Americans Seem to Support Kavanaugh More than Abortion
Posted on August 1, 2018 in Life, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
Have you seen polls in recent days stating that a “majority of Americans” support abortion? Don’t believe them.
After the recent nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh by President Trump to the Supreme Court, a flurry of polls were released showing that Americans overwhelmingly support abortion. The attempts by abortion activists to send a message that Roe v. Wade is settled and should be left alone is an act of desperation.
A recent article highlights the problems with poll questions being asked and shows that when facts are revealed, support for abortion drops.
What has been revealed is that many people are simply unaware of exactly what Roe v. Wade is. Many people think reversing this legislation would make abortion illegal in all 50 states. In fact, reversing Roe would simply return the issue to the states to decide. I would think that people that claim to be “pro-choice” would welcome the ability of Americans to “choose” whether to legalize abortion or not. More choice is better, right?
Others are not aware that Roe allows for abortion through birth. Americans have overwhelmingly rejected late-term abortion. As the article makes clear, even as late as June of 2018, Americans were not in favor of late-term abortion: Continue reading…
A Primer on God’s Justice and Mercy as It Relates to Predestination and Election
Posted on July 31, 2018 in Theology by Nathan Cherry
Within the discussion on predestination and election naturally comes a discussion on God’s justice and mercy. It’s hard to go more than 5 minutes in any discussion on predestination before justice and mercy are mentioned. And for good reason. Central to a proper understanding of predestination is a proper understanding of God’s justice and mercy.
I want to take a minute and make sure we have a clear and proper understanding of how justice and mercy factor into any discussion on predestination and election.
The first thing we must agree on is that there is no injustice in God. At no time, ever, in human history has God ever been unjust. Nor will a time come when God is unjust. And no person has ever been the victim of God’s injustice. I think it’s easy for us all to agree on this point. (Rom. 9:14)
The next point we need to be clear on is whether God owes any person mercy. Does God owe any of us His mercy? Is God in some way obligated to give mercy?
Mercy is something granted at the discretion of the one granting mercy. In other words, we would be hard pressed to demand mercy, or claim that any person is required to grant mercy. From this understanding we can agree that God owes no person mercy. And the Bible makes clear that mercy is given at God’s discretion: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Rom. 9:15)
Now that we agree that there is no injustice in God, and God owes no one mercy, let’s answer two more questions to see how these relate to predestination and election. Continue reading…
A Primer on The Biblical Doctrine of Predestination and God’s Sovereignty
Posted on July 25, 2018 in Theology by Nathan Cherry
Every Christian will come face to face with the doctrine of predestination. It’s inevitable. It’s also one of the hardest doctrines in the Bible to wrestle with. But its equally one of the most rewarding to study.
I want to address several “accusations” against predestination that are often given by those that object. But before I do, let’s make sure we are on the same page about exactly what predestination is and what it isn’t.
Two main views of predestination exist. The first is called the “Prescience view.” This view can be summed up in this way: God looked down through the portals of time and history and saw all those that, when given the chance to accept the Gospel, would do so, and He predestined them to be saved. In other words, God saw everyone in history that would accept the free gift of salvation when given the opportunity and He predestined them to salvation.
The second main view is called the “Augustinian/Reformed view.” This view can be summed up this way: God, before the foundations of time, in His sovereign will, determined who would be predestined to salvation with no merit or effort on the part of any human being. In other words, salvation is entirely in the hands of God and humans play no part in their own salvation. Continue reading…
Why Feminists Will Hate the Day Judge Amy Barrett is Nominated to the Supreme Court
Posted on July 24, 2018 in Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
The full hypocrisy and true agenda of feminism will be on display when President Trump nominates Amy Barrett for the Supreme Court.
The imminent retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court is liberals’ worst nightmare. His vacancy gave President Trump another opportunity to nominate a conservative justice dedicated to originalism. Another Antonin Scalia, if you will. The feeling that President Trump would nominate Judge Amy Barrett didn’t work out…this time.
Democrats and liberals alike were terrified that Trump would nominate a highly qualified judge with little to question or attack. This would leave no other choice than to go off the rails and and launch unconscionable attacks against things such as the nominee’s faith. (Remember when Sen. Feinstein issued an unconstitutional religious test against Amy Barrett?)
Since we’re talking about Judge Amy Barrett, it’s notable to mention that she’s (still) on President Trump’s short list. Many analysts predicted that Trump would nominate Barrett this time around. Some said such a nomination would be “political genius.” Not only was Barrett confirmed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October of 2017, making it hard to not confirm her to the Supreme Court. But she is a highly qualified woman, wife, and mother; making her the feminist movements worst nightmare.
When nominated, Judge Barrett will reveal once again just how antagonistic the feminist movement is towards women. Not all women, just conservative women that are pro-life. While claiming to affirm women’s rights, the feminist movement has become little more than an arm for the Democratic party in promoting abortion, LGBTQ issues, and anti-male sentiment. Continue reading…
Supreme Court NIFLA Ruling Important for Pro-Life Advocates, Bakers, Photographers, and Florists
Posted on July 18, 2018 in Life, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
The Supreme Court ruling in NIFLA should have been applied to the Masterpiece decision.
In recent weeks the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings that have elated free-speech and religious freedom advocates. LGBTQ and abortion advocates have been less enthused with the rulings.
In NIFLA, the court ruled correctly that the government cannot coerce or compel speech. The ruling struck down a 2015 California law that mandated all care pregnancy centers read a notice to each patient reminding them that abortion is an available option in California. This clearly violates the free-speech, and moral consciences of the people operating the centers by compelling speech that is against the convictions of those reading it.
After the SCOTUS ruling, Michael Farris, CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, just one of the groups that argued before the Supreme Court in this case, commented:
“No one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion. In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion. The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that, and that it must respect pro-life beliefs. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a diverse society like ours. They enable us to coexist peacefully with one another. If we want to have freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others.” Continue reading…
Transgender Athletes Have Unfair Advantage Over Biological Counterparts
Posted on July 17, 2018 in Public Policy, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
When I was in elementary school we had “school olympics” during which students participated in various olympic style games. Not the 1stcentury lion-eating, bare knuckles boxing style games, it was the run, jump, throw kind of olympics. I was a runner.
I ran the sprint and won. I beat every little boy in the school. It was clear that I was the fastest guy in our elementary school. When there was no more boys for me to race against, I was scheduled to race against the fastest girl in the school.
She had done the same thing I did: she beat every one of her counterparts. Since there was no other girls for her to race so she was to race me.
I remember thinking it strange that the school would pit a boy and girl against each other. I remember thinking to myself that if no boy could catch me, how would a girl catch me? But since I was a typical little boy, always happy to show I could beat a girl, I raced her.
Fast forward nearly thirty years and the reality that males are typically faster than females has not changed. Looking into the world of competitive sports makes the biological differences between males and females clear. From muscle mass to respiratory function, the hormones that dominate our bodies create differences in us that are biologically verifiable.
Knowing this, it is not surprising that parents would be upset that transgender students are being allowed to compete in high-school sports. Continue reading…
These Headlines Begin to Pull Back the Curtain on Our Confused Culture
Posted on July 11, 2018 in Public Policy, Sexuality, Uncategorized by Nathan Cherry
What would you learn by reading headlines from our culture? I read more than 500 headlines everyday and there has not been a day when I was not shocked, saddened, or in some way discouraged by the state of our culture. Common sense has flown out the window. Right is wrong. Clearly wrong is celebrated.
Maybe you’ve been in a bubble, or an echo chamber. Maybe you’ve been too busy to notice. If there is any doubt that our culture is in trouble, perhaps the following few headlines will give an indication of how much trouble we’re in.
“University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax and University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirercalling for a revival of the bourgeois values that characterized mid-century American life, including child-rearing within marriage, hard work, self-discipline on and off the job, and respect for authority. The late 1960s took aim at the bourgeois ethic, they say, encouraging an ‘antiauthoritarian, adolescent, wish-fulfillment ideal [of] sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll that was unworthy of, and unworkable for, a mature, prosperous adult society.’”
The authors of this article came under attack, were called sexist and racist for daring to suggest that people – all people – should be hard working, self-disciplined, and respectful (among other things). Somehow the very idea of accountability in our culture has been deemed both sexist and racist. Continue reading…
If You’re Smart – You Won’t Plan on Social Security for Retirement
Posted on July 5, 2018 in Money by Nathan Cherry
Should you be counting on Social Security as part of your retirement plan?
Since Social Security first rolled out, in 1935, millions of Americans have counted on this steady stream of monthly income as part of their retirement plan. Combined with a pension or IRA distribution, Americans have become dependent on Social Security to cover the costs of ever-increasing expenses.
A new report, however, is casting doubt on whether betting on the viability of Social Security is a good bet.
A report released by Social Security’s trustees said that by 2034 both trust funds would be depleted. Additionally, the report stated that Social Security would need to dip into its trust fund this year to fully fund the program. It’s the first time since 1982 that Social Security has had to use trust fund assets.
Social Security is largely funded by the government collecting payroll taxes. These taxes are then used to pay the monthly benefit of millions of retired American workers. As the American workforce grows, and more taxes are collected, Social Security is strengthened. But if the workforce declines, and less taxes are collected, Social Security is threatened.
The most recent jobs report by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, says that workforce participation is strong. Jobs are being created and unemployment is down. This bodes well for Social Security. Continue reading…
Okay, so you’re upset that Samantha Bee seems to have gotten a pass for her outrageous comments about Ivanka Trump. And you are still made that Joy Reid has seemingly had no repercussions for her past comments, and even some of her recent comments. And you have an ongoing sore spot due to Joy Behar being able to say whatever she wants with no consequences.
But, do you have any idea of why these people are still on the air?
After the comments made by this collective of liberal women, its hard to believe that they are still allowed to host a show. After all, so many others have been fired, immediately, for making comments deemed inappropriate. Remember Roseanne?
Why is Joy Reid still on the air after making what the media calls “homophobic” comments? She once suggested former Florida Governor Charlie Crist was gay, conservative commentator Ann Coulter was a man, and accused numerous media and hollywood figures of being gay.
And in what world is Samantha Bee allowed to return to her show after her vulgar insult toward Ivanka Trump? Bee used a word to describe another woman that can best be described as crude, offensive, and pornographic. After a few days away from her show she’s back as if nothing has happened.
And Joy Behar? If offensive comments, obvious bias, and hatred toward people you disagree with were sufficient cause to be fired, Joy Behar would’ve been fired a long time ago. One of her most recent in a long line of absurd and offensive comments was aimed at Vice President Mike Pence. Behar compared the faith of VP Pence to a mental illness. Continue reading…
Every Government Employee Needs to Understand the Recent OPM Proposal
Posted on June 27, 2018 in Money by Nathan Cherry
Important pension and retirement information for all federal employees.
Many of our clients are federal employees. Others are married to federal employees. And everyone knows a federal employee. Knowing this, it is important to share information regarding a proposal by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regarding potential changes to the FERS and CSRS income and pension system.
A recent article shares details of a proposal released by OPM Director Jeff Pon, in which Pon says his objective is “to bring Federal benefits more in line with the private sector.” The proposal aims to reduce the amount of money the federal government spends each year on income and pensions for federal employees.
It is estimated that the proposal would save the federal government approximately $143 billion over the next ten years.
Some of the highlights of the proposal are: Continue reading…