The Engage Family Blog

Official Blog of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama

Perkins on Point: Bearing False Witness on Health Care?

with one comment

From the Family Research Council’s blog, Tony Perkins makes this rebuttal to President Obama:


Written by Jeremy Dys

August 27, 2009 at 9:38 am

Health Care: Squelching Religious Freedom for Human Rights

with 2 comments

Last week, some 140,000 people gathered on a conference call with religious leaders to discuss President Obama’s Health Care proposal.  The President himself decided to jump on the call too and explained why extending health care to millions in the form of a socialized system was a “moral imperative.”

The “leaders” of the call appear to be many of the religious left who have been asked to advise President Obama on matters of faith and social justice.  Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, has been promoted to chief spokesman for the group, appearing on several news networks touting the “moral imperative” of extending health care or attempting to make the case that health care is a human right.  Establishing something as a “human right,” of course, is a liberal’s way of guilting the rest of society into accepting their agenda without question.  After all, do you know anyone who is against anything that is a fundamental right of a human?

At the outset, it is offensive to the idea of religious liberty that many of the voices speaking against Obamacare have been silenced and discounted as promoting “malicious myths,” while the pluralistic, religious left continues to receive accolade for stroking the President’s agenda.  If President Obama were serious about coordinating the religious community on healthcare, why did he not include Tony Perkins or Jim Dobson or Jim Daly in the discussion?  His answer, undoubtedly, would be because they represent a more “activist” mindset in what should be a serious and civil discussion on health care.  Ok, but that begs the question: aren’t Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren and the rest of the crew labeled as “religious leaders” equally labeled as activists?  Or does it mean something different when they are just called “organizers?”

If President Obama were serious about seeking the “moral imperative” on health care, why would he not consult theologians like R.C. Sproul, D.A. Carson, and Al Mohler?  Or even Rabbi Daniel Lapin and Father Frank Pavone?  By keeping such serious minds from the table, President Obama has demonstrated that religious freedom means only those who agree with and commit to promoting his agenda.  In so doing, he has erected another wall separating only those churches that confront his moralisms with Scriptural authority from influencing the discussion of state.

But there is a legitimate question that we seemed to have skipped over in the race to the August recess: is health care a “human right?”

Read the rest of this entry »

Witnessing a Child’s Murder Can Change You

with one comment

How one reporter found herself conflicted as she witnessed a first-trimester abortion for the first time.

By Nathan A. Cherry

 Martinsburg, WV – Many people will fiercely defend the right to an abortion, and many people will fiercely defend the right to life. But what happens when an abortion reporter for Newsweek visits an abortion clinic and witnesses an abortion for the first time? Such a case happened this week when Newsweek reporter Sarah Kliff was in Omaha, Nebraska at LeRoy Carhart’s abortion clinic. The experience, it would seem from her report, has changed her.

After her experience Ms. Kliff wrote about her journey in a web exclusive for Newsweek entitled, “Competing Emotions: When I watched an abortion for the first time, my reaction surprised me.” And indeed her response will surprise you as well, not to mention the reactions of some of the women she met in the waiting room of the abortion clinic and the response of some of her friends and colleagues after hearing of her latest assignment.

It seems that Ms. Kliff was concerned with a negative physical reaction to witnessing a first trimester abortion firsthand; a reaction that didn’t come. Though relieved that she did not pass out, or throw up in the operating room, it was her emotional response that surprised her.

Kliff said, “I met a few patients who saw nothing complicated about that decision, who never second-guessed their choice. But they were not the majority. In Carhart’s clinic, most women were doing their best to balance competing emotions about their abortions, simultaneously sad and relieved, conflicted but confident.”

Even Kliff’s friends and colleagues had trouble with what she experienced, as she notes,

“When I returned from Omaha, friends and colleagues wanted to know if I had “done it.” When I said I had, their reactions surprised me. Friends who supported legal abortion bristled slightly when I told them where I’d been and what I’d watched. Acquaintances at a party looked a bit regretful to have asked about my most recent assignment…my experience (among an admittedly small, largely pro-choice sample set) found a general discomfort when confronted with abortion as a physical reality, not a political idea. Americans may support abortion rights, but even 40 years after Roe, we don’t talk about it like other medical procedures.” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Nathan Cherry

August 20, 2009 at 8:39 pm

Seriously, This Religious Favoritism is Ridiculous: Further proof that the Jr. Senator-turned-President has little idea of what he is doing.

with one comment

The European Union Parliament has passed a directive which, if unanimously voted upon by member states, would become law. The directive states that “Christian churches, schools, and social services in Europe cannot limit their membership to those who share their beliefs.” (Read the rest of the article here).

 What!? Exactly what is the point of membership if it cannot have parameters to guide exactly who is able and who is not able to become a member? Does anyone really think it is a good idea to discriminate against churches and other religious and Christian organizations so that they are forced to allow people who do not share, or even oppose their ideals into their membership? (And exactly why does someone who opposes a church group or religious organization want to be among its members anyways?)

 If such a directive is passed, and signed into law, under equality, tolerance, and fairness then, there should no longer be an NAACP, Girl Scouts, men only or women only anything, Black History month (or any other nationality for that matter), or any other sort of club, group, or association that establishes a difference between itself and other people.

 But do you really think that is going to happen?

 Now here is where this topic of religious freedom and tolerance gets just plain absurd. This headline came across my desk today: “Obama: U.S. ‘one of largest Muslim countries’”

 I don’t’ work for the census bureau but even I know that such a statement is categorically false. But, being the unbiased student that I am, I did a minimum amount of research and found that the President’s claim that the large population of Muslim’s in America makes it one of the largest “Muslim countries in the world,” is completely erroneous.

 Toby Harnden, in an article found on the UK Telegraph blog, posts the following:

 “The excellent Don Surber crunches the numbers and points out that Obama’s claim is highly dubious. According to Surber, the US has an estimated three to eight million Muslims, less than one per cent of the world’s total and less than at least 23 other countries. The average claim for the US Muslim population is about six million. The precise figure is difficult to get because it’s not included in US census data and many put the figure at much, much less. But even if we assume there are six million Muslims in the US, that makes it only the 34th biggest Muslim country in the world – behind Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, China, Ethiopia, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Tanzania, Syria, Malaysia, Niger, Senegal, Ghana, Tunisia, Somalia, Guinea, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso and Tajikistan.” And:

Debbie Schlussel cites a reputable survey by Pew that puts the number of Muslims in the US at 1.8 million. This would make it the 48th biggest Muslim country, after the above list plus France, Libya, Jordan, Israel, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Germany, Kuwait, Oman, Eritrea, Lebanon and Serbia and Montenegro – and just above Britain, which would be the 50th.” (Read Harnden’s article here)

 So as the evidence clearly points out, America is not even close to being one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. We are, however, one of the largest Jewish countries (after Israel), and the largest Christian nation in the world, according to The Standard’s Michael Goldfarb.

With America being home to more Jews and Christians than any other country in the world, why is President Obama not reaching out to those who hold to Judaism and Christianity? If he wanted to be the President of a Muslim nation why didn’t he run for office somewhere in the Middle East? Instead he chooses to make false claims that will only serve to alienate the majority of the citizens he does serve.

 Many lawmakers are seeking to simply destroy any trace of Christianity in America and the world. At the same time that lawmakers are trying to snuff out the rights and freedoms of Christians, they are trying in earnest to protect and widen the freedoms of Muslims. Is this not religious favoritism? Is this not the very definition of intolerance?

 If we are going to protect religion then we absolutely MUST protect all religions and the free exercise and expression of those religions. If we are going to say that religious organizations cannot dictate membership based on any set of standards, then this ruling must apply to every group and organization the world over. To do anything less is nothing more than religious persecution.

 President Obama would do well to research his facts before making claims that serve no other purpose but to alienate the majority of citizens of the country he serves. It is interesting however that during the election he would only claim to be a practicing Christian and wanted no part of discussing his Muslim heritage and background. Now he seems quite open to discussing and advancing it.

 Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Written by Nathan Cherry

June 3, 2009 at 7:02 pm

The Last Obstacle Standing in the Way of Social Liberalism:

with one comment

What is at the core of the same-sex marriage movement? Is it the freedom to marry anyone we choose? Nope. Is it equality in society with heterosexuals? Nice thought, but wrong again. At the core of the same-sex movement is universal acceptance for a particular lifestyle among people of all gender, nationality, and most notably, religion; and ultimately the complete repression of religious rights held by persons and organizations that morally object to the lifestyle.

 No doubt there are some homosexuals who simply want the freedom to marry and enjoy the benefits of a socially recognized marriage. But these are few and far between. The reality is that many same-sex proponents, including every liberal lawmaker in the land, sees an opportunity to silence the conservative, religious majority on the way to a new, so-called improved, socialist state.

 But, as Maggie Gallagher pointed out in her spot-on article for National Review,

 “A funny thing happened on the way to defeating Communism. Religion has emerged as the sole institution standing in the way of a powerful neo-statist liberalism, in which equality doctrines are used not as a shield but as a sword — to legitimate state intrusion into once-private realms.” (Read the entire article here)

 You see, the government knows what many proud, conservative, deeply spiritual Americans have known for many years. If you effectively silence the religious institutions there will be no one left to stand in the way of total government control and regulation of every facet of life. Make no mistake about it, the government wants absolute separation of church and state, but only so far as the insertion of church morals and beliefs into government are concerned. On the flip side the government wants no less than to regulate and micro-manage every religious group and organization to make sure nothing is said or done that big brother does not approve of.

 Hypocritical? In the very least. But more accurately it is communism at its best. The government wants to tell every person exactly what to believe, what is right and wrong from the time they enter pre-school until they collect that last social security check and Dr. Kevorkian pulls the plug on the ventilator. And the only way to accomplish this goal is to silence the religious, conservative majority of Americans by relegating free speech and religious speech to Sunday-only-behind-closed-doors-rhetoric.

 Don’t be fooled by the trickery of the leftist propaganda machine. Just because President Obama claims to be a “Christian,” his words mean very little until he shows evidence of his faith. But so far he has done nothing of the sort. He, in my humble opinion, is merely playing games in order to lull the millions of devout believers asleep before swiping their religious rights. Again referring to Ms. Gallagher’s article,

 “One way is to narrow religious freedom’s scope while claiming to endorse the principle in general. So the Human Rights Campaign believes it supports religious liberty because it does not intend to have the government jail pastors who refuse to perform same-sex unions. Being American liberals, they feel pretty good about themselves for permitting religion to live quietly and impotently behind closed doors.” (Need more evidence? Check out this article relating what is happening in Europe, and soon will happen here).

 Simply put, religious, conservative Americans cannot afford to fall asleep at the wheel at this time. We are seeing freedoms stripped one by one at unprecedented rates; and battles for more freedoms rage each day. This is not the time for the warm fuzzies; this is a time to be steadfast. If we want to continue to enjoy our freedom, we must be willing to defend it.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the
Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Written by Nathan Cherry

May 29, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Botched Abortion Results in Murder:

leave a comment »

I read one of the most sickening stories last week about the murder of a new-born child. If you think that I am talking about some deranged teen in a bathroom or strung-out single mom in an alley, you would be shockingly wrong. This is an account that, for all intents and purposes could be typical in a United States abortion clinic.


The story, found on the Drudge website and World Net Daily website, details the account of 18 year old Sycloria Williams. Williams went to a Miami abortion clinic to end the life of her 23 week old daughter. But when the doctor did not show up in time, Williams gave birth to a living, breathing baby girl, who she later named Shanice.


Williams watched in shock as the owner of the clinic, who does not have a medical license, rushed in, cut the umbilical cord – but did not clamp it off so as to allow the baby girl to bleed to death – and stuffed the breathing, crying child into a biohazard bag to bleed and suffocate to death.


Is this what America has come to? Are we a nation that willingly allows people to murder helpless children as we turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the screams of the victims as they are stuffed into bags to suffocate? If this were an elderly woman in a nursing home the nation would scream in outrage and demand prison time for all participants. But to my embarrassment and shame as an American, the legal murder of children – or abortion for the politically correct crowd – is tolerated.


Such measures as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) become all the more urgent in light of matters such as these. This measure would ensure that any child who is “accidentally” born alive in spite of an attempt to abort would be given all the lifesaving medical care that any other person deserves.


But the problem is that our new President, as a Senator in Illinois, voted repeatedly against this bill. This does not give us much hope that he will not veto such a bill should it pass legislation in Congress.


So where does this leave us? Repeatedly a majority of Americans have said that they do not support current abortion laws, and believe, in the very least that abortion should be limited to emergency cases. And about 3 out of 4 Americans believe that we should not be funding overseas abortions. (Click here for the recent USA Today/Gallup poll detailing this information)


This is an issue that crosses political, religious, and cultural lines. This has nothing to do with black, white, protestant or Muslim. This has to do with the belief that life is sacred and killing innocent children is barbaric at best. Pastors decry it. The Pope condemns it. Republicans Democrats and Independents stand shoulder to shoulder against it. But our government doesn’t seem to take the hint.


Could it be that abortion is multi-million dollar industry where profit margins mean more than human lives? Could it be that our lawmakers are more interested in the backing of special interest groups for re-election bids than in preserving our future? Where does it stop? Assisted suicide? Euthanasia? The murder of the handicapped because they are not “viable” to society? God help us.

Further Food for Thought:


Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Written by Nathan Cherry

February 9, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Rep. Boehner Saves Lives, President Obama Takes Them:

with one comment

This USA Today/Gallup poll  shows the approval rating of seven specific actions President Obama has taken in his first few weeks in office. Nearly 3 out of 4 Americans agrees with most of the Presidents actions, but two-thirds of Americans are not happy with the Presidents decision to provide overseas family planning groups with funding for abortions.


On a happier note, the President did decide to remove funding for death merchants such as Planned Parenthood from his economic stimulus package. This, in large part, thanks to house Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who worked tirelessly and aggressively to encourage bi-partisan opposition to the funding. (Take time to thank Rep. Boehner, here).


So, thankfully, American death merchants will get no federal stimulus money, but sadly we will be sending money overseas to help other countries kill pre-born children.


When will this administration and lawmakers in Washington realize that the majority of this country, a strong majority at that wants to see life protected? This is an issue that Democrats, Republicans and Independents are joining hands and voices on. This is an issue that people of all nationality, color and religion are standing shoulder to shoulder on. So why won’t the President allow the majority of Americans to speak and make this decision? Odds are it has more to do with money and power than doing what’s right.


But the fact is, “life, liberty, and the pursuit…” ought to be protected at all costs. Once life is no longer valuable we cease to be a civilized people worthy of world-wide respect. Second, at a time when America needs every penny in order to recover economically, does it make much sense to send our hard-earned dollars overseas to support a cause that most Americans abhor?


We must continue to let our voices be heard on this most imperative issue. Once the lives of the pre-born are no longer sacred, who’s next? The elderly? The infirm? All life is sacred and must be protected.

Further Food for Thought:

Mona Lisa Smiles…again?!


Obama, Pelosi Out of Touch with “Average Joe” American


Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia