Showing posts with label THE DAILY SIGNAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label THE DAILY SIGNAL. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Ukraine Is a Reminder That Freedom Isn't Free - Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal CHARISMA NEWS


(Reuters photo)

Ukraine Is a Reminder That Freedom Isn't Free

7/5/2017 Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal  CHARISMA NEWS
I arrived in Ukraine for the first time in July 2014, three years ago this month.
I originally planned to stay for three weeks. I never would have thought then, that by Independence Day 2017, three years later, I'd still be here, still reporting on the war.
On that warm summer day of my arrival in Kyiv three years ago, the taxi from the airport dropped me off at the top of Institutskaya Street, as it was still called at the time. Today, it is Heroes of the Heavenly Hundred Street, in honor of the 100 protesters who died in the February 2014 revolution. Trees green with summertime leaves lined the cobblestone street as it steeply ascended from the Maidan, Kyiv's central square and epicenter of the revolution.
Young couples in shorts and flip-flops walked past, holding hands. Police officers on their beats acted relaxed, smiling and joking.
On that day, there was little evidence of the barbaric scenes that played out on this street in February 2014, five months prior to my arrival. Yet, beneath the veneer of what could have been a normal summer day in any European capital, there were reminders of what happened there half a year earlier.
At that time, long sections of the brick sidewalk lining then-named Institutskaya Street were stripped bare, revealing earth beneath. Five months earlier, protesters had peeled away the bricks to build a defensive wall against gunfire from a special police force called the Berkut, which deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had unleashed on the crowds calling for his ouster.
On that day, workers pounded new bricks into the naked soil. Others sprayed water on the black stains that dotted the stone floor of the Maidan's open expanse, erasing the traces of Molotov cocktails and the mounds of tires protesters had burned to provide a smokescreen from the snipers.
Of all the sights and sounds I encountered along Institutskaya Street on that day in July 2014, one stood out. I heard English spoken in an American accent. So my ears naturally homed in on the only understandable voice.
"Freedom isn't free," the man said.
Hallowed Ground
Just past the Hotel Ukraine, where Heroes of the Heavenly Hundred Street rounds the top of the hill overlooking the Maidan, there is a patch of open ground and a low wall off to one side.
This is a place of mourning. In July 2014, the ground here was covered in framed photos, candles and flower garlands. Bullet holes scarred the surrounding street signs and trees. The bullet holes are still there today.
On that day in July 2014, my first in Ukraine, a crowd lingered around this otherwise ordinary patch of earth. The mood was quiet and somber. Most people walked around with their arms folded across their chests. Some held a hand over their mouths. It was an unusual break from typical Slavic stoicism.
Two groups of framed photos nestled within beds of flowers and candles were arranged on the ground like a church congregation, with a cross made out of red glass candle holders in the center. The faces on the photos were of the fallen: old and young, men and women, students and professors. Hardly the neo-Nazi fascists carrying out a CIA-sponsored putsch as Russian media had depicted.
Families paused before the photos. Parents pointed to the memorials, trying to explain to their children what went on here, and, I imagined, what it all meant for their future.
Three years later at this spot, there is now a metal memorial with engraved faces of the dead. A flower garden grows on that patch of earth where so many died three years ago.
Prior to my arrival in 2014, I had watched a YouTube video of what had happened at this place during the revolution. The sky was gray in the video, and the trees were bare.
Snipers hidden in the surrounding rooftops gunned down the protesters one by one as they ascended the street. Some dropped dead in a flash. Others folded to the ground like in slow motion. Eventually, the dead clustered where they had collectively sought shelter in their final moments.
The protesters were unarmed. They wore motorcycle helmets and wielded shields fashioned out of the top of garbage bins and road signs for protection. As sniper fire cut down one wave of protesters at the top of the hill, their comrades would rush up to drag the dead and wounded away.
After depositing the casualties in the nearby Hotel Ukraine lobby, the survivors did something amazing. They turned around and went back.
It's hard to know, of course, the inner motivations of those protesters who walked head-on into sniper fire. Clearly, something powerful was motivating them. It had to be, because moving toward the sound of gunfire is terrifying, and one has to be motivated by something more powerful than the fear of dying to do it.
Not for Nothing
At lunch in Kyiv a few weeks after my arrival in 2014, a Ukrainian friend explained to me the mood in Ukraine. Elena Milovidova, then a 29-year-old journalist, said there was a wave of patriotism throughout the country she had never seen before. She said there was a sense of shared responsibility among Ukrainians to live up to the sacrifices of the protesters.
"We don't want it to be for nothing," Milovidova told me about the revolution. "Ukrainians are very patriotic now. And if things go back to the way they were before, there will be another Maidan."
Milovidova explained how her family was torn, like many families in Ukraine, due to her mixed Russian-Ukrainian heritage. She was proud to be Ukrainian, though, and she was proud of what the protesters did for her country. Most Russian-speaking Ukrainians felt the same way, Milovidova told me, and the idea that Ukraine was somehow split along ethnic or cultural lines was a fiction created by Moscow.
On the streets of Kyiv, signs of the country's reborn patriotism were subtle but prolific. Women tied small blue and yellow ribbons, Ukraine's national colors, on their purses. The same ribbons were tied to the radio antennas on cars and to tree branches. On St. Andrew's Descent, a culturally eclectic hillside enclave in Kyiv not unlike Montmartre in Paris, artists sold paintings of scenes from the revolution. On Khreshchatyk, Kyiv's main boulevard, sidewalk vendors sold rolls of toilet paper and doormats adorned with the faces of Yanukovych and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It's still like that, by the way, three years later.
Ukraine's newfound patriotism was fueled by pride in the courage of its young people. Like Valentyn Onyshchenko, who was 21 years old when he took part in the revolution. He was shot by a 9-mm bullet from a pistol. Luckily, the round hit his metal belt buckle, he said, and aside from a nasty bruise, he was left unharmed.
"When I fell off the barricade, they were yelling, 'Another man down,'" he told me. "And then they grabbed my arms and started to pull me away, but I just popped up and told them I was OK. They couldn't believe it."
Onyshchenko had a recurring dream of a man he saw cut down by a sniper during the revolution. In the dream, the man rose up and spoke to Onyshchenko from the grave, his face death gray with a bullet hole in his head.
"I was running and this guy was shot in the head by a sniper right in front of me," Onyshchenko said. "His brains flew into my face and broke my glasses. But it was crazy, you know, my first thought was, 'OK, there's a McDonald's right over there; I can go there to wash off my face.'"
After the revolution, Onyshchenko's friends convinced him to see a psychiatrist. He was resistant to the idea at first, he said. Like most young men who have experienced combat, he was more worried about appearing weak than any physical danger.
The dreams of the dead man have gone away now, Onyshchenko said. "I think the psychiatrist really helped me," he confessed.
Over dinner in 2014, Natalia Portier, another Ukrainian friend, told me she was more patriotic than she had ever been. Her job in Kyiv was sending her to the U.S., and she had to apply for a visa. I assumed with my reflexive American pride that she would be excited about this.
The truth was, Portier, then 30 years old, felt guilty about leaving her homeland in time of war. She had a brother, she explained, and she was afraid he would be mobilized to fight in the east along with the 60,000 Ukrainian troops currently deployed there at that time. There are, incidentally, still about 60,000 troops serving in the eastern war zone as of July 2017.
"The world is so cruel," Portier said to me three years ago. She shook her head, looking past me. But then she beamed when a man walked into the pub wearing a T-shirt with a trident on it, Ukraine's national symbol.
"It's not so unusual to see that now," she said, smiling. "I'm so proud of my country and to be Ukrainian. I hope this stupid war ends soon."
Independence Day
As a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I know what it's like to serve in a war zone. And as someone who was a 19-year-old cadet at the Air Force Academy on Sept. 11, 2001, I also know what inspires young men and women to go to war. I've been there. I get it.
The young soldiers I've encountered in Ukraine, destined for the front lines in the east, wear a combined look of fear and youthful exuberance that I remember seeing on young U.S. soldiers in other war zones. And the combination of pride and worry felt by the families those Ukrainian soldiers have left behind is no different than what my own family endured when my brother and I deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.
After three years of war, most Ukrainians still believe freedom is worth fighting for. Ukrainians know why they have to win the war; they just don't know why they had to fight it.
"The revolution was never about Russia," Milovidova explained to me in 2014. "It was about making Ukraine better. No one thought this war would happen."
Three years later, the words of that lone voice from my first day in Kyiv are still fresh in my mind. Especially on a day like Independence Day, when I reflect on my own country's virtues, on why my generation spent our youths in war and on what our sacrifices ultimately accomplished.
As I see a young Ukrainian woman blowing a kiss to a passing convoy of troops or as I see an old woman kiss her fingers and then reach to touch the face of a young boy in one of the photos at the top of Heroes of the Heavenly Hundred Street, I hear those words again: "Freedom isn't free."
I've always known that, and I've heard the expression countless times. I even fought for it. But until I arrived in Ukraine, I never really understood what it meant. 
This article was originally published at DailySignal.com. Used with permission.
Readers are Leaders! Subscribe now and get 3 magazines for the price of 1. Get Charisma, Ministry Today 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!

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

What Trump's Decision to Move Embassy to Jerusalem Would Mean - JOSH SIEGEL/THE DAILY SIGNAL

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (REUTERS/Dan Balilty/Pool)

What Trump's Decision to Move Embassy to Jerusalem Would Mean
JOSH SIEGEL/THE DAILY SIGNAL   charisma magazine
The Trump administration is undecided about relocating the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a campaign promise that carries historical and symbolic significance to Israelis, Palestinians and the broader Middle East.
On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said there are "no decisions" on relocating the embassy to Jerusalem, a move that previous Republican and Democratic presidents have also promised to do, but decided against to avoid taking sides over who controls the ancient and holy city.
As President Donald Trump's administration decides whether to break that tradition, observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict say this president appears serious about moving the embassy, based on his consistent campaign rhetoric and his decision to pick David Friedman as ambassador to Israel.
Friedman has opposed a two-state solution, and upon being nominated, said he looked forward to working "from the U.S. Embassy in Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem," rather than Tel Aviv.
"What's interesting is that many presidents have made this same promise during campaigns and failed to follow through," said Jonathan Schanzer, a scholar in Middle Eastern studies and vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"This time, it looks like things may be different, given Trump's selection of Friedman as ambassador and the statements both of them have made," Schanzer told The Daily Signal in an interview.
Because Jerusalem is a contested city, the U.S. Embassy's location in Tel Aviv, the commercial and cultural hub of Israel, has long been a diplomatic challenge for American and Israeli leaders.
U.S. policy officially says the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem.
A 1995 U.S. law passed by bipartisan margins and signed by President Bill Clinton declares Jerusalem to be Israel's capital and requires the embassy to be moved there.
Yet since its passage, Clinton, and Presidents George W. Bush, a Republican, and Barack Obama, a Democrat, have chosen not to implement the move, using a presidential waiver every six months that the law allows for national security reasons. The latest waiver expires June 1, and it's unclear if Trump could move the embassy before then, experts say.
Israel's parliament, Supreme Court and seat of government are already located in West Jerusalem, which is majority Jewish. Indeed, Israel is the only nation in the world where the U.S. doesn't keep an embassy in the host government's preferred capital.
But in the 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel took control and annexed East Jerusalem—which is predominantly Arab—and expanded the boundaries of what it calls its "eternal capital."
The U.S. and most other countries have refused to recognize the annexation and kept their embassies in or around Tel Aviv.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem, experts say, could please Israeli Jews, who believe it would signal that the U.S. recognizes Israel's claim to the entirety of the city. It could also reassure the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration allowed the adoption of a United Nations Security Council resolution that condemns Israel's settlement construction.
For Palestinians and supporters in the Arab world, however, moving the embassy to Jerusalem would prejudge Palestinian claims to a capital in the city's east and supersede a final resolution to the conflict with Israel. In addition, the move could increase the risk of violence as Palestinians look to defend Jerusalem.
"It would bolster Israel, the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East, but it also may make it harder for some Arab governments to openly cooperate with the U.S. on some security issues because it is likely to trigger a spasm of anti-American protests and riots," said Jim Phillips, an expert on the Middle East at The Heritage Foundation.
Yousef Munayyer, a nonresident scholar at the Middle East Institute, fears that moving the embassy would taint the U.S. as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Nonrecognition has been a pillar of U.S. peace process policy," Munayyer told The Daily Signal in an interview. "If that pillar crumbles, there will be a question of the U.S.' ability to uphold its credibility in carrying that out. When you combine that with Israel's recent settlement activity, it's impossible to see how these things make prospects for a peaceful resolution more likely."
Schanzer counters that if the Trump administration were to move the U.S. Embassy, it would likely relocate it to West Jerusalem—which has been a part of Israel since its inception and would continue to be under any realistic peace deal.
So, Schanzer says, such a move should not limit negotiations of a peace deal even if East Jerusalem is eventually ceded to the Palestinians as their capital.
"There is no reason why you couldn't still negotiate a peace plan," Schanzer said. "After all, moving an embassy does not change any of the core issues in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. These are still bilateral issues that have to be resolved." 
CharnLeaders 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!

Thursday, December 8, 2016

It's a Moment of Truth for John Kasich - LEAH JESSEN/THE DAILY SIGNAL CHARISMA NEWS


Ohio Gov. John Kasich
Ohio Gov. John Kasich now has one of the nation's most aggressive pro-life bills on his desk, awaiting his signature. (Reuters photo)

It's a Moment of Truth for John Kasich

LEAH JESSEN/THE DAILY SIGNAL   CHARISMA NEWS
The Ohio Legislature has passed and sent to Gov. John Kasich's desk a measure that would ban abortion after a baby's heartbeat is detected, about six weeks following conception.
Lawmakers passed the Unborn Heartbeat Protection Act on Tuesday as an amendment to a child abuse and neglect bill.
If signed by Kasich, the legislation would "generally prohibit an abortion of an unborn human individual with a detectable heartbeat," according to the language of the bill.
"Republicans are united that abortion is unacceptable in America," U.S. Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, said in a statement Wednesday. "Our party platform advocates for a complete ban on abortion and states that 'the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.'"
"Fetal heartbeat ... has become a key medical predictor that an unborn human individual will reach live birth," the bill asserts.
The Ohio House passed the bill 56-39 and the Senate 21-10.
Kasich, a Republican who generally is pro-life, has 10 days to sign or veto the legislation.
Kasich's press secretary, Emmalee Kalmbach, would not characterize the governor's inclination amid a flurry of activity in the legislature's lame-duck session.
"A hallmark of lame duck is a flood of bills, including bills inside of bills and we will closely examine everything we receive," Kalmbach told The Daily Signal in an email.
In 2014, however, Kasich said he had legal concerns about a "heartbeat bill," The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reported.
"At the moment of conception, a new and distinct human being comes into existence—someone who has inherent value and possesses a right to life," Melanie Israel, a research associate at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. "By witnessing to this fundamental truth, the pro-life movement has seen significant victories in state legislatures in recent years."
The heartbeat abortion ban provides an exception in cases where a physician performs a medical procedure "designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
"The passage of this legislation in the Ohio Senate demonstrates our commitment to protecting the children of Ohio at every stage of life," state Sen. Kris Jordan, R-Ostrander, said in remarks quoted by CNN.
Similar laws have been struck down by courts in Arkansas and North Dakota.
"A new president [and] new Supreme Court appointees change the dynamic, and there was consensus in our caucus to move forward," Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, R-Celina, said, according to The Columbus Dispatch.
In Washington, Davidson said:
The protections provided in the Unborn Heartbeat Protection Amendment are a step in the right direction in protecting the most vulnerable among us, the unborn. I look forward to this becoming law and saving countless lives in Ohio.
Both pro-choice and pro-life groups, however, question the legality of such legislation.
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio labeled the heartbeat bill as "dangerous."
"Banning women from getting a medical procedure is out of touch with Ohio values and is completely unacceptable," Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, said in a prepared statement. "Clearly this bill's supporters are hoping that President-elect Trump will have the chance to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with justices that are poised to overturn Roe v. Wade."
In 1973, the Supreme Court case known as Roe v. Wade made abortion legal across the nation.
"Everyone is swept up in Trumpmania, but let's be realistic," Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis said of the prospects of the legislation in court, according to USA Today.
His pro-life group supports a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, when scientific evidence suggests unborn babies feel pain, but was neutral on the heartbeat bill.
"Both are previability [abortion] bans, but we believe [the 20-week ban] is the best strategy for overturning Roe v. Wade and will ultimately prove most palatable to the Supreme Court," Katherine Franklin, a spokeswoman for Ohio Right to Life, told The Hill.
Heritage's Israel, however, said the Ohio measure has value:
Advancing policies that protect the most vulnerable and defenseless among us will help hasten the day when every human being, from the moment of conception, is protected in law and welcomed in life. 
This article was originally published at dailysignal.com. Used with permission.
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! Go deeper!
Has God called you to be a leader? Ministry Today magazine is the source that Christian leaders who want to serve with passion and purpose turn to. Subscribe now and receive a free leadership book.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Pro-Lifers on Supreme Court Abortion Case: 'We're Coming Back in Full Force' - LEAH JESSEN/THE DAILY SIGNAL CHARISMA NEWS

A pro-life protester with tape over her mouth demonstrates outside the U.S. Supreme Court before the court handed a victory to abortion rights advocates, striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities in Washington.

Pro-Lifers on Supreme Court Abortion Case: 'We're Coming Back in Full Force'

A pro-life protester with tape over her mouth demonstrates outside the U.S. Supreme Court before the court handed a victory to abortion rights advocates, striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities in Washington. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
Join us on our podcast each weekday for an interesting story, well told, from Charisma News. Listen at charismapodcastnetwork.com.

Members of the pro-life movement standing outside the Supreme Court on Monday were visibly discouraged by the 5-3 decision striking down a Texas law that imposed health and safety regulations on abortion clinics. But those activists showed no signs that they intend to back down from the battle over abortion in the United States.
"The pro-life generation is stronger than ever before," Maddie Schulte, a regional coordinator at Students for Life, told The Daily Signal outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. "I'm excited to see what comes next. We're coming back full force."
"We believe in life," added Anja Scheib, a programs intern for Students for Life. "Millennials," in particular, she said, "are becoming more pro-life."
The case before the Supreme Court, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, involves a Texas law, known as H.B. 2. The law required abortion facilities to meet the same health and safety standards as other facilities performing similarly invasive surgeries. It also required physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, in the event that something went wrong during an abortion procedure.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that while abortion is legal in the United States, states are allowed to regulate the procedure as long as those regulations don't pose an "undue burden" on women's ability to get an abortion.
With Monday's 5-3 decision, the justices decided that the medical benefits of Texas' law did not justify the burdens they impose on clinics.
In issuing the majority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer cited a district court's findings that concluded enforcement of the admitting-privileges requirement forced almost half of Texas' 40 licensed abortion clinics to shut down. If the surgical-center provision were allowed to take effect, the lower court added, the number of abortion facilities would be reduced further, so that "only seven facilities and a potential eighth will exist in Texas." 
On the basis of these findings, among others, Breyer wrote:
We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.
Breyer was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor. Dissenting were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, who said the decision "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'"
Monday's decision is likely to affect other states with similar laws regulating health and safety standards for abortions. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, more than 20 states have laws that impose health and safety standards on abortion clinics, although not all are as strict as the Texas law.  
Virginia is one of them.
"I had to be here to witness this," Rebecca Gotwalt of Virginia told The Daily Signal. Gotwalt, who identifies as pro-choice, arrived at the Supreme Court a little after 7 a.m.
"I know we're repealing our TRAP [Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers] laws in Virginia, so it was very important to see the Supreme Court do this on the national level, so individual states will stop punishing women."
Supporters of the Texas law said it was an attempt to improve the health and safety standards for women seeking abortions.
The law was enacted after the 2013 murder conviction of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist who is serving a life sentence. The trial established that poor health and safety standards at Gosnell's clinic led to the deaths of multiple babies who survived botched abortion procedures, along with the death of a mother—in part because paramedics could not get a stretcher into the building.  
"Abortionists shouldn't be given a free pass to elude medical requirements that everyone else is required to follow," Steven H. Aden, a senior counsel at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement after the decision. He added:
We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled against a law so clearly designed to protect the health and safety of women in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal. The law's requirements were commonsense protections that ensured the maximum amount of protection for women, who deserve to have their well-being treated by government as a higher priority than the bottom line of abortionists. Any abortion facilities that don't meet basic health and safety standards are not facilities that anyone should want to remain open.
Opponents view the requirements as simply an attempt to abolish abortion in the U.S., and were pleased to see the law struck down by the court.
"In states across the country, we've seen TRAP laws shut them down," Amber Banks, director of programs and communications for NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, told The Daily Signal. She added:
I remember when I was in college, I interned at the local Planned Parenthood ... because they had to have hallways a certain length and it mattered what their parking lot layout was. It just seemed really absurd because I know from talking to doctors and having doctors in my family, that that's not actually the kind of things that actually keeps people safe. It was just being used to force people to give billions of dollars for renovations or shut down.
Some supporters of the law, too, saw the case as part of bigger question of abortion in the United States.
"Abortion is—to me—an issue that is so near and dear to my heart and the hearts of millions of people across this country," Evan Stone of Louisville, Kentucky, told The Daily Signal. "It goes way beyond politics. We can disagree on taxes, immigration, whatever, but this is an issue that is central to who we are as a human civilization."
Stone, who is interning in Washington, D.C., this summer, said he spent the night outside the Supreme Court and started protesting at 6 a.m. Monday.
"Do we believe that human life has intrinsic value or not? That is the question at heart here," Stone said.
 
Draw closer to God. Experience the presence of the Holy Spirit every month as you read Charisma magazine. Sign up now to get Charisma for as low as $1 per issue.
Has God called you to be a leader? Ministry Today magazine is the source that Christian leaders who want to serve with passion and purpose turn to. Subscribe now and receive a free leadership book.