Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Watch Live: Iowa's Senate Is About to Debate Defunding Planned Parenthood 1:15PM EST 2/2/2017 BOB ESCHLIMAN CHARISMA NEWS


(Reuters photo)

Watch Live: Iowa's Senate Is About to Debate Defunding Planned Parenthood

BOB ESCHLIMAN  CHARISMA NEWS
One state's legislature is openly defying current federal laws that require them to provide Medicaid funding to abortion providers, particularly Planned Parenthood, by taking up a measure that, if signed into law, would fully defund the abortion giant.
Planned Parenthood operates 12 clinics in Iowa. But Senate File 2, which was slated to be debated Thursday afternoon, would remove it from the list of Medicaid-approved providers. The funds would instead by distributed to the dozens of community health clinics that do not perform abortions throughout the state.
Republicans have been keen to defund Planned Parenthood for several years, but Democrats controlled the Senate and prevented the measure from ever coming up for debate. Now that the GOP controls both chambers—and Gov. Terry Branstad (who is about to become ambassador to China) called on lawmakers to defund the abortion giant—the measure is likely to become law.
The measure "finds" $3 million in federal grants from other sources, which will be used to "backfill" the federal grant funds that will be lost by defunding Planned Parenthood.
Click here to watch the debate. There will be some additional pieces of intrigue to follow:
2018: With Branstad set to retire soon to take his new job in Beijing, a number of Democrats will be jockeying on this key issue to run against Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, who succeed him.
Budget Woes: Iowa, which has a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget, faced a $100 budget shortfall that needed to be addressed by the General Assembly.
Schools: Iowa, which was once the U.S. leader in education, has been forced by budget cuts to reduce its support of local public schools, a measure that is on the Senate debate calendar alongside SF 2. 
Leaders are readers! Subscribe now and get 3 magazines for the price of 1. Get Ministry Today, Charisma and SpiritLed Woman all for $24. YES - Sign me up!
3 Reasons Why you should read Life in the Spirit. 1) Get to know the Holy Spirit. 2) Learn to enter God's presence 3) Hear God's voice clearly! Click Here to draw closer to God!

Monday, June 20, 2016

Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog: Four critical truths the President & candidates need to understand in the debate over Radical Islam.

Fox-Joel-Shannon-June2016Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog

Four critical truths the President & candidates need to understand in the debate over Radical Islam.

by joelcrosenberg
(Jerusalem, Israel) -- If you read nothing else from this column, please read and remember these four critical points:
  1. While it's absolutely true that the vast majority of Muslims are not a threat to us, it's also true that the vast majority of terrorists in our time are motivated by, driven by, even consumed by a radical, violent, murderous and bloodthirsty interpretation of Islam. That may not be politically correct to say, but that's the truth.
  2. If American leaders are not studying the theology and even the eschatology of Islam -- and the civil war going inside Islam between the Radicals (jihadists) and the Reformers (moderates) and their vastly differing interpretations of Muslim history and Islamic scriptures -- they're not going to understand what drives our enemies to kill us.
  3. To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blind-sided by it.
  4. Neither President Obama, nor the two presumptive presidential nominees -- Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump -- have demonstrated that they have truly studied and understand the theology and eschatology that is driving our enemies. Until they do, and until they develop and are committed to executing sound national security strategies consistent with the actual threat of Radical Islam, they will continue to put Americans and our allies in grave danger.
Let's be clear: Omar Mateen, the 29 year old terrorist who murdered 49 people in Orlando earlier this month, wanted the world to know exactly why he did it: he was a Radical, violent, murderous Muslim who was inspired by and loyal to the vision of the leaders of the Islamic State.
While there is no evidence suggesting Mateen was trained or deployed directly by ISIS leaders, the leadership of the Islamic State quickly took credit for the attack and praised Mateen for being inspired by their vision of slaughtering infidels according to their interpretation of Islam. What's more, ISIS has called for more attacks in the U.S. by "lone wolves" inspired by their theology and eschatology.
President Obama, however, adamantly refuses to call Mateen a follower of Radical Islam and dismisses the term as a "political distraction" that serves no practical purpose.
"For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase 'Radical Islam,'" noted the President in a June 14th statement to the media. "That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them Radical Islamists. What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer, is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction."
Is the President right to directly and consistently reject the term "Radical Islam"? Yesterday, I was interviewed on the Fox News Channel about the President's comments. I've posted the transcript of the interview below. To watch the video, please click here.
FOX NEWS ANCHOR SHANNON BREAM: Let's take a closer look now at the fight against ISIS, particularly the threat here at home in the wake of Orlando. We're joined now by Joel Rosenberg, political advisor and New York Times best-seller. His latest book is out now is The First Hostage. Joel is joining us live from overseas. Thank you, Joel, for being with us today.
ROSENBERG: Good to be with you, Shannon, thank you.
BREAM: All right, I want to go first to the President, one of his statement's this week where he talked about using the terminology of "radical Islam," he sort of mocked those who have called for him to do that, saying it's not going to solve the problem. But in your estimation, and knowing what you know about that region and your deep experience and studies there, does it make a difference or not?
ROSENBERG: It does. There's no question that the vast majority of Muslims -- 1.6 billion Muslims in the world -- are not violent. They're not dangerous. They're not a threat. But all the polling shows that between 7% and 10%, roughly, of the Islamic world does believe in suicide bombings, does support the Islamic State's violence, does support al Qaeda. So this is a problem because in a world of 1.6 billion Muslims, that's upwards of 160 million people who could be recruited and drawn into violence in the United States or around the world.
BREAM: And how important is it to use the correct language, to use the correct terminology? Because the President often says that we have to be careful about our statements so that the world does not think that we are at war with the Muslim faith, with those who are Muslims. You mentioned more than a billion people that we're talking about. But doesn't that make the language we use even that much more important?
ROSENBERG: Sure it does. Absolutely. But look at people like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He went to the "Harvard" of Sunni Islam -- al Azhar University -- a few years ago, and he challenged the clerics and the leaders of Sunni Islam that they've got to get their house in order, that there is, essentially, a civil war going on inside Islam. Yes, the vast majority of Muslims do not interpret the Qur'an as encouraging violence against unbelievers. But there are verses in the text [that encourage violence], and el-Sisi challenged the theological leadership of Sunni Islam to fight and explain what the differences are. Jordan's King Abdullah has also made that case and has gotten more than 500 Muslim clerics to sign onto a statement explaining the difference between this sort of radicalized, violent Islam that is in the text but many Muslims don't agree with it, and what more moderate Muslims think. This is an important argument. And I would say that if American leaders are not studying the theology and even the eschatology of Islam, they're not going to understand what motivates the "lone wolf," or the movements like the Islamic State.
BREAM: What could we be doing better in the United States? What could our leadership be doing, on both sides of the aisle, to better combat this? Because there's been a big conversation, obviously, about whether or not the Orlando gunman was directed by or inspired or motivated by [Radical Islam]. The end result is the same. We've seen dozens of innocent people who are dead.
ROSENBERG: Well, this is the most dangerous part of saying this is just "violent extremism." That's what the President is saying. Well, it's certainly violent extremism, but what is it that motivates a young man, 29 years old -- Omar Mateen -- to be a killer of 49 people in a club? That's not just being a violent person. He believed he was being driven by a version of Islam. That's what he believed. It doesn't matter what President Obama believes about Islam. It matters what the individual believes. So we've got to study what it is -- the narrative, as well as the theology -- that's drawing Americans but also people all over the world into murderous, sometimes even genocidal, levels of violence. If you ignore that, you are ignoring the heart of the problem, which is the motive.
BREAM: Joel Rosenberg, we thank you for visiting with us today, and I hear your new book is going to be out the first of next year, or early next year, so we'll look forward to that as well. Thank you, Joel.
ROSENBERG: Thank you. I appreciate it.
—————————–
———————-—-




joelcrosenberg | June 20, 2016 at 4:17 pm | Categories: Epicenter | URL: http://wp.me/piWZ7-55n

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Republican presidential candidates debate defunding Planned Parenthood

Carly Fiorina
Republican presidential candidate and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina speaks during the second official Republican presidential candidates debate of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, United States, September 16, 2015. (REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson)

Republican presidential candidates debate defunding Planned Parenthood


Pro-life issues were prominent in a 3-hour Republican presidential debate Wednesday evening. The Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, played host to the debate aired live on CNN. FORMER HEWLETT-PACKARD CEO CARLY FIORINA CHALLENGED DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HILLARY CLINTON ON CLINTON'S SUPPORT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
"I dare Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to watch these tapes, to watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart is beating, its legs are kicking, then someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain," Fiorina said, referring to a video released last month by the anti-abortion group the Center for Medical Progress, in which a former worker for StemExpress says she saw a fully formed fetus's heart beating.
"This is about the character of our nation," she added. "And if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us."
Senators Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ky.), both presidential candidates, have called for a government shutdown in hopes of defunding Planned Parenthood.
Ohio Governor and candidate John Kasich indicated he was not for a government shut to end funding for Planned Parenthood.
"I would not be for shutting the government down, because I don't think it's going to work out," Kasich said.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defended his earlier statement that the federal government should spend less on women's health care. Although he has been attacked by Hillary Clinton for the statement, Bush said he was referring to Planned Parenthood.
Candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee looked to a future where "abortion would be no more."
"I just come down on the side that life is precious; every life has worth and value," Huckabee said. "I don't think we discount the intrinsic worth of any human being, and I don't know where else to go with it than just to be consistent and say, if life matters, and that's a person, then every life matters."
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie declared himself "the brand new first ever pro-life governor of New Jersey." He has repeatedly defunded Planned Parenthood.
Earlier in the evening at the pre-debate debate, Governor Bobby Jindal (La.) also called for defunding Planned Parenthood.
"Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts across this country, and the Senate Republicans have already given up, even without a fight," Jindal said.
For a limited time, we are extending our celebration of the 40th anniversary of Charisma. As a special offer, you can get 40 issues of Charisma magazine for only $40!
NEW - Life in the Spirit is your Spirit-filled teaching guide. Encounter the Holy Spirit, hear God speak to you, and enjoy timeless teachings on love, mercy and forgiveness.LEARN MORE!