July 24, 2025 • 44 mins
The expansion of AI continues at a record pace but along with the advancement comes has come unexpected problems and pitfalls. On In The Market with Janet Parshall this week we spoke once again with a tech insider who explained how these programs were created to become companions and how that is leading some to unhealthy emotional attachments to these systems. He also addressed the expansion of AI into the porn industry and why the key to preventing AI overload and dependance is better discipleship. We spoke to a couple who shared their insights on to get “unstuck” spiritually in your life. There is a dark undercurrent to the world we live in and nowhere is it on more vivid display that in the seedy world of human trafficking. Young lives are damaged and destroyed all for the greed and profit of the unscrupulous. Our guest helped us understand what is at the root of this horrific evil, how sexual abuse at a young age can open the door to manipulated by these predators. She also shared with us how she and others are using God’s truth & love to bring hope, healing and happiness back into the lives of those who have escaped. Like never before we are seeing antisemitism show up in our streets, in our schools and in our media. Why? Our guest explained to us that this increase in hatred towards God’s chosen people, is at its root demonic. He explained the origins of this hatred and how we as believers must respond in this critical time. Everyday believers are called to stand up for truth in the marketplace of confusing and misleading ideals that are being peddled today. To help us do that, our favorite husband and wife team continue to teach us how to use God’s word to peel back the pretense and expose the lies that are being passed off as truth in our world today. We invite you to another examination of news from around the country and the world, being used to confuse and constrain us from standing up for truth.
Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partners
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
and I truly hope you hear something that encourages edifies, equips, enlightens,
and gently but consistently pushes you out there into the
marketplace of ideas. But before you start to listen and
before you go to the marketplace, let me just tell
you about this month's truth tool. And it is a
perfect fit for both the marketplace and getting out there.
It's Ray Comfort's book. Why? Jesus? If you listen to
(00:22):
the broadcast with any regularity, you know we love Ray.
He is bold, unashamed of the gospel. And yet in
such a winsome way, he delivers a truth narrative to
the man in the street, so to speak. He's written
the book Why Jesus? To Teach You How to Walk Through,
by examples and through real conversations he's had on how
to share the gospel in exactly the same way. Listen,
(00:43):
we're called to go and tell. It's not an opt in,
opt out clause. That's where we're supposed to go. And
in truth, how can we keep this good news to ourselves?
So I want you to have Why Jesus as this
month's truth tool. So you'll get some fire in your
bones about going out and sharing the good news of
the gospel of Jesus Christ. We're listener supported radio. My
truth stools are a way of saying thank you. When
you give a gift to the program to keep us
(01:03):
going financially, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet
58 or online at in the market with Janet parshall.org
again it's called Why Jesus. And you can ask for
that over the phone. Or you can scroll down and
look for the picture at the bottom of the front
page of the website, clicking on Make Your Donation. That
way you might also consider becoming a partial partner. Those
(01:25):
are my friends and boy, they're growing by leaps and
bounds who give every single month. They always get the
truth tool. But in addition to that, they get a
weekly newsletter that has some of my writing and an
audio piece that only my partial partners get so prayerfully consider,
won't you? Whether you'll be a partial partner or just
a one time gift so you can get a copy
of Why Jesus 877, Janet 58 or online at In
(01:45):
the Market with Janet Parshall. For now, please enjoy the broadcast.
S2 (01:55):
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program
is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of
the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight
and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick
look back at some of the highlights from the week.
S3 (02:13):
The goal of the big tech companies is to create
artificial general intelligence to actually, because they have such a
reduced view of humanity, they think we are basically meat
machines walking around, right? They don't see us as in
the image of God. And so they therefore think they
can actually create something that's conscious. And so they're expecting
(02:34):
it to be basically as sentient as humans. Um, we
know better, obviously, from Scripture and from our own personal experience,
but that's I think, the playbook they're operating from. And
I think they'd be totally happy for us to be
even more engaged with their apps, as then we even
are today.
S4 (02:52):
The reality is that, uh, approximately when when Israel became
a modern nation in 1948. May 14th, 1948. There was about,
I think, 600,000 Arabs living inside the land described as
Eretz Israel, the land of Israel today. And today there's
like a little over 2 million. So if if 600,000
(03:13):
to 2 million is the definition of genocide, then I
don't understand what the word is all about.
S5 (03:19):
We really feel like the needs to get into our bodies.
The word became flesh and dwelt among us. That is
super important. And so how God has made our bodies good,
and how he's made us to connect to one another
and to to the Lord is, is in and through
our bodies. And so we've been doing our work for
several years, just trying to kind of proclaim that message
(03:40):
and integrate our discipleship, our spiritual formation, our understanding of Scripture,
to really kind of understand the body's place in it all.
S6 (03:48):
We know when your little grandchild or your daughter was
6 or 7 years old and they're sitting on your knee,
and what do you want to be when you grow up? Oh,
I want to be a ballerina. Do you ever think
that any of them would ever say, oh, I hope
to be used for sex 20 times a day by
a sweaty 60 year old man? Never, never. How can
we say that's a calling? And then these men that
are like, hey, you know, I go to the strip club,
(04:09):
I'm just helping them out. I'm paying for college. I said, oh,
I get it. You know what? That might be a
great opportunity. Would you let your daughter come and intern
for me? Because we have this program where fathers are
putting their daughters in strip clubs. I'm like, what are
you talking about? So it's like, you have to, like,
turn them on their heads to get them to think
about it.
S2 (04:28):
To hear the full interviews from any of those guests,
go to In the Market with Janet Parshall and click
on Past programs. Here's some other stories making headlines this week.
S7 (04:38):
Coca-Cola confirmed Tuesday that it plans to roll out a
version of Coke sweetened with cane sugar for the US market.
S8 (04:45):
Walmart is deepening its push into AI, unveiling four new
super agents on Thursday, Day, aiming to improve the shopping
experience and better compete with rival retailers.
S7 (04:57):
Paramount Global and Skydance Media have won approval for a merger.
US regulators cleared the $8.4 billion deal on Thursday.
S9 (05:05):
Thailand and Cambodia exchanged heavy artillery fire for a second
day on Friday, despite international calls for a ceasefire.
S2 (05:14):
Janet and Craig have lots to share, and they'll put
the first story on the table when we return. To
get more information or to download the podcast of any
of the interviews, go to. In the market with Janet Parshall.
S1 (05:42):
Street evangelist Ray comfort has spent decades pointing people to Jesus,
and I want you to do the same. That's why
I've chosen Why Jesus as this month's truth tool. Ray
shares proven methods for sharing your faith with love and
confidence to a lost and dying world. As for your
copy of Why Jesus, when you give a gift of
any amount in the market, call 877. 58. That's 877
(06:04):
58 or go to. In the market with Janet Parshall.
Happy Friday to you friends. This is very much in
the market with Janet and Craig Parshall at Metamorphosizes into
that on Friday because Mr. Craig Parshall comes alongside. And
I'm glad he does because we got some heavy lifting
to do. Here's what we do on Fridays a tad
different than what we do Monday through Thursday. We take
(06:25):
a look at a lot of the issues that are
being bought and sold in the marketplace of ideas, but
we've got a truth meter in our hands. We walk
around and we measure the crooked ideas from the straight ideas.
I'm going to borrow from Dwight L Moody here. He
called the word of God the straight stick of truth.
Anybody who's ever worked in a shop, what do you do?
You measure twice, cut once. And so if you want
to see if you've got the straight stick of truth
(06:46):
that's being sold out in that marketplace, in fact, to
make sure you're not being sold a bill of goods,
or as it says in Colossians, much more eloquently, vain
and hollow philosophies, that's about as crooked as it gets.
The only way you're going to know that is by
being deeply immersed in the Word of God. So it's
kind of a practicum, if I can use that word.
On Fridays, we take the truth of the gospel, the gospel,
(07:06):
and apply it to the world around us, the whole
truth of the whole gospel to the whole world. And
we always have a whole wide variety of not ice creams.
You might be thinking about ice cream on this July Friday,
but a whole wide variety of ideas, all of which
we can look through the lens of Scripture and see,
Does God have a position? Has God already rendered, um,
(07:27):
a precept or a principle that really and truly addresses
the issue? So we're going to talk about that. By
the way, let me just pick up on that. Why
Jesus by Ray comfort. That is our truth tool. I
don't know about you. Maybe it's my watch, but it
seems to be set awfully fast. I cannot believe that
August 1st is right around the corner. I point that
out to you, because if you do not yet have
this marvelous book by Ray, why, Jesus, you're going to
(07:48):
want to get a copy. In his inimitable style, Ray
tells us how to share the gospel and answers the
question of why is Jesus the only way? You know,
some people recoil from that. Oh, how exclusionary. Oh, how
ridiculously narrow. It's not inclusive at all. Well, no, it's
the most inclusive declaration in the world. For God so
loved the world. Does it get any more inclusive than that?
I don't think so. Then what did he do that
(08:09):
he gave his only son? That whoever believes in him
will not perish but have everlasting life? The onus on
us to believe the work has been done at the cross.
And so why? Jesus is a question that every single
human being, like it or not, reject it or not,
will be caused, will be forced to answer someday either
this side of the grave or they're standing in front
(08:30):
of Jesus when they were now in full recognition of
the fact. Oops, that was the question I needed to
answer all along. Our purpose in existence is to know
God and to love and serve him. So why Jesus?
It's a question you and I need to ask ourselves,
and it's the question that's being asked most of all
in the marketplace of ideas, if you'd like a copy.
877 Janet 58 for a gift of any amount, I'm
(08:50):
sending it to you. My way of saying thank you.
It's one of those gift books. And by that I
mean they're treasured little books. It's not just any paperback.
It's got a cover on it that makes it giftable.
And I just love it. And of course, on the inside,
it is an absolutely priceless content of the salvation message
of Jesus Christ. 877 Janet 58 877 Janet 58 or
(09:11):
online at in the market with Janet parshall.org. Don't forget,
you can also be a partial partner. If you give
every single month at a level of your own choosing,
you always get the truth tool, but you get a
weekly newsletter that contains my writing and an audio piece
that only my partial partners hear. So 877 Janet 58
or online at in the market with Janet Parshall. Two
parents have asked the US Supreme Court to stop the
(09:33):
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They got a school district there. What
are they doing? What a lot of school districts are
doing all across the country. They're hiding and not disclosing
the so-called social gender transition of their child, a wedge,
an encumbrance, a blockage, an intrusion into the penumbral sanctity
of a relationship between a parent and child. So it
(09:55):
was filed last Friday, and there were two parents who
have urged the Supreme Court to act on what they
consider a threat to parental rights and children's mental health.
The couple filed a lawsuit against officials with Ludlow Public Schools,
accusing them of encouraging their middle school daughter to identify
as non-binary against their wishes, understanding that their daughter suffered
(10:17):
from depression. Oh, there's your first red flag. Don't give
them hormones. Don't push for chest surgery. How about you
treat her mental health suffered from depression and as a
result of that. And remember what the study from England,
the Cass report says, and different studies that have been
done longitudinally on this subject. It leaves a cluster of
mental health issues so often, or abuse or autism. But
(10:39):
there's something broken in the mind which ends up in
this feeling that you're trapped in the wrong body. So
as a result of that, she questioned her gender identity.
The couple hired a a private counselor, instructed the school
not to have private conversations with their daughter on these matters.
Guess what? The complaint then alleges that the school officials
went against the parents wishes in their arrogance and hubris,
(11:01):
and regularly encouraged the daughter to, quote transition to a
male name with non-binary pronouns. The school permitted the daughter
to use the bathroom designated for the boys. The parents,
by the way, also allege that school districts kept this
gender identity status hidden. Oh that's good. What a wonderful
trust relationship with the parents and refused to discontinue the
the transition after the parents learned about the situation. So
(11:24):
the lawsuit contends that the school counselor questioned the parents
choice of counselor like it was their place to do
that without ever talking with the parents, and the school, quote,
concealed their activities by using the child's real name and
pronouns when communicating with the parents. One more quote from
the petition that I want to get Craig's take on
this parents, the petition says, across the country. And that's
(11:45):
why I say this is not just a Massachusetts problem.
Parents across the country need this court's swift intervention. Less
schools continue to mold their children's sexual identity without parental input.
There is no time to waste. Craig. It is my
fervent prayer that there are at least four justices up
there who deem that this is worthy of granting writ,
which means taking it up, hearing the parents deciding to
(12:07):
adjudicate on this particular issue because from Massachusetts to California,
the arrogance. And last Friday we played some of the
howlings the caterwauling. I can't think of better words of
the president of the NEA and how much they're about
their rights and has nothing to do with kids. And
this this wrongheaded. It's too soft to say wrongheaded because
there's a taint of ignorance there. It isn't ignorance. It's
(12:30):
willfully saying that the children don't belong to mom and dad. Craig,
your take on this.
S10 (12:35):
Yeah, this is a very troubling case, but it's not
just about what's happening in the public schools in the
New England states like Massachusetts. It is a national problem.
You and I, on many a Friday have been talking
about specific instances in public schools. Schools across the country
(12:55):
where school officials have privately met with and incentivized children
in public school to assume a different, quote, gender identity
without advising the parents, sometimes overtly making sure that the
parents were not advised of this, which is a direct
violation of the fundamental rights of parents, uh, to lead
(13:20):
and inculcate values and behavior. If, if nothing else, to
know what your child is going through. Mere information discussed
to the parent, uh, was, uh, was violated here. Uh,
a total lack of transparency. In a sense, this case
(13:41):
is even more outrageous than the Mahmood versus Taylor case
that the Supreme Court decided in this term. They decided that, look,
you cannot, uh, grant opt outs to religious minded people, uh,
were guarding their children. And regarding objectionable texts, including references
(14:04):
to the transgender ideology and so forth, that directly violate
the rights of those parents and then decide, no, we're
going to take the opt out away. So you're going
to be forced to have your child indoctrinated to this
stuff without any justifiable reason. It's unconstitutional. The court was
very clear on that. This is even more outrageous than
(14:26):
the Mahmood case. And the reason is it specifically deals
with a child in crisis. And the parents were left
out of that equation.
S1 (14:36):
So again, hard to read the tea leaves with the court.
But we are seeing a lot of six three decisions
when it comes on to topics like this one that
we're talking about. Um, do you think the court will
take it up? Because again, as I pointed out before,
this is not a Massachusetts problem. They've been honestly, I
think the court generally likes to sidestep. They like to
go as broad as they can. They often will avoid
(14:58):
the merits of a case. Maybe it's because they're waiting
for a better case to come along with better clarity.
Maybe it's because they know it's so controversial. And who
wants to be controversial, right? Even if you're a Supreme
Court justices. But we're seeing I remember the arrogance of
California in particular that was really trying to pass legislation
that not only were they going to be a wedge
between parents, but if parents didn't cooperate, they were progressively
(15:18):
going to go after the parents and some of them
could be arrested or fined. Um, reported to social services,
spend time in jail, get your kids take away from you.
I mean, it was egregious. Thanks be to God that died.
But the fact that somebody even thought that there was
enough validity to even introduce that in a legislative question
I think is problematic to me. So how likely do
you think it is the court will take it up?
S10 (15:38):
Well, first of all, the issue framed in this case,
as opposed to the Mahmood versus Taylor case. That case
is different, slightly different, not substantially different. In that case
the issue was free exercise of religion rights of parents
to inculcate values and not have the public schools trample
those rights in that in that factual context. In this case,
(16:02):
it is not necessarily the religious beliefs of parents, but
the right of any parent, regardless of whether they are
believers in a theistic theology and the existence of God,
or whether they're atheist or whether they're secular, that the
real issue is how fundamental is the right of every
(16:25):
parent to the to access to their child in ways
in which the government through government schools and public schools
are government schools won't violate those fundamental rights. So this
is even more fundamental a right of parents than was
discussed and decided in Mahmood. I would hope that the
Supreme Court would, uh, accept the petition for certiorari, grant,
(16:50):
cert and, uh, reverse with instructions for the First Circuit
Court of Appeals to reconsider this case in light of
the Mahmood case.
S1 (17:02):
Yeah. You know, you really make an excellent point, Craig,
because I think if you can and you have to
be judicious with justices. But if you could read the
tea leaves in Mahmood v Taylor, that one again with
this very eclectic group of parents, Orthodox Christians, Muslim parents.
S10 (17:15):
All religious, but in a variety of different religious.
S1 (17:17):
Beliefs. But the under the the underpinning of that was
not only was it a religious liberty issue, we have
the right to raise our child according to the values
that we subscribe to, but it undergirded the importance of
parents rights. They hadn't done that in 40 years. So
maybe this is a good hint that they might take
it up. Pray to that end. By the way, we
didn't just tell you about this story just so you
could say, oh, isn't that interesting? The Supreme Court might
(17:38):
grant writs. This is a parents rights issue. And you are,
because of God's putting that child in your family. You
are the best Department of Health, education and welfare back
after this. So there's a pastor in Louisiana. He's been
working a second job, what we call a bi vocational pastor.
(18:00):
His second job was at a public library. He did
it to support his family. And this particular pastor said
that he lost that job at the library earlier this
month after refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a
library coworker. So this individual, his name is Pastor Ash.
He's the pastor of Evandale Baptist Church in Baton Rouge.
He moved to Louisiana earlier this year, and Ash's church
(18:23):
is a member of the Baptist Association of Greater Baton Rouge.
And on July 15th, Uh, apparently ash explained that his
previous side job had been truck driving, but he wanted
a position with better hours so that he could give
more time to his church and his family. So understandable. Well,
after four months of working as an inter-departmental loan technician
at the East Baton Rouge Parish Library, ash said he
(18:46):
was reprimanded. Why? Because he wasn't using the preferred pronouns
of a trans gender colleague during a conversation with another
colleague because the pastor refused to get on board with
the pronoun usage. He said he was fired the next day. Wow,
I said, I'm not going to lie, ash recalled. I
simply can't do it. Well, ash said that he knew
going into the library job that the workplace wouldn't be
(19:08):
necessarily hospitable for a Christian or even a conservatively minded person.
But I just kind of kept my mouth shut, and
I just tried to do a good job and respect
everybody that came my way. So the position had been ideal.
So the pastor thought, because part of the job of
a pastor is to disseminate information. And so I was
going to still play a part in my tent making job,
ash said, although he knew his stance would violate the
(19:30):
library's employee code of conduct, he believed his religious convictions mattered, too.
When those things are in contradiction with each other, there
has been there has to be given preference for one
over the other. Ash didn't indicate if he's going to
plan to sue the library over his termination. So taking
this biblical stand has been very important to him. In fact, um,
(19:51):
it's in a recent interview, he said they're absolutely limiting
access to books. Uh, it's not just about banning a
book on a piece of paper. If you can pretend
that the book doesn't exist, that's even more effective. And so, um,
this was interesting because apparently the public library system, uh,
said that they heard colleagues disparaging books, uh, by President
(20:12):
Trump and by president or by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
So there's a clear, palpable political bias there, obviously, as
did the library, didn't sponsor drag queen story hours, but
various LGBTQ displays were visible depending on the month, and
it's especially noteworthy to see which books are showcased in
the teen section, the pastor said. So local libraries are
(20:34):
trying to pivot so they can still continue to have
a purpose for existing as a community center. In fact,
he said, Christians must watch out so public libraries are
not taking the place of the local church. So there
you go. He wouldn't I mean, you just. And by
the way, I think he's got if he chooses to sue,
I think he's got strong legal grounds to be able
to do it. We report here often about teachers, for example,
who have been fired because they won't use a particular
(20:55):
pronoun either. The First Amendment and protection of religious liberty
is bedrock, solid, and has been for close to 250 years.
Or it's not worth the paper it's written on. A pastor,
above all people knows beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Thou shalt not lie. So you can't use a pronoun
that refers to somebody of the opposite sex, because that's
a lie. You're not. You're a male, you're a female.
I don't care how you dress. I don't care what
(21:16):
surgeries you have. I don't care what hormones you ingest.
Let's do a little DNA test.
S10 (21:20):
Yeah. There. I look at this case, um, and first
of all, from a legal standpoint, uh, title seven of
the Civil Rights Act does provide that, uh, a person's
employment cannot be jeopardized. In other words, you can't take
a direct action adverse to that employee because of their
religious faith. There are certain exceptions to that. But the
(21:43):
the general rule that certainly seems to be the case here.
And that's the specific legal issue. Um, and by the way,
if you read his story, he made every attempt and
he knew that there was a general philosophy in this
library that was adverse to a lot of his personal
values and beliefs. But he stayed the course to his credit,
(22:06):
kept his head down, and just decided, I'm going to
do the best job I can because it allows me
to have more time with my family and better hours, uh,
working in the library than his prior job. That's the
specific issue here, and it's an important one. But there's
a larger issue about public libraries in general. Now, I
know public libraries, and I'll defend them a little bit
(22:26):
this way. Public libraries get into very dicey, difficult challenges
about what books they. From an editorial standpoint, want to
add or not add? I understand that generally speaking, they
have editorial discretion, but they can't be official censors. In
the Supreme Court has said that if it's a public library, um,
so they make these choices, by the way. Ironically, I
(22:48):
just got a notice by email today that a another
public library just added my Chambers of Justice fiction series
to the library. And I always enjoy that, because if
you don't have money to buy books, you can go
in and and your tax dollars at work, you can
find the kind of books that you want to read
and then bring them back so that other people can
enjoy them. Now, I'm sure in some states or some counties,
(23:10):
you and I could probably name a few. Uh, don't
think my books would probably ring a bell the same
way that they do, uh, in this particular public library, but, uh,
you cannot act as an official censor against ideas you
do not like. And by the way, he shared, as
you know, Janet, in his comments publicly, uh, that there
(23:31):
was a worldview in this particular library and they didn't
make any apology for the fact that what that worldview
was and we're not going to tolerate views that don't
align with it.
S1 (23:41):
Yeah. Exactly. Right. So this is one of those questions.
And we're seeing this over and over and over again
that it isn't if it will happen to you, it's
when it will happen to you. When you really and
truly have to answer the question that transcends the circumstances
and really can be put this way. When do you say,
I will no longer bend my knee to Caesar, to
God first? Right? And so this pastor, again, I think
(24:03):
the story is even richer because it is a pastor.
This is he did it. This was his tent making.
This was his part time job to bring in extra
money for his family. And so aren't we thrilled that
there's a pastor out there who is the same man
behind the pulpit on Sunday mornings as he is in
the library, that he practices the principles and the precept
of God's Word. He is a witness for Christ, whether
he's in the pulpit or he's at the library. But
(24:24):
he would not be two different people. That double minded
man that the Bible tells us is unstable in all
his ways. Pastor ash set an example for the rest
of us. Good for him back after this. The Bible
(24:52):
says the Word of God illuminates our walk through life.
It's a lamp to our feet and a light to
our path. Without it, we stumble and fall in the
market with Janet Parshall is designed to help you look
at the headlines of the day through the lens of Scripture.
When you become a partial partner, you help to make
this broadcast possible, and as a partial partner, you'll receive
exclusive benefits. So why not become a partial partner today?
Call 877 Janet 58 or go to in the market
(25:15):
with Janet Parshall. You waltzing through the marketplace of ideas?
I got a good news story for you. This. According
to the San Francisco Chronicle, it was reported yesterday president
Trump's budget cuts to Medicaid have forced Planned Parenthood Mar
Monte to shut five clinics across Northern California and the
(25:37):
Central Coast. I'll give you a moment to say Amen.
So five planned planned Parenthood's have closed their doors in
northern and central California, including one in San Francisco. So, uh,
this is a result, by the way, of what is
being euphemistic. Remember when they call it Obamacare? So we
come up with euphemisms in Washington all the time. So
(25:57):
now it's called the Big beautiful Bill. It was a huge, uh,
funding package. And in that funding package, there was the
inclusion of what we call a rescission. And a rescission
means we're no longer going to be sending money to
fill in the blank vis a vis the federal government.
And so one of the things included in that bill,
which is passed and signed into law, is that abortions
(26:20):
being paid for through Medicaid are not going to happen anymore.
And woe is me poor Planned Parenthood. A not for
profit organization that makes a gazillion dollars every year they
put on an annual report. You can research this stuff
for yourself if they're not doing abortions, by the way,
they're handing out hormones. Okay. That's why I say I
do believe they have corporate offices in hell. And so
(26:41):
they're just marketing this stuff all the time. And so
now they're upset because these clinics are starting to close.
And so the San Francisco Chronicle, I won't even continue
to read it because as you can guess, there's a
market slant. I got to move my chair a little
bit and tilt my head. One way to counterbalance what
I'm reading here in the Chronicle. But suffice it to
say that federal funding has, until now, continued to flow
(27:02):
to Planned Parenthood despite the Hyde Amendment that was passed
by an Illinois representative by the name of Congressman Hyde
Henry Hyde. Years and years and years ago, and it
was a ban on federal funding of abortion. Uh, and
as a result of that, the money has flowed because apparently,
even though it's a very tiny percentage, Planned Parenthood offers
(27:23):
other services. So this passage of this bill, by the way,
is now a major blow to Planned Parenthood, the foremost
provider of abortion. And, of course, Governor Newsom is opposed
to the bill. And he has previously advertised California in
other states as a haven for abortion. So, Craig, talk
(27:43):
about that first, and then we're going to talk about, again,
this interesting separation of powers. This is certainly something we're
talking about a lot lately. If you slept through this
part of your high school civics class, you're getting it
now because you're seeing how it gets played out in
the real world. So again, Medicaid, it passed passed the House,
passed the Senate. Any differences worked out in Cancun, what
we call conference committee. That's the committee that meets between
(28:05):
the two houses. All of those differences worked out. The
final edition put on the president's desk. He signed it
into law. And you were busy barbecuing your hot dogs
and setting off fireworks because they did it on the
4th of July. And in there was the prohibition now
of funding of abortion to Medicaid. And Planned Parenthood is
hopping mad. And as a result, it isn't just California.
That's just the San Francisco Chronicle reporting. And it's five
(28:27):
clinics in California, but it's happening all across the country. Craig.
Your thoughts?
S10 (28:30):
Yeah. For years and years and years, Planned Parenthood and
this issue has come up in almost every term of Congress,
every session that I can remember, going back a long
number of years that we've been following this in an
away from Washington, D.C., the issue comes up. Should they
be defunded, should they be defunded, and Congress has been
(28:51):
unwilling or unable in the past to do it, and
they have done it now as part of the big,
beautiful bill that got passed and signed by the President Trump. However,
the argument has always been made by Planned Parenthood. Wait
a minute now, we abortions are a very small percentage
of what we do. We provide a wide spectrum of
public health benefits to the American people. And if you
(29:15):
take our money away, you'll hurt them in all those
other services. Well, is that really the case? The San
Francisco Chronicle had this to say, quote, the changes in
the bill, meaning defunding Planned Parenthood for abortion, quote, is
a crushing blow to a state that set itself up
as an abortion haven. After the US Supreme Court overturned
(29:38):
Roe versus Wade in 2022.
S1 (29:40):
Dobbs decision.
S10 (29:41):
The Dobbs decision and the California governor has been touting California,
come to us for your abortions. We're an abortion haven.
So which is it? Is our abortion simply a small percentage?
And this really isn't going to hurt you? Or really,
is it a mainstay of your business? And is this
the reason, really the primary reason that your your worldview,
(30:04):
reason why you exist? I have a feeling the San
Francisco Chronicle got it right, and the state of California
and all their political statements have been running a ruse.
S1 (30:14):
Well, and let me go to something that you wisely observed,
which is the idea that Planned Parenthood caterwauls about, oh,
we provide all these other services. Minimal, minimal, minimal, minimal
other services. If you read their annual report, the majority
of their income comes from abortions. They know it. You
and I know it. It's universally recognized. They're one of
the foremost providers, if not the most foremost provider of
(30:34):
abortion in the United States. So in the midst of
all of this and this funding bill, the B.b.b. I'll
just say that because it takes too long to say big,
beautiful Bill, the b.b.b. Gets passed into law, signed into law,
and along comes a federal judge. Now, remember, this is
an act of Congress. How does a bill become a law?
The most important branch is what? The legislative branch. Why?
(30:55):
Because we, the people speak through the legislative branch. It
is the founders recognizing that our rights do not come
from a king down to us, but rather it is
the people. The will of the people becomes the law
of the land. It is the people up. We duly
elect our officials who act on our will vis a
vis the political process. It's amazing when you think about it.
It's a great experiment. And thank you, Lord, that we've
(31:16):
had almost 250 years where this system has worked. Is
it perfect? Absolutely not. Anything East of Eden isn't perfect.
But I'll tell you what. Travel the world a little bit.
I'll take this system over any other system on planet Earth.
So the Congress, the people have spoken three branches of government.
Executive wasn't executive order, it wasn't the courts. It was
the people speaking through the legislative branch. Well, along comes
(31:38):
one federal judge. This judge happens to be sitting on
a court in Massachusetts. Apparently, we're talking a lot about
them today. And this particular.
S10 (31:48):
John Adams, by the way, would be turning in his grave.
S1 (31:51):
I'm glad you brought that up. Yes. Our favorite founding
father and mother. Absolutely. And so this judge, who is
part of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
partially blocked a provision of the b-b-b that puts a
one year pause on giving federal funding to Planned Parenthood.
The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed earlier
(32:13):
this month by the Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
You bet they're going to fight. They just got their
tap turned off financially. The Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts
and the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. Don't ask me
Taiwan or Talwani, which is the judge's name? Indira Talwani
ruled that the administration must continue to ensure that Planned
(32:34):
Parenthood affiliates in Massachusetts and Utah, as well as Planned
Parenthood Federation of America members, will not provide abortion services
as of October 1st, 2025, or who spend less than
$800,000 in Medicaid funds in fiscal year 2023 to continue
Medicaid funding. So all of that aside, I know you
guys are starting to glaze over here. It is in
a nutshell. Does a judge have a right to block
(32:55):
an act of Congress? Now think about that. All the
bills that get turned into laws on a daily basis
on Capitol Hill. How many federal judges are there. Well,
they're not as many federal judges as you would think.
And do they have the right to usurp the people
of the United States who have spoken through their elected officials?
I think not. And, Craig, in some respects, this is
(33:19):
like deja vu all over again, if I can quote
that great political philosopher, Yogi Berra. We are seeing judges
pop up like Jack in the boxes all over the country. Liberal.
And I'm not being political here. It's just because if
you're going to block something you don't like in this
administration or that the Congress passes. Odds are you're you've
got a liberal or progressive worldview. So a judge pops
(33:39):
up and says, I don't like it. I'm going to
hit the pause button. I'm going to stop. Then we
have to bring in the United States Supreme Court, who
yet again has to adjudicate on whether or not a judge,
a federal judge, has the right to usurp the people
speaking through the legislature. This is a fascinating lesson in civics,
even at the the merits of the legal issues here. Don't.
S10 (33:59):
Yeah. The Supreme Court has already spoken in a different context,
but has recently spoken about limiting, uh, the authority, the jurisdiction,
if you will, of a US district court, a federal
single federal judge, uh, in one particular federal district to
(34:22):
issue an injunction against the federal government, uh, which would
restrain the actions of the government from coast to coast nationally,
even though the issue before the judge and the jurisdiction
of that judge really is within the district of that
judge and not any further, uh, I should say this, uh,
(34:45):
they're also, uh, within a circuit court jurisdiction, which is
a larger number of states in that in in this case,
it would be the first Circuit. And there are multiple
circuits across the country, but certainly not national jurisdiction to
do so. In the Supreme Court has indicated in a
(35:05):
number of its decisions on expedited injunctions and so forth,
that it does not believe or has a problem with
these nationwide injunctions by single U.S. district judges. So that's
that's certainly one issue. But the other issue is the
way in which this court has gone through the, uh,
(35:31):
the Medicare provisions, really with an eye for looking for
a problem rather than looking for a solution. You know,
when you're a judge, you are to reconcile conflicting parts, uh,
within a statute, if at all possible. They can be harmonized,
or you're also, uh, required to try to find a
(35:52):
way to harmonize the language of Congress legislative body. Remember,
separation of powers with the Constitution if possible. Sometimes it's
not possible and then they strike down something as unconstitutional.
But that should be the exception, not the rule. I
think the court got it just reversed.
S1 (36:09):
Yeah, exactly. So we're going to watch this one. Um, Craig,
how soon do you think that they'll have to rule?
Because remember this kicks in apparently October 1st, 2025.
S10 (36:18):
Oh yeah. This is going to be expedited. So we're
probably going to see something in September. Yeah. At least.
S1 (36:23):
Wow. Okay. There you go. We're going to take a break.
Come right back. These hours go very quickly. Remember we
do do this for two hours. So stick around for
hour two if you can. If you can't, go to
wherever you find your favorite podcast, download in the market
with Janet Parshall. And then listen to our two when
it's convenient, at your discretion. We'll take a break back
after this. You talk an awful lot about Christian persecution
(36:52):
on this program. We have regular conversations with Todd Nettleton.
We talk with Doctor We talked with Tom Doyle, the
list goes on, and we're always talking to we can
raise awareness that, in fact, Christian persecution is alive and
unfortunately it's flourishing. And it's been said that in the
20th century, more Christians were persecuted for their faith than
all 19 previous centuries combined. That's overwhelming. So God bless
(37:18):
two representatives on Capitol Hill, Josh Hawley and Riley Moore,
one from Missouri, the other from West Virginia. They are
calling out attacks on Christians abroad, and they're asking the
administration to prioritize defending them. These two legislators introduced a
congressional resolution last week denouncing the persecution of Christians around
the world. So, the document specifically contends, condemns rather, the
(37:41):
persecution of Christians in Muslim majority countries and encourages the
president the protection of persecuted Christians in United States foreign policy. Now,
I got to tell you, that's hugely significant. And by
the way, this goes to open doors. This goes to
a lot of organizations. The US Commission on Religious Liberty,
by the way, when they put out the list every
year of where persecution is happening around the world, and
(38:04):
the fact that this addresses specifically Muslim majority countries, there
are two countries where we see Christian persecution meted out
on a regular basis. One are Muslim majority countries and
the other are totalitarian regimes like Communist China. Right. So
or North Korea. So it's important to understand that for
these two legislators to specifically call out Christian persecution is marvelous,
(38:29):
particularly when you contextualize it with what's happening in Syria,
when you're beginning to see that it's not just the Druze.
These are an offshoot of Sunni Muslims, but they are
ardently supportive of the nation of Israel. Craig and I
have been to many Druze communities. Very often they'll work
to make olive oil, and they left Israel to cross
the border into Syria at the peril to their own lives,
(38:52):
to try to rescue family and friends who were being
annihilated in the midst of that. It wasn't just the Druze.
It was Christians. And I shared last week with you
about an evangelical Christian who was massacred along with 20
members of his extended family. So going back to what
we were saying before, excuse me. If you look at
Open Doors World Watch List that comes out every single year,
we always talk about it on the day it's released.
(39:14):
It found that more than 380 million. Let that sink in.
Christians around the globe suffer high levels of persecution and
discrimination as a result of their Christian faith. It then
provides specific examples of targeted attacks, including the killing of
at least 50 Christians on Palm Sunday in Nigeria. This
is a country we need to be praying for on
a regular basis, and mob violence against Christians in Pakistan.
(39:39):
The resolution, quote, encourages the president to use all diplomatic
tools available, including trade and national security discussions and negotiations,
to advance the protection of persecuted Christians worldwide and within
Muslim dominated countries. That's language right from the proposed legislation,
it emphasizes that Christians can be helped through the stabilization
(40:00):
of the Middle East. Uh, and also, by the way,
more from West Virginia said, unfortunately, decades of U.S. foreign
policy blunders have exacerbated this crisis, with ethno religious cleansings
accelerating in Iraq after our failure to stabilize the country
following the 2003 invasion. We as lawmakers, cannot continue to
(40:21):
sit idly by. I urge my colleagues to join me
in condemning the persecution of Christians across the globe. And
when they introduced this, I want you to know that
more again, from West Virginia referred to the attack at
the Mar Elias Church in Syria, discussing why he introduced
the resolution. I'm so grateful because this has gone markedly
(40:42):
underreported in the news, he said. During a Divine Liturgy
in Damascus last month, an Islamic jihadists opened fire on
worshippers and detonated an explosive device, killing at least 30,
wounding dozens more. These examples illustrate the violence and death
Christians face on a daily basis. Josh Hawley said that
Christians are obligated to condemn the crimes perpetuated around the
(41:03):
globe against Christian Brothers and sisters. So again, what these
gentlemen rightly understand is what you and I need to
know that there are a myriad of ways of trying
to mitigate the persecution. Trade, tariffs, aid. The list goes on.
But I don't know about you. I've been in this
town for decades. Not days, weeks, months, years, decades. And
when you get two members who stand up specifically and
(41:24):
underscore something that we know is precious and important, the
persecution that's happening to our brothers and sisters. I don't
know about you, but that's a great day and a
great news story. Craig. Your thoughts?
S10 (41:34):
Yeah, I think it is. And the report that came
out recently, that 380 million Christians are being persecuted worldwide, uh,
together with some of these recent atrocities where they have
been targeted during worship services, which is a clear indication
(41:54):
by the Islamic terrorist organizations that they will want to target, uh,
the most important symbolic places where Christians worship and gather together. Uh,
this is a very evil sign of what their intentions are.
And the United States government has a role to play
in this. And you and I have often heard it
(42:17):
said that the president's biggest, uh, political power is the
power of the bully pulpit. That is to say, you
have a worldwide pulpit. The news media follows you, whether
they like you or not, as president. And what you
say goes around the world in a matter of seconds.
So the president has the ability, through the agencies like
(42:40):
the Department of State and others to send the message
as we deal, particularly with nations, um, Islamic nations in
the Middle East that we are not going to tolerate
in our international diplomacy efforts. We're not going to tolerate, uh, religious, uh,
insurrection and genocide, uh, of any belief, any religious faith basis,
(43:05):
but in particular the recent, uh, increase on the slaughter
of Christians in those countries.
S1 (43:12):
Yeah. Again, I'm going to be curious to see where
this goes. In fact, even more importantly, I'm going to
be curious in watching the journey of how this goes.
So this is a resolution. It's not the same as
statutory language. It's kind of the sense of so it, uh,
it embodies to the world the values that we believe in.
It gives the president, as Greg just noted, the opportunity
(43:32):
to use the bully pulpit to underscore whatever a resolution
is that's introduced in Congress. But the journey is going
to be worth watching. Who would vote against a resolution
that decries persecution against Christians around the globe. If anybody
voted no for that, I'd be pretty curious to try
to figure out why they cast a no for that
(43:53):
resolution rather than a yes. So you can bet we're
going to watch this one very, very carefully again. I
hope you realize that our conversations are not just meant
to equip, edify, encourage, enlighten, but they're meant to add
to your prayer list. So you've got a lot of
things to pray about. Just what we talked about this hour.
Pray about this resolution. Pray that the Supreme Court grants
writ to those parents who say, protect us as moms
and dads, and pray for those people who have taken
(44:15):
a bold stand like Pastor Ash in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
who said, no, this fire, no, father, whatever it cost me,
I will not bend my knee. And again, may his
tribe increase. So something to think about, something to pray about.
I hope you have a fabulous weekend. Ask for your
copy of Why Jesus Call 877 Janet 58. Give a
gift of any amount. We'll give you a copy. Thank
you so much, friends. We'll see you next time right
(44:37):
here on In the Market with Janet Parshall.
Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
and I truly hope you hear something that encourages edifies, equips, enlightens,
and gently but consistently pushes you out there into the
marketplace of ideas. But before you start to listen and
before you go to the marketplace, let me just tell
you about this month's truth tool. And it is a
perfect fit for both the marketplace and getting out there.
It's Ray Comfort's book. Why? Jesus? If you listen to
(00:22):
the broadcast with any regularity, you know we love Ray.
He is bold, unashamed of the gospel. And yet in
such a winsome way, he delivers a truth narrative to
the man in the street, so to speak. He's written
the book Why Jesus? To Teach You How to Walk Through,
by examples and through real conversations he's had on how
to share the gospel in exactly the same way. Listen,
(00:43):
we're called to go and tell. It's not an opt in,
opt out clause. That's where we're supposed to go. And
in truth, how can we keep this good news to ourselves?
So I want you to have Why Jesus as this
month's truth tool. So you'll get some fire in your
bones about going out and sharing the good news of
the gospel of Jesus Christ. We're listener supported radio. My
truth stools are a way of saying thank you. When
you give a gift to the program to keep us
(01:03):
going financially, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet
58 or online at in the market with Janet parshall.org
again it's called Why Jesus. And you can ask for
that over the phone. Or you can scroll down and
look for the picture at the bottom of the front
page of the website, clicking on Make Your Donation. That
way you might also consider becoming a partial partner. Those
(01:25):
are my friends and boy, they're growing by leaps and
bounds who give every single month. They always get the
truth tool. But in addition to that, they get a
weekly newsletter that has some of my writing and an
audio piece that only my partial partners get so prayerfully consider,
won't you? Whether you'll be a partial partner or just
a one time gift so you can get a copy
of Why Jesus 877, Janet 58 or online at In
(01:45):
the Market with Janet Parshall. For now, please enjoy the broadcast.
S2 (01:55):
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program
is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of
the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight
and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick
look back at some of the highlights from the week.
S3 (02:13):
The goal of the big tech companies is to create
artificial general intelligence to actually, because they have such a
reduced view of humanity, they think we are basically meat
machines walking around, right? They don't see us as in
the image of God. And so they therefore think they
can actually create something that's conscious. And so they're expecting
(02:34):
it to be basically as sentient as humans. Um, we
know better, obviously, from Scripture and from our own personal experience,
but that's I think, the playbook they're operating from. And
I think they'd be totally happy for us to be
even more engaged with their apps, as then we even
are today.
S4 (02:52):
The reality is that, uh, approximately when when Israel became
a modern nation in 1948. May 14th, 1948. There was about,
I think, 600,000 Arabs living inside the land described as
Eretz Israel, the land of Israel today. And today there's
like a little over 2 million. So if if 600,000
(03:13):
to 2 million is the definition of genocide, then I
don't understand what the word is all about.
S5 (03:19):
We really feel like the needs to get into our bodies.
The word became flesh and dwelt among us. That is
super important. And so how God has made our bodies good,
and how he's made us to connect to one another
and to to the Lord is, is in and through
our bodies. And so we've been doing our work for
several years, just trying to kind of proclaim that message
(03:40):
and integrate our discipleship, our spiritual formation, our understanding of Scripture,
to really kind of understand the body's place in it all.
S6 (03:48):
We know when your little grandchild or your daughter was
6 or 7 years old and they're sitting on your knee,
and what do you want to be when you grow up? Oh,
I want to be a ballerina. Do you ever think
that any of them would ever say, oh, I hope
to be used for sex 20 times a day by
a sweaty 60 year old man? Never, never. How can
we say that's a calling? And then these men that
are like, hey, you know, I go to the strip club,
(04:09):
I'm just helping them out. I'm paying for college. I said, oh,
I get it. You know what? That might be a
great opportunity. Would you let your daughter come and intern
for me? Because we have this program where fathers are
putting their daughters in strip clubs. I'm like, what are
you talking about? So it's like, you have to, like,
turn them on their heads to get them to think
about it.
S2 (04:28):
To hear the full interviews from any of those guests,
go to In the Market with Janet Parshall and click
on Past programs. Here's some other stories making headlines this week.
S7 (04:38):
Coca-Cola confirmed Tuesday that it plans to roll out a
version of Coke sweetened with cane sugar for the US market.
S8 (04:45):
Walmart is deepening its push into AI, unveiling four new
super agents on Thursday, Day, aiming to improve the shopping
experience and better compete with rival retailers.
S7 (04:57):
Paramount Global and Skydance Media have won approval for a merger.
US regulators cleared the $8.4 billion deal on Thursday.
S9 (05:05):
Thailand and Cambodia exchanged heavy artillery fire for a second
day on Friday, despite international calls for a ceasefire.
S2 (05:14):
Janet and Craig have lots to share, and they'll put
the first story on the table when we return. To
get more information or to download the podcast of any
of the interviews, go to. In the market with Janet Parshall.
S1 (05:42):
Street evangelist Ray comfort has spent decades pointing people to Jesus,
and I want you to do the same. That's why
I've chosen Why Jesus as this month's truth tool. Ray
shares proven methods for sharing your faith with love and
confidence to a lost and dying world. As for your
copy of Why Jesus, when you give a gift of
any amount in the market, call 877. 58. That's 877
(06:04):
58 or go to. In the market with Janet Parshall.
Happy Friday to you friends. This is very much in
the market with Janet and Craig Parshall at Metamorphosizes into
that on Friday because Mr. Craig Parshall comes alongside. And
I'm glad he does because we got some heavy lifting
to do. Here's what we do on Fridays a tad
different than what we do Monday through Thursday. We take
(06:25):
a look at a lot of the issues that are
being bought and sold in the marketplace of ideas, but
we've got a truth meter in our hands. We walk
around and we measure the crooked ideas from the straight ideas.
I'm going to borrow from Dwight L Moody here. He
called the word of God the straight stick of truth.
Anybody who's ever worked in a shop, what do you do?
You measure twice, cut once. And so if you want
to see if you've got the straight stick of truth
(06:46):
that's being sold out in that marketplace, in fact, to
make sure you're not being sold a bill of goods,
or as it says in Colossians, much more eloquently, vain
and hollow philosophies, that's about as crooked as it gets.
The only way you're going to know that is by
being deeply immersed in the Word of God. So it's
kind of a practicum, if I can use that word.
On Fridays, we take the truth of the gospel, the gospel,
(07:06):
and apply it to the world around us, the whole
truth of the whole gospel to the whole world. And
we always have a whole wide variety of not ice creams.
You might be thinking about ice cream on this July Friday,
but a whole wide variety of ideas, all of which
we can look through the lens of Scripture and see,
Does God have a position? Has God already rendered, um,
(07:27):
a precept or a principle that really and truly addresses
the issue? So we're going to talk about that. By
the way, let me just pick up on that. Why
Jesus by Ray comfort. That is our truth tool. I
don't know about you. Maybe it's my watch, but it
seems to be set awfully fast. I cannot believe that
August 1st is right around the corner. I point that
out to you, because if you do not yet have
this marvelous book by Ray, why, Jesus, you're going to
(07:48):
want to get a copy. In his inimitable style, Ray
tells us how to share the gospel and answers the
question of why is Jesus the only way? You know,
some people recoil from that. Oh, how exclusionary. Oh, how
ridiculously narrow. It's not inclusive at all. Well, no, it's
the most inclusive declaration in the world. For God so
loved the world. Does it get any more inclusive than that?
I don't think so. Then what did he do that
(08:09):
he gave his only son? That whoever believes in him
will not perish but have everlasting life? The onus on
us to believe the work has been done at the cross.
And so why? Jesus is a question that every single
human being, like it or not, reject it or not,
will be caused, will be forced to answer someday either
this side of the grave or they're standing in front
(08:30):
of Jesus when they were now in full recognition of
the fact. Oops, that was the question I needed to
answer all along. Our purpose in existence is to know
God and to love and serve him. So why Jesus?
It's a question you and I need to ask ourselves,
and it's the question that's being asked most of all
in the marketplace of ideas, if you'd like a copy.
877 Janet 58 for a gift of any amount, I'm
(08:50):
sending it to you. My way of saying thank you.
It's one of those gift books. And by that I
mean they're treasured little books. It's not just any paperback.
It's got a cover on it that makes it giftable.
And I just love it. And of course, on the inside,
it is an absolutely priceless content of the salvation message
of Jesus Christ. 877 Janet 58 877 Janet 58 or
(09:11):
online at in the market with Janet parshall.org. Don't forget,
you can also be a partial partner. If you give
every single month at a level of your own choosing,
you always get the truth tool, but you get a
weekly newsletter that contains my writing and an audio piece
that only my partial partners hear. So 877 Janet 58
or online at in the market with Janet Parshall. Two
parents have asked the US Supreme Court to stop the
(09:33):
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They got a school district there. What
are they doing? What a lot of school districts are
doing all across the country. They're hiding and not disclosing
the so-called social gender transition of their child, a wedge,
an encumbrance, a blockage, an intrusion into the penumbral sanctity
of a relationship between a parent and child. So it
(09:55):
was filed last Friday, and there were two parents who
have urged the Supreme Court to act on what they
consider a threat to parental rights and children's mental health.
The couple filed a lawsuit against officials with Ludlow Public Schools,
accusing them of encouraging their middle school daughter to identify
as non-binary against their wishes, understanding that their daughter suffered
(10:17):
from depression. Oh, there's your first red flag. Don't give
them hormones. Don't push for chest surgery. How about you
treat her mental health suffered from depression and as a
result of that. And remember what the study from England,
the Cass report says, and different studies that have been
done longitudinally on this subject. It leaves a cluster of
mental health issues so often, or abuse or autism. But
(10:39):
there's something broken in the mind which ends up in
this feeling that you're trapped in the wrong body. So
as a result of that, she questioned her gender identity.
The couple hired a a private counselor, instructed the school
not to have private conversations with their daughter on these matters.
Guess what? The complaint then alleges that the school officials
went against the parents wishes in their arrogance and hubris,
(11:01):
and regularly encouraged the daughter to, quote transition to a
male name with non-binary pronouns. The school permitted the daughter
to use the bathroom designated for the boys. The parents,
by the way, also allege that school districts kept this
gender identity status hidden. Oh that's good. What a wonderful
trust relationship with the parents and refused to discontinue the
the transition after the parents learned about the situation. So
(11:24):
the lawsuit contends that the school counselor questioned the parents
choice of counselor like it was their place to do
that without ever talking with the parents, and the school, quote,
concealed their activities by using the child's real name and
pronouns when communicating with the parents. One more quote from
the petition that I want to get Craig's take on
this parents, the petition says, across the country. And that's
(11:45):
why I say this is not just a Massachusetts problem.
Parents across the country need this court's swift intervention. Less
schools continue to mold their children's sexual identity without parental input.
There is no time to waste. Craig. It is my
fervent prayer that there are at least four justices up
there who deem that this is worthy of granting writ,
which means taking it up, hearing the parents deciding to
(12:07):
adjudicate on this particular issue because from Massachusetts to California,
the arrogance. And last Friday we played some of the
howlings the caterwauling. I can't think of better words of
the president of the NEA and how much they're about
their rights and has nothing to do with kids. And
this this wrongheaded. It's too soft to say wrongheaded because
there's a taint of ignorance there. It isn't ignorance. It's
(12:30):
willfully saying that the children don't belong to mom and dad. Craig,
your take on this.
S10 (12:35):
Yeah, this is a very troubling case, but it's not
just about what's happening in the public schools in the
New England states like Massachusetts. It is a national problem.
You and I, on many a Friday have been talking
about specific instances in public schools. Schools across the country
(12:55):
where school officials have privately met with and incentivized children
in public school to assume a different, quote, gender identity
without advising the parents, sometimes overtly making sure that the
parents were not advised of this, which is a direct
violation of the fundamental rights of parents, uh, to lead
(13:20):
and inculcate values and behavior. If, if nothing else, to
know what your child is going through. Mere information discussed
to the parent, uh, was, uh, was violated here. Uh,
a total lack of transparency. In a sense, this case
(13:41):
is even more outrageous than the Mahmood versus Taylor case
that the Supreme Court decided in this term. They decided that, look,
you cannot, uh, grant opt outs to religious minded people, uh,
were guarding their children. And regarding objectionable texts, including references
(14:04):
to the transgender ideology and so forth, that directly violate
the rights of those parents and then decide, no, we're
going to take the opt out away. So you're going
to be forced to have your child indoctrinated to this
stuff without any justifiable reason. It's unconstitutional. The court was
very clear on that. This is even more outrageous than
(14:26):
the Mahmood case. And the reason is it specifically deals
with a child in crisis. And the parents were left
out of that equation.
S1 (14:36):
So again, hard to read the tea leaves with the court.
But we are seeing a lot of six three decisions
when it comes on to topics like this one that
we're talking about. Um, do you think the court will
take it up? Because again, as I pointed out before,
this is not a Massachusetts problem. They've been honestly, I
think the court generally likes to sidestep. They like to
go as broad as they can. They often will avoid
(14:58):
the merits of a case. Maybe it's because they're waiting
for a better case to come along with better clarity.
Maybe it's because they know it's so controversial. And who
wants to be controversial, right? Even if you're a Supreme
Court justices. But we're seeing I remember the arrogance of
California in particular that was really trying to pass legislation
that not only were they going to be a wedge
between parents, but if parents didn't cooperate, they were progressively
(15:18):
going to go after the parents and some of them
could be arrested or fined. Um, reported to social services,
spend time in jail, get your kids take away from you.
I mean, it was egregious. Thanks be to God that died.
But the fact that somebody even thought that there was
enough validity to even introduce that in a legislative question
I think is problematic to me. So how likely do
you think it is the court will take it up?
S10 (15:38):
Well, first of all, the issue framed in this case,
as opposed to the Mahmood versus Taylor case. That case
is different, slightly different, not substantially different. In that case
the issue was free exercise of religion rights of parents
to inculcate values and not have the public schools trample
those rights in that in that factual context. In this case,
(16:02):
it is not necessarily the religious beliefs of parents, but
the right of any parent, regardless of whether they are
believers in a theistic theology and the existence of God,
or whether they're atheist or whether they're secular, that the
real issue is how fundamental is the right of every
(16:25):
parent to the to access to their child in ways
in which the government through government schools and public schools
are government schools won't violate those fundamental rights. So this
is even more fundamental a right of parents than was
discussed and decided in Mahmood. I would hope that the
Supreme Court would, uh, accept the petition for certiorari, grant,
(16:50):
cert and, uh, reverse with instructions for the First Circuit
Court of Appeals to reconsider this case in light of
the Mahmood case.
S1 (17:02):
Yeah. You know, you really make an excellent point, Craig,
because I think if you can and you have to
be judicious with justices. But if you could read the
tea leaves in Mahmood v Taylor, that one again with
this very eclectic group of parents, Orthodox Christians, Muslim parents.
S10 (17:15):
All religious, but in a variety of different religious.
S1 (17:17):
Beliefs. But the under the the underpinning of that was
not only was it a religious liberty issue, we have
the right to raise our child according to the values
that we subscribe to, but it undergirded the importance of
parents rights. They hadn't done that in 40 years. So
maybe this is a good hint that they might take
it up. Pray to that end. By the way, we
didn't just tell you about this story just so you
could say, oh, isn't that interesting? The Supreme Court might
(17:38):
grant writs. This is a parents rights issue. And you are,
because of God's putting that child in your family. You
are the best Department of Health, education and welfare back
after this. So there's a pastor in Louisiana. He's been
working a second job, what we call a bi vocational pastor.
(18:00):
His second job was at a public library. He did
it to support his family. And this particular pastor said
that he lost that job at the library earlier this
month after refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a
library coworker. So this individual, his name is Pastor Ash.
He's the pastor of Evandale Baptist Church in Baton Rouge.
He moved to Louisiana earlier this year, and Ash's church
(18:23):
is a member of the Baptist Association of Greater Baton Rouge.
And on July 15th, Uh, apparently ash explained that his
previous side job had been truck driving, but he wanted
a position with better hours so that he could give
more time to his church and his family. So understandable. Well,
after four months of working as an inter-departmental loan technician
at the East Baton Rouge Parish Library, ash said he
(18:46):
was reprimanded. Why? Because he wasn't using the preferred pronouns
of a trans gender colleague during a conversation with another
colleague because the pastor refused to get on board with
the pronoun usage. He said he was fired the next day. Wow,
I said, I'm not going to lie, ash recalled. I
simply can't do it. Well, ash said that he knew
going into the library job that the workplace wouldn't be
(19:08):
necessarily hospitable for a Christian or even a conservatively minded person.
But I just kind of kept my mouth shut, and
I just tried to do a good job and respect
everybody that came my way. So the position had been ideal.
So the pastor thought, because part of the job of
a pastor is to disseminate information. And so I was
going to still play a part in my tent making job,
ash said, although he knew his stance would violate the
(19:30):
library's employee code of conduct, he believed his religious convictions mattered, too.
When those things are in contradiction with each other, there
has been there has to be given preference for one
over the other. Ash didn't indicate if he's going to
plan to sue the library over his termination. So taking
this biblical stand has been very important to him. In fact, um,
(19:51):
it's in a recent interview, he said they're absolutely limiting
access to books. Uh, it's not just about banning a
book on a piece of paper. If you can pretend
that the book doesn't exist, that's even more effective. And so, um,
this was interesting because apparently the public library system, uh,
said that they heard colleagues disparaging books, uh, by President
(20:12):
Trump and by president or by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
So there's a clear, palpable political bias there, obviously, as
did the library, didn't sponsor drag queen story hours, but
various LGBTQ displays were visible depending on the month, and
it's especially noteworthy to see which books are showcased in
the teen section, the pastor said. So local libraries are
(20:34):
trying to pivot so they can still continue to have
a purpose for existing as a community center. In fact,
he said, Christians must watch out so public libraries are
not taking the place of the local church. So there
you go. He wouldn't I mean, you just. And by
the way, I think he's got if he chooses to sue,
I think he's got strong legal grounds to be able
to do it. We report here often about teachers, for example,
who have been fired because they won't use a particular
(20:55):
pronoun either. The First Amendment and protection of religious liberty
is bedrock, solid, and has been for close to 250 years.
Or it's not worth the paper it's written on. A pastor,
above all people knows beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Thou shalt not lie. So you can't use a pronoun
that refers to somebody of the opposite sex, because that's
a lie. You're not. You're a male, you're a female.
I don't care how you dress. I don't care what
(21:16):
surgeries you have. I don't care what hormones you ingest.
Let's do a little DNA test.
S10 (21:20):
Yeah. There. I look at this case, um, and first
of all, from a legal standpoint, uh, title seven of
the Civil Rights Act does provide that, uh, a person's
employment cannot be jeopardized. In other words, you can't take
a direct action adverse to that employee because of their
religious faith. There are certain exceptions to that. But the
(21:43):
the general rule that certainly seems to be the case here.
And that's the specific legal issue. Um, and by the way,
if you read his story, he made every attempt and
he knew that there was a general philosophy in this
library that was adverse to a lot of his personal
values and beliefs. But he stayed the course to his credit,
(22:06):
kept his head down, and just decided, I'm going to
do the best job I can because it allows me
to have more time with my family and better hours, uh,
working in the library than his prior job. That's the
specific issue here, and it's an important one. But there's
a larger issue about public libraries in general. Now, I
know public libraries, and I'll defend them a little bit
(22:26):
this way. Public libraries get into very dicey, difficult challenges
about what books they. From an editorial standpoint, want to
add or not add? I understand that generally speaking, they
have editorial discretion, but they can't be official censors. In
the Supreme Court has said that if it's a public library, um,
so they make these choices, by the way. Ironically, I
(22:48):
just got a notice by email today that a another
public library just added my Chambers of Justice fiction series
to the library. And I always enjoy that, because if
you don't have money to buy books, you can go
in and and your tax dollars at work, you can
find the kind of books that you want to read
and then bring them back so that other people can
enjoy them. Now, I'm sure in some states or some counties,
(23:10):
you and I could probably name a few. Uh, don't
think my books would probably ring a bell the same
way that they do, uh, in this particular public library, but, uh,
you cannot act as an official censor against ideas you
do not like. And by the way, he shared, as
you know, Janet, in his comments publicly, uh, that there
(23:31):
was a worldview in this particular library and they didn't
make any apology for the fact that what that worldview
was and we're not going to tolerate views that don't
align with it.
S1 (23:41):
Yeah. Exactly. Right. So this is one of those questions.
And we're seeing this over and over and over again
that it isn't if it will happen to you, it's
when it will happen to you. When you really and
truly have to answer the question that transcends the circumstances
and really can be put this way. When do you say,
I will no longer bend my knee to Caesar, to
God first? Right? And so this pastor, again, I think
(24:03):
the story is even richer because it is a pastor.
This is he did it. This was his tent making.
This was his part time job to bring in extra
money for his family. And so aren't we thrilled that
there's a pastor out there who is the same man
behind the pulpit on Sunday mornings as he is in
the library, that he practices the principles and the precept
of God's Word. He is a witness for Christ, whether
he's in the pulpit or he's at the library. But
(24:24):
he would not be two different people. That double minded
man that the Bible tells us is unstable in all
his ways. Pastor ash set an example for the rest
of us. Good for him back after this. The Bible
(24:52):
says the Word of God illuminates our walk through life.
It's a lamp to our feet and a light to
our path. Without it, we stumble and fall in the
market with Janet Parshall is designed to help you look
at the headlines of the day through the lens of Scripture.
When you become a partial partner, you help to make
this broadcast possible, and as a partial partner, you'll receive
exclusive benefits. So why not become a partial partner today?
Call 877 Janet 58 or go to in the market
(25:15):
with Janet Parshall. You waltzing through the marketplace of ideas?
I got a good news story for you. This. According
to the San Francisco Chronicle, it was reported yesterday president
Trump's budget cuts to Medicaid have forced Planned Parenthood Mar
Monte to shut five clinics across Northern California and the
(25:37):
Central Coast. I'll give you a moment to say Amen.
So five planned planned Parenthood's have closed their doors in
northern and central California, including one in San Francisco. So, uh,
this is a result, by the way, of what is
being euphemistic. Remember when they call it Obamacare? So we
come up with euphemisms in Washington all the time. So
(25:57):
now it's called the Big beautiful Bill. It was a huge, uh,
funding package. And in that funding package, there was the
inclusion of what we call a rescission. And a rescission
means we're no longer going to be sending money to
fill in the blank vis a vis the federal government.
And so one of the things included in that bill,
which is passed and signed into law, is that abortions
(26:20):
being paid for through Medicaid are not going to happen anymore.
And woe is me poor Planned Parenthood. A not for
profit organization that makes a gazillion dollars every year they
put on an annual report. You can research this stuff
for yourself if they're not doing abortions, by the way,
they're handing out hormones. Okay. That's why I say I
do believe they have corporate offices in hell. And so
(26:41):
they're just marketing this stuff all the time. And so
now they're upset because these clinics are starting to close.
And so the San Francisco Chronicle, I won't even continue
to read it because as you can guess, there's a
market slant. I got to move my chair a little
bit and tilt my head. One way to counterbalance what
I'm reading here in the Chronicle. But suffice it to
say that federal funding has, until now, continued to flow
(27:02):
to Planned Parenthood despite the Hyde Amendment that was passed
by an Illinois representative by the name of Congressman Hyde
Henry Hyde. Years and years and years ago, and it
was a ban on federal funding of abortion. Uh, and
as a result of that, the money has flowed because apparently,
even though it's a very tiny percentage, Planned Parenthood offers
(27:23):
other services. So this passage of this bill, by the way,
is now a major blow to Planned Parenthood, the foremost
provider of abortion. And, of course, Governor Newsom is opposed
to the bill. And he has previously advertised California in
other states as a haven for abortion. So, Craig, talk
(27:43):
about that first, and then we're going to talk about, again,
this interesting separation of powers. This is certainly something we're
talking about a lot lately. If you slept through this
part of your high school civics class, you're getting it
now because you're seeing how it gets played out in
the real world. So again, Medicaid, it passed passed the House,
passed the Senate. Any differences worked out in Cancun, what
we call conference committee. That's the committee that meets between
(28:05):
the two houses. All of those differences worked out. The
final edition put on the president's desk. He signed it
into law. And you were busy barbecuing your hot dogs
and setting off fireworks because they did it on the
4th of July. And in there was the prohibition now
of funding of abortion to Medicaid. And Planned Parenthood is
hopping mad. And as a result, it isn't just California.
That's just the San Francisco Chronicle reporting. And it's five
(28:27):
clinics in California, but it's happening all across the country. Craig.
Your thoughts?
S10 (28:30):
Yeah. For years and years and years, Planned Parenthood and
this issue has come up in almost every term of Congress,
every session that I can remember, going back a long
number of years that we've been following this in an
away from Washington, D.C., the issue comes up. Should they
be defunded, should they be defunded, and Congress has been
(28:51):
unwilling or unable in the past to do it, and
they have done it now as part of the big,
beautiful bill that got passed and signed by the President Trump. However,
the argument has always been made by Planned Parenthood. Wait
a minute now, we abortions are a very small percentage
of what we do. We provide a wide spectrum of
public health benefits to the American people. And if you
(29:15):
take our money away, you'll hurt them in all those
other services. Well, is that really the case? The San
Francisco Chronicle had this to say, quote, the changes in
the bill, meaning defunding Planned Parenthood for abortion, quote, is
a crushing blow to a state that set itself up
as an abortion haven. After the US Supreme Court overturned
(29:38):
Roe versus Wade in 2022.
S1 (29:40):
Dobbs decision.
S10 (29:41):
The Dobbs decision and the California governor has been touting California,
come to us for your abortions. We're an abortion haven.
So which is it? Is our abortion simply a small percentage?
And this really isn't going to hurt you? Or really,
is it a mainstay of your business? And is this
the reason, really the primary reason that your your worldview,
(30:04):
reason why you exist? I have a feeling the San
Francisco Chronicle got it right, and the state of California
and all their political statements have been running a ruse.
S1 (30:14):
Well, and let me go to something that you wisely observed,
which is the idea that Planned Parenthood caterwauls about, oh,
we provide all these other services. Minimal, minimal, minimal, minimal
other services. If you read their annual report, the majority
of their income comes from abortions. They know it. You
and I know it. It's universally recognized. They're one of
the foremost providers, if not the most foremost provider of
(30:34):
abortion in the United States. So in the midst of
all of this and this funding bill, the B.b.b. I'll
just say that because it takes too long to say big,
beautiful Bill, the b.b.b. Gets passed into law, signed into law,
and along comes a federal judge. Now, remember, this is
an act of Congress. How does a bill become a law?
The most important branch is what? The legislative branch. Why?
(30:55):
Because we, the people speak through the legislative branch. It
is the founders recognizing that our rights do not come
from a king down to us, but rather it is
the people. The will of the people becomes the law
of the land. It is the people up. We duly
elect our officials who act on our will vis a
vis the political process. It's amazing when you think about it.
It's a great experiment. And thank you, Lord, that we've
(31:16):
had almost 250 years where this system has worked. Is
it perfect? Absolutely not. Anything East of Eden isn't perfect.
But I'll tell you what. Travel the world a little bit.
I'll take this system over any other system on planet Earth.
So the Congress, the people have spoken three branches of government.
Executive wasn't executive order, it wasn't the courts. It was
the people speaking through the legislative branch. Well, along comes
(31:38):
one federal judge. This judge happens to be sitting on
a court in Massachusetts. Apparently, we're talking a lot about
them today. And this particular.
S10 (31:48):
John Adams, by the way, would be turning in his grave.
S1 (31:51):
I'm glad you brought that up. Yes. Our favorite founding
father and mother. Absolutely. And so this judge, who is
part of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
partially blocked a provision of the b-b-b that puts a
one year pause on giving federal funding to Planned Parenthood.
The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed earlier
(32:13):
this month by the Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
You bet they're going to fight. They just got their
tap turned off financially. The Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts
and the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. Don't ask me
Taiwan or Talwani, which is the judge's name? Indira Talwani
ruled that the administration must continue to ensure that Planned
(32:34):
Parenthood affiliates in Massachusetts and Utah, as well as Planned
Parenthood Federation of America members, will not provide abortion services
as of October 1st, 2025, or who spend less than
$800,000 in Medicaid funds in fiscal year 2023 to continue
Medicaid funding. So all of that aside, I know you
guys are starting to glaze over here. It is in
a nutshell. Does a judge have a right to block
(32:55):
an act of Congress? Now think about that. All the
bills that get turned into laws on a daily basis
on Capitol Hill. How many federal judges are there. Well,
they're not as many federal judges as you would think.
And do they have the right to usurp the people
of the United States who have spoken through their elected officials?
I think not. And, Craig, in some respects, this is
(33:19):
like deja vu all over again, if I can quote
that great political philosopher, Yogi Berra. We are seeing judges
pop up like Jack in the boxes all over the country. Liberal.
And I'm not being political here. It's just because if
you're going to block something you don't like in this
administration or that the Congress passes. Odds are you're you've
got a liberal or progressive worldview. So a judge pops
(33:39):
up and says, I don't like it. I'm going to
hit the pause button. I'm going to stop. Then we
have to bring in the United States Supreme Court, who
yet again has to adjudicate on whether or not a judge,
a federal judge, has the right to usurp the people
speaking through the legislature. This is a fascinating lesson in civics,
even at the the merits of the legal issues here. Don't.
S10 (33:59):
Yeah. The Supreme Court has already spoken in a different context,
but has recently spoken about limiting, uh, the authority, the jurisdiction,
if you will, of a US district court, a federal
single federal judge, uh, in one particular federal district to
(34:22):
issue an injunction against the federal government, uh, which would
restrain the actions of the government from coast to coast nationally,
even though the issue before the judge and the jurisdiction
of that judge really is within the district of that
judge and not any further, uh, I should say this, uh,
(34:45):
they're also, uh, within a circuit court jurisdiction, which is
a larger number of states in that in in this case,
it would be the first Circuit. And there are multiple
circuits across the country, but certainly not national jurisdiction to
do so. In the Supreme Court has indicated in a
(35:05):
number of its decisions on expedited injunctions and so forth,
that it does not believe or has a problem with
these nationwide injunctions by single U.S. district judges. So that's
that's certainly one issue. But the other issue is the
way in which this court has gone through the, uh,
(35:31):
the Medicare provisions, really with an eye for looking for
a problem rather than looking for a solution. You know,
when you're a judge, you are to reconcile conflicting parts, uh,
within a statute, if at all possible. They can be harmonized,
or you're also, uh, required to try to find a
(35:52):
way to harmonize the language of Congress legislative body. Remember,
separation of powers with the Constitution if possible. Sometimes it's
not possible and then they strike down something as unconstitutional.
But that should be the exception, not the rule. I
think the court got it just reversed.
S1 (36:09):
Yeah, exactly. So we're going to watch this one. Um, Craig,
how soon do you think that they'll have to rule?
Because remember this kicks in apparently October 1st, 2025.
S10 (36:18):
Oh yeah. This is going to be expedited. So we're
probably going to see something in September. Yeah. At least.
S1 (36:23):
Wow. Okay. There you go. We're going to take a break.
Come right back. These hours go very quickly. Remember we
do do this for two hours. So stick around for
hour two if you can. If you can't, go to
wherever you find your favorite podcast, download in the market
with Janet Parshall. And then listen to our two when
it's convenient, at your discretion. We'll take a break back
after this. You talk an awful lot about Christian persecution
(36:52):
on this program. We have regular conversations with Todd Nettleton.
We talk with Doctor We talked with Tom Doyle, the
list goes on, and we're always talking to we can
raise awareness that, in fact, Christian persecution is alive and
unfortunately it's flourishing. And it's been said that in the
20th century, more Christians were persecuted for their faith than
all 19 previous centuries combined. That's overwhelming. So God bless
(37:18):
two representatives on Capitol Hill, Josh Hawley and Riley Moore,
one from Missouri, the other from West Virginia. They are
calling out attacks on Christians abroad, and they're asking the
administration to prioritize defending them. These two legislators introduced a
congressional resolution last week denouncing the persecution of Christians around
the world. So, the document specifically contends, condemns rather, the
(37:41):
persecution of Christians in Muslim majority countries and encourages the
president the protection of persecuted Christians in United States foreign policy. Now,
I got to tell you, that's hugely significant. And by
the way, this goes to open doors. This goes to
a lot of organizations. The US Commission on Religious Liberty,
by the way, when they put out the list every
year of where persecution is happening around the world, and
(38:04):
the fact that this addresses specifically Muslim majority countries, there
are two countries where we see Christian persecution meted out
on a regular basis. One are Muslim majority countries and
the other are totalitarian regimes like Communist China. Right. So
or North Korea. So it's important to understand that for
these two legislators to specifically call out Christian persecution is marvelous,
(38:29):
particularly when you contextualize it with what's happening in Syria,
when you're beginning to see that it's not just the Druze.
These are an offshoot of Sunni Muslims, but they are
ardently supportive of the nation of Israel. Craig and I
have been to many Druze communities. Very often they'll work
to make olive oil, and they left Israel to cross
the border into Syria at the peril to their own lives,
(38:52):
to try to rescue family and friends who were being
annihilated in the midst of that. It wasn't just the Druze.
It was Christians. And I shared last week with you
about an evangelical Christian who was massacred along with 20
members of his extended family. So going back to what
we were saying before, excuse me. If you look at
Open Doors World Watch List that comes out every single year,
we always talk about it on the day it's released.
(39:14):
It found that more than 380 million. Let that sink in.
Christians around the globe suffer high levels of persecution and
discrimination as a result of their Christian faith. It then
provides specific examples of targeted attacks, including the killing of
at least 50 Christians on Palm Sunday in Nigeria. This
is a country we need to be praying for on
a regular basis, and mob violence against Christians in Pakistan.
(39:39):
The resolution, quote, encourages the president to use all diplomatic
tools available, including trade and national security discussions and negotiations,
to advance the protection of persecuted Christians worldwide and within
Muslim dominated countries. That's language right from the proposed legislation,
it emphasizes that Christians can be helped through the stabilization
(40:00):
of the Middle East. Uh, and also, by the way,
more from West Virginia said, unfortunately, decades of U.S. foreign
policy blunders have exacerbated this crisis, with ethno religious cleansings
accelerating in Iraq after our failure to stabilize the country
following the 2003 invasion. We as lawmakers, cannot continue to
(40:21):
sit idly by. I urge my colleagues to join me
in condemning the persecution of Christians across the globe. And
when they introduced this, I want you to know that
more again, from West Virginia referred to the attack at
the Mar Elias Church in Syria, discussing why he introduced
the resolution. I'm so grateful because this has gone markedly
(40:42):
underreported in the news, he said. During a Divine Liturgy
in Damascus last month, an Islamic jihadists opened fire on
worshippers and detonated an explosive device, killing at least 30,
wounding dozens more. These examples illustrate the violence and death
Christians face on a daily basis. Josh Hawley said that
Christians are obligated to condemn the crimes perpetuated around the
(41:03):
globe against Christian Brothers and sisters. So again, what these
gentlemen rightly understand is what you and I need to
know that there are a myriad of ways of trying
to mitigate the persecution. Trade, tariffs, aid. The list goes on.
But I don't know about you. I've been in this
town for decades. Not days, weeks, months, years, decades. And
when you get two members who stand up specifically and
(41:24):
underscore something that we know is precious and important, the
persecution that's happening to our brothers and sisters. I don't
know about you, but that's a great day and a
great news story. Craig. Your thoughts?
S10 (41:34):
Yeah, I think it is. And the report that came
out recently, that 380 million Christians are being persecuted worldwide, uh,
together with some of these recent atrocities where they have
been targeted during worship services, which is a clear indication
(41:54):
by the Islamic terrorist organizations that they will want to target, uh,
the most important symbolic places where Christians worship and gather together. Uh,
this is a very evil sign of what their intentions are.
And the United States government has a role to play
in this. And you and I have often heard it
(42:17):
said that the president's biggest, uh, political power is the
power of the bully pulpit. That is to say, you
have a worldwide pulpit. The news media follows you, whether
they like you or not, as president. And what you
say goes around the world in a matter of seconds.
So the president has the ability, through the agencies like
(42:40):
the Department of State and others to send the message
as we deal, particularly with nations, um, Islamic nations in
the Middle East that we are not going to tolerate
in our international diplomacy efforts. We're not going to tolerate, uh, religious, uh,
insurrection and genocide, uh, of any belief, any religious faith basis,
(43:05):
but in particular the recent, uh, increase on the slaughter
of Christians in those countries.
S1 (43:12):
Yeah. Again, I'm going to be curious to see where
this goes. In fact, even more importantly, I'm going to
be curious in watching the journey of how this goes.
So this is a resolution. It's not the same as
statutory language. It's kind of the sense of so it, uh,
it embodies to the world the values that we believe in.
It gives the president, as Greg just noted, the opportunity
(43:32):
to use the bully pulpit to underscore whatever a resolution
is that's introduced in Congress. But the journey is going
to be worth watching. Who would vote against a resolution
that decries persecution against Christians around the globe. If anybody
voted no for that, I'd be pretty curious to try
to figure out why they cast a no for that
(43:53):
resolution rather than a yes. So you can bet we're
going to watch this one very, very carefully again. I
hope you realize that our conversations are not just meant
to equip, edify, encourage, enlighten, but they're meant to add
to your prayer list. So you've got a lot of
things to pray about. Just what we talked about this hour.
Pray about this resolution. Pray that the Supreme Court grants
writ to those parents who say, protect us as moms
and dads, and pray for those people who have taken
(44:15):
a bold stand like Pastor Ash in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
who said, no, this fire, no, father, whatever it cost me,
I will not bend my knee. And again, may his
tribe increase. So something to think about, something to pray about.
I hope you have a fabulous weekend. Ask for your
copy of Why Jesus Call 877 Janet 58. Give a
gift of any amount. We'll give you a copy. Thank
you so much, friends. We'll see you next time right
(44:37):
here on In the Market with Janet Parshall.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.