Hagee: Healing In Jesus' Name 'Works Every Time'

On this week's "Hagee Hotline," Matthew Hagee received a question from a viewer about why healing in Jesus' name doesn't always work.  Hagee replied that, in fact, "healing works every time" but simply manifests itself in different forms.

There are some times when a person is instantaneously healed in Jesus' name and other times when they are healed over a longer period of weeks or months ... and then sometimes the person actually dies "but that does not mean they're not healed."

"The Bible says," Hagee explained, "that when we get into presence of God that every sickness, every infirmity, and every kind of weakness is gone, which is an absolute and total healing":

Rep. Trent Franks Compares Anti-Choice Movement to Abolition of Slavery, Ending Holocaust

Rep. Trent Franks, Republican of Arizona, joined Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and anti-choice activist Lila Rose on an FRC webcast yesterday  on “exposing America’s late-term abortion industry.” Franks, who recently introduced a bill that would institute a national ban on the rare practice of abortion after 20 weeks, compared his fight against reproductive rights to the ending of the Holocaust and the abolition of slavery. “We are the ones that rushed into Eastern Europe and arrested the Holocaust, we are the ones that said no more to slavery after thousands of years, and by the grace of God,  we’re going to be the ones that say that we’re going to protect our own children,” he said.

When Perkins asked him to elaborate on the stakes of his bill, Franks answered that if it fails, “I would suggest to you that we undermine everything that America was ever dreamed of to be and we step into that Sumerian night where the light of compassion has gone out and the survival of the fittest finally prevails over man…If we turn our backs on this, I’m afraid we’ve broken the back of what America really is.”

E.W. Jackson: Obama Condones Anti-Semitism and Terrorist Attacks Against Israel

Virginia Republican Lt. Governor nominee E.W. Jackson has consistently implied that President Obama is a secret Muslim, and in a 2010 American Thinker column went even further by arguing that President Obama condones anti-Semitism and terrorist attacks against Israel by Hamas.

After accusing Obama of remaining “silent” over Hamas rocket attacks against Israel in addition to Helen Thomas’ statement that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine,” Jackson writes that “given his close association with Islam and with one of Louis Farrakhan's best friends, his silence must be interpreted as consent.”

When people say "I hate to say I told you so," they rarely mean it. What they really mean is, "I was right, and I am glad to tell you so." A year ago, I wrote,

Obama apparently sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. Those who think clearly about these issues must conclude that President Obama is influenced by a quiet strain of anti-Semitism picked up from elements of the black community, leftist colleagues, Muslim associations and Jeremiah Wright. For the first time in her history, Israel may find the President of the United States openly siding with her enemies. Those who believe that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight.

I really do hate to say "I told you so." I did not vote for Barack Obama, but I hoped he would surprise me and not be the kind of president that his background portended. Most Americans, even those who didn't vote for him, wanted to believe that he would transcend the negative forces which might have influenced his thinking. Perhaps the anti-Semitism to which he had been exposed had not gotten into his intellectual DNA. He attempted to reassure us.



In his much-hyped speech in Cairo, reaching out to the "Muslim World," Obama drew a moral equivalence between the "suffering" of the Palestinians and the Holocaust against the Jewish people. He said, "Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust." But he went on to say, "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that Palestinians ... have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

To equate these two vastly different historical realities borders on the delusional. There is no equivalence between a systematic effort to annihilate the entire Jewish people and the problem of "dislocation" -- as Obama refers to it -- of the Palestinians. If there is any similarity at all, it is that many Palestinians, like the Nazis, want to kill all Jews.



Helen Thomas, an Obama devotee, recently said the Jews need to "get the hell out of Palestine." Obama is silent. For years, Jews in Israel could hardly sleep for fear that Hamas rockets would land in their homes. Yet when Israel takes reasonable action to search ships to prevent weapons from entering Gaza, she is condemned. Obama is silent. Reuters doctored the pictures of the recent blockade confrontation -- editing out weapons in the hands of the ship's crew -- so as to perpetuate the narrative of Israeli aggression. Obama is silent. Perhaps if he had not spent twenty years in the church of a rabid anti-Semite, President Obama's muteness would not speak so loudly. However, given his close association with Islam and with one of Louis Farrakhan's best friends, his silence must be interpreted as consent. I wish I were wrong about this president, but facts are stubborn things.

Beck: CNN Interview With Atheist Tornado Survivor Was a Set-Up

On last night's program, while discussing relief efforts in Oklahoma, Glenn Beck challenged faith leaders to step up and put their faith into action, urging them to ask themselves "what have I done that atheists can't or won't?"

Of course, atheists can do pretty much anything that believers can do (except maybe bring people back from the dead or stop tornadoes) but Beck was saying that people of faith need to make their light shine in a way that atheists can't. 

In particular, Beck cited an interview between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and a survivor of the Oklahoma tornado who turned out to be an atheist ... which Beck is convinced was a set-up by a CNN producer who wanted to promote atheism "or just doesn't like Christians."

"We are not fighting against flesh and bone," Beck said. "We are fighting the forces of spiritual darkness and it doesn't matter what people's intent are, but I will tell you that that was there for a reason":

E.W. Jackson: Liberals Treated Juan Williams Like a 'Slave' Because They Blamed America for 9/11

In 2010, NPR fired analyst Juan Williams after he told a Fox News host that he was afraid of flying with people in “Muslim garb.” The episode quickly became a rallying cry for the right, including for E.W. Jackson, now the Virginia GOP’s nominee for lieutenant governor. Shortly after the episode, Jackson wrote a column for American Thinker accusing liberals of treating Williams like a “slave” who “dares to leave the plantation of liberal orthodoxy.”

This “lashing” of Williams, Jackson wrote, happened because “the far left -- which NPR represents -- does not have the same visceral reaction to the suffering inflicted on Americans on 911 because they believe we brought it on ourselves.”  A “normal response” to 9/11, Jackson writes, was displayed by passengers of a plane who were “traumatized” when a number of Muslims on their flight decided to pray before boarding, in what Jackson calls “a bizarre display calculated to disturb those who witnessed it.”

When escaped slaves were caught, they were lashed into submission. This was intended not only as a warning to that particular slave, but to the entire plantation of black servants to stay in their place.  Liberals do the psychological equivalent of this to any black person who dares to leave the plantation of liberal orthodoxy. After working over a decade for liberal National Public Radio, Juan Williams was summarily fired, publically ridiculed and told to see a psychiatrist. Liberals have a proprietary attitude toward blacks and other minorities. When anyone one of us dares contradict leftist thought, they try to punish us severely.

One of my daughters saw a group of Muslims board a plane and sit in different sections. Their behavior caused her such anxiety that she got off the plane and took another flight. My daughter is not a racist or a bigot. We are black and have Muslims in our family. Are we to believe that it is bigotry to admit that the terrorist acts of 911 actually terrorized us? Signals which remind us of that horrific day evoke anxiety, a normal human response to terrible trauma. An entire flight was traumatized when a group of Muslims decided to have open prayers in an airport just before boarding a plane. The passengers became frightened by what seemed a bizarre display calculated to disturb those who witnessed it. Were they also bigots?

Two things are at play here. First, the far left -- which NPR represents -- does not have the same visceral reaction to the suffering inflicted on Americans on 911 because they believe we brought it on ourselves. America, in their view, is imperialist, greedy and militaristic. Therefore, we do not dare ascribe fault to any group but ourselves. It is alright to say "extremists" attacked us on 911 because America has its own extremists. It is not acceptable to identify those extremists as Muslims. Liberals do not view Juan Williams' expressed "feelings" as intellectual honesty, but as proof of his own and America's bigotry. That is the warped thinking of the left.

The way he was fired demonstrates that it had nothing to do with any objective assessment of his professional conduct. A man who worked for them for ten years had become a political enemy and they meant to harm him financially, emotionally and professionally. When a slave escaped from the plantation, it wasn't merely a case of one slave being a problem. That slave became a threat to the institution of slavery and to the master's way of life. The response was brutal or the slave was sold off, i.e., fired. The attempt to break free was a personal affront to the slave master. "After all," he thought, "I've been good to my slaves. Why would they want to be free?"

[Emphases are mine]

Coulter: America Has Too Many Latinos

In her latest column, Ann Coulter laments the 1965 immigration bill that ended a racist quota system which favored immigrants from northern and western Europe. She said that “Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to boost the number of immigrants from the Third World,” and now “we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world.”

Just in case it wasn’t clear already, Coulter is talking about Latino immigrants, warning that the “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill will “turn the country into Mexico” and expand the welfare state.

“Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico?” Coulter asked, arguing that if “Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished.”

Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and John McCain are working feverishly to turn the country into Mexico.

So now I think all the scandals are intended to distract from Rubio’s amnesty bill.

For decades, Mexicans have been about 30 percent of all legal immigrants to the United States, while only a smidgen more than 1 percent come from Great Britain. Is that fair? Granted, their food is better, but why is it the norm is to have nearly 30 times as many Mexican as British immigrants?

We have been taking in more immigrants from Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, individually, than from England, our mother country. There are nearly twice as many immigrants from El Salvador as from Canada, and 10 times as many as from Australia.

Why can’t the country be more or less the ethnic composition it always was? The 50-1 Latin American-to-European ratio isn’t a natural phenomenon that might result from, say, Europeans losing interest in coming here and poor Latin Americans providing some unique skill desperately needed in our modern, technology-based economy.

To the contrary, it’s result of an insane government policy. Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to artificially inflate the number of immigrants from the Third World, while making it virtually impossible for anyone from the nations that historically provided our immigrants to come here.

Pre-1965 immigrants were what made this country what it was for a reason: They were the pre-welfare state immigrants. From around 1630 to 1966, immigrants sank or swam. About a third of them couldn’t make it in America and went home – and those are the ones who weren’t rejected right off the boat for being sick, crippled or idiots.

That’s why corny stories of someone’s ancestors coming here a half-century ago are completely irrelevant. If their ancestors hadn’t succeeded, their great-grandchildren wouldn’t be here to tell the story because no one was given food stamps, free medical care and housing to stay (and vote Democrat).

Now we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world and specifically rejecting skilled immigrants.

As Milton Friedman said, you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. The reason a country’s average immigrant matters is that the losers never go home – they go on welfare. (Maybe if they had to work, immigrants wouldn’t have as much time to build bombs.) Airy statements about wanting to end welfare aren’t going to change that implacable fact.

It should not come as a surprise that a majority of recent immigrants are following a path that’s the exact opposite of earlier immigrants. The immigrant story of lore is that the first generation is poor but works hard, then the second, third and fourth generations soar up the socioeconomic ladder.

But innumerable studies have shown that Mexican first-generation immigrants work like maniacs – and then the second, third and fourth generations plunge headlong into the underclass.

By now, Mexicans are the largest immigrant group in America, with about 50 million Hispanics living here legally.

Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill will soon make it 80 million. First, there are at least 11 million illegal immigrants, a majority from Mexico, who will be instantly legalized. Then we’ll get their entire extended families under our chain migration system.

I wouldn’t want that many Japanese! I wouldn’t want that many Dutch (not that there are that many Dutch)! Why do we have to become a different country? Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico? No other country has ever just decided to turn itself into another country like this.

The nation’s plutocrats are lined up with the Democratic Party in a short-term bid to get themselves cheap labor (subsidized by the rest of us), which will give the Democratic Party a permanent majority. If Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished. It will be the “Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party” versus the “Chuck Schumer Republican Party.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/22/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 5/22/13

  • It is a battle of crazed conspiracy theorists as Rick Wiles goes after Alex Jones.
  • Anti-gay activists are accusing the Boy Scouts of trying to rig the voting in favor of changing the organization's anti-gay policy (Of course, nobody should really trust what Cathy Ruse claims in the first place.)
  • Gary Cass has written a book titled "The Bizarre Sex Life of Mohammed."
  • Is 'Coach' Dave Daubenmire capable of making a video where he doesn't scream the entire time?
  • Bryan Fischer runs down a list of terms that GLAAD believes are offensive and says that anti-gay activists ought to be sure to use them.
  • Finally, anti-gay activist Brad Dacus has apologized for saying, back in 2008, that failing to pass Proposition 8 was like failing to stop the Nazis:

Huelskamp Reveals Ignorance on Benghazi, Immigration Reform

During an interview with conservative talk show host Steve Deace last night, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) once again showed us the art of eschewing well-established facts in favor of right-wing talking points. First, Huelskamp talked to Deace about Benghazi, where he demanded answers to questions that have already been answered, and then claimed that the lack of answers to those questions prove there is a cover-up.

“Who made the decision that someone should die, who refused to send support to protect our ambassador, the information officer and two ex-SEALS, somebody made that decision and they’ve covered it up for eight months,” Huelskamp asked, warning of a “cover-up that probably extends to the highest levels of the administration.” He also admitted that the House Republican leadership “said there is no more to Benghazi…we’ve found out everything we can find out.”

Maybe if Huelskamp listened to the hearings he would’ve learned that the call not to send special forces to Benghazi during the attack came from Special Operations Command Africa and not Obama administration officials. Furthermore, the team was told to stand down because they would not have arrived in time to prevent the deaths in the compound and their mission shifted to securing the airport.

Even a senior Republican aide mocked the “crazy stuff” coming from GOP members regarding Benghazi: “Four more M-4s [rifles] inside the annex doesn’t change that outcome. In fact, they might have just created more casualties.”

Later, Huelskamp and Deace discussed the Senate immigration reform bill where he said if a reform bill fails due to Republican resistance to creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants it would be Obama’s fault because Republicans don’t want to give him “a voting bloc of 11 million new voters to the Democratic Party.”

He then decried the bipartisan Gang of 8 for voting together on amendments, which he said proves that they want to create. “a voting bloc that is going to have an unlimited take on the Treasury and then they’re going to buy their votes for a whole generation or two or three.”

The congressman bases his concerns on the Heritage Foundation study, authored by a racist researcher, that uses such faulty data analysis that even Republicans have denounced it.

I just had a private meeting with some constituents in very difficult situations, they came here—one of them illegally and a few others in different situations—and the question I had for them was, ‘Do you think that you deserve citizenship? Well, absolutely. I said but how about if I told you that a bill wouldn’t pass unless you were just given legal status, would you pick no bill?’ The reason I asked them this is, think about that, I don’t think the President wants any immigration issue to pass unless it gives a voting bloc of 11 million new voters to the Democratic Party. I think that’s what it comes down and frankly people are going to get hurt.



When you have a welfare state, an insecure border and you’re talking about giving amnesty, that’s three strikes. Tie on top of that the tremendous Heritage study that shows this massive drain on the economy, $6.2 trillion cost of this, this is staggering, this would probably the worst decision since ’86 if we’re going to head down this path. When you see those amendments I mean that calls out that the real purpose here is a voting bloc that is going to have an unlimited take on the Treasury and then they’re going to buy their votes for a whole generation or two or three.

Beck: 'The American People Have Just Been Raped; Why Are You Asking the Rapist to Hurry Up With the Swab Test?'

Glenn Beck spent much of today's radio broadcast talking about the IRS scandal, which eventually merged with his apparent belief that there is some sort of all-encompassing government surveillance apparatus in operation that records literally every email, phone conversation, and electronic communication and stores them all in a massive database in Utah.

As such, Beck wants to know why Congress is even bothering holding hearings or launching investigations when all they have to do is go and get the records from that database and find out exactly what happened on everything from the IRS to Benghazi.

"America, it is time we turned the security state against itself," Beck said. "Why ask for it?  Just go into the system that we paid for and you built for our quote 'protection.' You want to find it? Why are you waiting? The more you wait, the more time they have to delete.  Go in and get it.  You have it.  Or is that security system you've built for our protection not really for our protection?  The American people have just been raped; why are you asking the rapist to hurry up with the swab test?"

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious