United States needs to be someone like me, who will stand firmly on the side of Israel.

"I'm not going to sit here and say I'm not on either side. I will be on Israel's side every single day because they are the only pro-American, free-enterprise democracy in the entire Middle East."

Rubio charged, "He thinks (negotiating with) the Palestinians is a real-estate deal."

HE's There

Transformed

Oh, Lord Jesus! How we thank and praise You for Your love and mercy that bring salvation and healing and peace and joy and hope and power-- every good thing--into the lives of we who will simply relinquish our 'self.'

We give our lives to You--so You can make us new, so You can deliver us from death and hell to eternal life!

HOW GREAT YOU ARE!

Vision of Hell and Heaven, Near Death Experience - Brother Jordan (CBN)

Brother Jordan was not practical Christian. He also had bad memory asking Jesus while he was Catholic…

Gun Related Deaths and the Facts

An Opinion by Bill Wilson
Gun Related Deaths and the Facts

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In the early days of the nation, the Founding Fathers were terribly concerned that any government formed would become a tyranny such as that of Britain. Britain's military was brutal on the colonists. The Founders did not want this repeated.

In fact, they did not want a standing army during peacetime. They believed it was the duty and honor of every citizen to defend the homeland and their property during times of armed crisis. They also believed that an armed citizenry would keep government in check.

An armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. That doesn't mean hunting rifles. It means an armed citizenry.

The opposing forces of liberty, including the White House and Congress, say shootings across the country are reason to disarm the citizenry. Guns kill people, they cry, omitting any amount of personal responsibility for those murderous cowards who pull triggers against the innocent.

Let's look at the facts. According to the Department of Justice there were 9,203 deaths in 2009 resulting from firearms use. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that in 2010 there were 32,993 deaths involving automobiles, of which 10,228 were from drunk driving.

Your chance of dying as an American is over 300% higher from a car or truck than from a gun. The gun control debate boils down to one thing: disarming the public--the very thing second only to freedom of speech and religion that the Founding Fathers sought to prevent.

When studying the hard statistics, we see that the debate is a fallacy. The pacifist Quakers who run Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, have an 11 member security team, many who are armed.
Celebrities and politicians send their kids there, including the first family and many members of the media. Yet they ridicule those who suggest arming school personnel to protect kids.

There were 1.21 million abortions in 2007, according to the Census Bureau. Let's get real. Where's the real threat to the lives of children?

Criminals or crazy people kill people with guns, knives, baseball bats, etc. They will get guns any way they can--legally or illegally.

Responsible citizens don't take people's lives unless their lives or lives of loved ones are threatened. It comes down to personal responsibility. No one talks about outlawing automobiles.

II Timothy 3 describes perfectly the political and spiritual times in which we live. Verse 13 says, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."

The gun control debate isn't about saving your kids from the bad guys. It's about taking away the security of your freedom. See to it that you are not deceived. The lives, the freedom, the future of your children depend on it.

Love Trump or Hate Trump by Dr. Jim Denison

"There's something about Mr. Trump that makes it hard for people who love him, and people who hate him, to love each other." So states The Wall Street Journal, reporting on marital rifts being created by Donald Trump's presidential candidacy.

One couple has set its rules: When Mr. Trump appears on the evening news, one or the other must leave the room, or they must flip to the National Geographic channel. And they never discuss him in the bedroom.

Politics are getting more divisive by the day, it seems. In last night's Republican presidential debate, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz repeatedly attacked Mr. Trump, who responded in kind. And Bernie Sanders is sharpening his criticisms of Hillary Clinton on the eve of the South Carolina Democratic primary.

Michael Scherer notes in Time that America's presidential contests "are designed to be brutal passion plays, the best alternative to the bloody wars of succession humanity used in centuries past."

And so it has been across our history.

In the 1800 election, President John Adams was opposed by Vice-President Thomas Jefferson. Neither campaigned publicly, but both hired operatives to work on their behalf. The Jefferson camp accused Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." The Adams camp replied that Jefferson was a "mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." The rancor that began with that election continues today.

Across our history, politicians have defamed each other because such tactics work. Why are they effective?

Bert Decker's You've Got To Be Believed To Be Heard explains that emotional trust is essential to persuasion. According to Decker, believability is "overwhelmingly determined at a preconscious level" where our innate concern is survival. His research shows that "people buy on emotion and justify with fact."

In political terms, if I can get voters to distrust you, I am more likely to defeat you.

Clearly, there is no room for slander in the Christian faith. At the same time, we can learn from our politicians. Old Testament prophets consistently criticized the immorality of their leaders and people. Jesus called his opponents "hypocrites" six times in just one New Testament chapter (Matthew 23). Paul said of anyone preaching a false gospel, "let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8).

Part of speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) is warning sinners when they sin. According to biblical scholar D. A. Carson, Jesus spoke about hell twice as often as he spoke about heaven. How many of us follow his example today?