May 16, 2025 • 44 mins
On In The Market with Janet Parshall this week we had a visit with one of our favorite apologists who shared the transformative story of a woman who went from devoted , then disillusioned follower of Islam to an atheist before she found the source of real life in Jesus. A Christian marriage is still a marriage. It comes with the same challenges any other union of two unique personality types comes with. The difference is how we address those challenges and who we go to for guidance. Our guests, a respected husband and wife radio & podcast team, pulled back the curtain on their marriage story to teach us to how God can bring transformation and healing through a wife’s words to her husband and how her words can inspire him to lift her and the marriage up even higher as a priority in his life. They also took us back to the scripture to clear up the misunderstanding of what it means for a wife to be a “helper” to her husband by showing that it is a more powerful, influential and essential role than any of us have ever considered before. Can a woman be a narcissist? That’s just one of many intriguing questions we tackled as our expert on this dangerous and debilitating personality type joined us once again to share her insights and answer your questions on narcissism and the long-term damage it can do to our most intimate relationships. As long as humans are involved, government will never be able to once and for all bring an end to the common ills of mankind such as poverty, hunger, war, disease, etc. But God promises that one day the living embodiment of righteousness will sit on the throne of David and rule over mankind with love and justice for 1000 years. What will it really be like to live during the millennial reign of Christ upon the earth? Our guest opened God’s word to give a glimpse of the glory that is to come. As we wind down another week, we invite you to join us for another revealing conversation as we peek behind the curtain of some of the most important headlines of the week.
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, thanks so much for downloading this broadcast and
it is my hope that you'll hear something that will
challenge you, grow you up in him, and get you
out into the marketplace of ideas. But before you start listening,
let me take a moment and tell you what this
month's truth tool is. It's the Mediterranean Sea Rules by
Robert Morgan. I talked to him often on the air
because he's such a superb writer, and in this particular book,
he takes the story of Paul's shipwreck, recorded in the
(00:20):
book of acts, and gives us ten principles of how
we push through the storm, learning to trust in God
and all that he has done for us. It's a
magnificent book. It's a short book, and in typical Robert
Morgan writing style, it is a powerful book. I strongly
recommend that you have a copy of The Mediterranean Sea Rules,
because trust me, every single one of us will find
(00:40):
ourselves on stormy seas at some point in our voyage
through life. As for your copy of the Mediterranean Sea
Rules by calling 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58.
Or go online to. In the market with Janet Parshall.
Scroll to the bottom of the page. There's the book.
Click it on, make Your Gift and we'll send you
a copy. My way of saying thank you because we
are listener supported radio. Your gifts keep this broadcast on
(01:03):
the air. By the way, if you'd like to give regularly,
you're called a partial partner. You give every single month
a level of your own choosing. You always get the
truth tool. But in addition, I'll send out a weekly
newsletter that only my partial partners get. It contains my
writing and a little audio piece as well. So pray
about it and thanks in advance. Just call eight 7758
or online at in the Market with Janet Parshall. Again
(01:25):
the truth tool the Mediterranean Sea rules. Thanks so much.
And now please enjoy the broadcast. Important.
S2 (01:35):
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 (01:54):
When you look at the scriptures, the corpus of the scriptures,
and you think from Genesis to Just a revelation. There
has been no book studied more than this book, no
no book more criticized even by its own followers, even
by its own adherents. There has been no book more
scrutinized in terms of its historical relevance and its historical record,
its scientific record, its philosophical acumen, and the ways in
(02:18):
which it's been written. About infected central figure Jesus is,
without question, the most written about figure in all of history.
S4 (02:27):
Why is the man get a helper? I should get
a helper. And why? And it felt like, you know,
helper means a subservient.
S5 (02:34):
A little helper.
S4 (02:35):
You know, that just bows down to her, man. And
then when you study the original Hebrew in the, you know,
the book of Genesis in chapter two and Azure, a
helper suitable it's powerful. The power that he has put
in this wife to be a man's partner, to stand
(02:56):
toe to toe. It's like it isn't some little servant
that just, you know, does whatever the man wants. It's like, no,
you are his equal and he needs you both need
one another to accomplish God's mission and to defeat the
enemy in the garden. You can't do it without her.
S6 (03:15):
Daniel gives us 75 days from when he returns to
when his kingdom starts. He's going to replenish and fix
the Earth, but he's also going to send out the
angels to gather those who've survived the tribulation. And Janet,
that's not going to be a lot of them, because
they'll fit all in one valley. And he will hold
what's called in Matthew 25, the sheep goat judgment, those
(03:36):
who've rejected him and accepted the mark of the beast.
In other words, they declared, loyalty to Satan will be
sent to torments where they will await punishment. But those
who have accepted Christ will go on into the kingdom
in their earthly bodies.
S7 (03:50):
Proverbs 18 two A fool finds no pleasure in understanding,
but delights in airing his own opinions. That's that arrogant,
haughty behavior. And so I just love that God talked
about all of this, even though we call it narcissism.
God called it biblical foolishness or mockers who make a
mockery of his instruction or wicked. They're all interchanged in
(04:14):
the Bible. But there is nothing that isn't that that
diagnostic manual that God didn't talk about in the Bible.
S2 (04:22):
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.
S8 (04:33):
The first direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in
more than three years lasted well under two hours in Turkey,
with no apparent sign of progress towards peace between the sides.
S9 (04:43):
Dreams of tourists flock to the ancient Croatian city of Dubrovnik,
but US President Donald Trump's threats to impose a 100%
tariff on all movies produced outside the US have alarmed
the entertainment industry.
S10 (04:57):
Shoppers at the world's largest retailer will face higher prices.
Walmart said it will have to start raising them later
this month due to the high cost of tariffs.
S2 (05:07):
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 (05:29):
When your plans collapse, make sure you don't. That's just
one of ten powerful principles in this month's Truth Tool.
The Mediterranean Sea Rules by Robert Morgan draws life changing
lessons from Paul's shipwreck recorded in acts. Learn to navigate
through the storm with faith and courage. As for your
copy of the Mediterranean Sea Rules, when you give a
gift of any amount to in the market, call 877.
Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go to in
(05:52):
the market with Janet Parshall. Happy Friday to you friends.
It is Friday and on this broadcast we should call
it In the Market with Janet and Craig. Partial because
Craig joins me on most Fridays. And what we do
is we take out those glasses, the lens of Scripture,
put them on, take a look at the world around us,
and then we measure what's being bought and sold in
(06:13):
the marketplace of ideas to see whether or not they
measure the plumb line of God's truth. Are they crooked ideas?
Are they counterfeits? Are they artificial ideas? Are they the
kind of stuff that tickles our ears, but it has
no forbearance and truth whatsoever. So we go round robin
and really practice what we like to call applied Christianity,
taking the Word of God and applying it to the
(06:34):
world around us. And I have to tell you, if
you're paying attention, if you're really listening with the ears
on your heart, and I do hope you're showing up
in that marketplace of ideas, you will understand that the
world gives us a ton of materials which are really,
in truth, open doors to start engaging for the cause
of the cross. And we're going to give you a
myriad of those examples during the course of this hour.
(06:55):
So I want to start with this one now. And
you're going to think I'm going to go One Direction
with this topic, but I'm not I'm going to go
another direction. So stay with me if I can just
set this up for a minute because there's an interesting twist.
So there's a new book out by CNN anchor Jake Tapper,
and it has ignited fierce criticism from liberals and media
observers who accuse him of profiting from a narrative he
(07:18):
once helped downplay. And that narrative was that President Joe
Biden was perfectly fine when he was in office, when
in fact, you can't tell me my eyes are not
seeing what I'm not seeing. That's sort of the thesis
of the majority of Americans now. In fact, he was
in great decline. And my heart goes out to him. That's, uh,
I think, very sad. I do not know what his
diagnosis is, but we could all see the fact that
(07:40):
his health was failing. And that, by the way, creates
a kind of constitutional crisis because you're wondering what's going
to happen. One of the things, apparently, that's come out
in this book is that if Joe Biden had been elected,
the word was he would need to have used a
wheelchair during his second term. Now far from the lights,
by the way, you need to know that that disease,
whatever it might be, is going to accompany him. He
had a physical this week, and they did discover a
(08:02):
nodule on his prostate. So there's a prayer request for
Joe Biden and for his family as well. So I'm
not really talking about whether or not we were snookered,
as the old word goes by the press, because the
answer is yes. Absolutely. The people who supported the ideology
of the last administration, we're going to tell you right
to your lying eyes. No, he's not in decline whatsoever.
(08:23):
He doesn't meander. He hasn't lost his thought. He isn't
kind of neurologically decomposing by any stretch of the imagination.
Jake Tapper of CNN was one of the people who
promulgated the idea that, hey, look away, look away. Nothing
to see here. He's fine. So the book is entitled
Original Sin. Now, do you see where I'm going to
go with this? So stick with me. Original sin. President
Biden's decline, its cover up, and his disastrous choice to
(08:45):
run again. Now the book is co-authored isn't just by
Jake Tapper. There's a fellow from Axios which is very
left of center, a journalist by the name of Alex Thompson.
And they allege that Biden's inner circle, including his family
and top aides there claim, orchestrated a comprehensive effort to
obscure the president's deteriorating condition from the public, donors and
even members of his own cabinet. Yes, but wait, wait, wait.
(09:07):
Hit the pause button for a minute, and we could
do multiple hours on this, but I'm just going to
throw out a couple of seeds here to think about.
You're in the media. You are supposed to be Mr. Tapper.
And I know, Jake, you are supposed to give the facts, ma'am.
Just the facts, not your opinion. Not practice the sin
of omission and pull things out of your coverage. And
this goes to anybody, whether they're on the right or
(09:27):
the left. This is supposed to be journalism. It was
once upon a time in a land far, far away.
It's not that anymore. So Jake Tapper was a part
of promoting the idea that Joe Biden was not in decline.
So it does raise a morality question of whether or
not a man who promoted that idea should, in fact,
now profit from a book that he's writing about the
(09:49):
former president's decline. So these claims now have reverberated across
the political spectrum, stirring both indignation, indignation and introspection within
the Democratic Party. Now, I have to tell you that
what I find very impressive is that there are some
of the Democratic Party who have openly admitted that this
was wrong, should not have been done. There are others who,
no matter what, and this is what blindness looks like,
(10:11):
have decided that they're just going to continue to foment
the idea that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Joe
Biden whatsoever while he was serving as president. Now, you
and I could talk about that for hours. That's not
where I want to go. I want to bring the
New York Times into this. Okay. Now, the New York Times,
the old gray lady. Oh, she ain't what she used
to be by any stretch of the imagination. And now
she is so ideologically far left that the whole idea
(10:34):
of good standards of journalism have no place whatsoever within
their newsroom. They don't care to fact check. They'll promote
an idea whether it's true or not. Retractions, all they'll
show up in page 23. Who cares? Just get the
story out there. So when they were writing about Jake's
new book, they said this. Remember the original? The title
of the book is called The Original Original Sin. Here's
(10:54):
what The New York Times said. In Christian theology, original
sin begins with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit
from the Tree of Knowledge. But Jake Tapper and Alex
Thompson's original Sin chronicles a different fall from grace. The
cover image is a black and white portrait of Joe
Biden with a pair of hands clamped over his eyes.
The biblical story is about the danger of innocent curiosity.
(11:19):
Let me say that again. This is the New York Times, not.
It's not worth the paper that it's printed on. Okay,
there's my $0.02. And yes, that is an opinion. They
say declaratively because they always get their facts right. You know,
the biblical story is about the danger of innocent curiosity.
They end the sentence by saying, the story in this
new book is about the danger of willful ignorance. Well,
(11:41):
I'll tell you what. Maybe the book is about willful ignorance,
and I will leave people who just want to play
around in the political playground to talk about whether or
not this was a political hack job. This is a
political cover up or whether or not. And by the way,
let me just throw this one fact in before I
get Craig's response. Gallop, by the way, measures America's trust
in the media every single year. They just did it
(12:03):
in March of this year. This is the lowest it
has ever been. Only 31% of Americans surveyed believe and
trust the media. 31. That's three out of ten people
who consume the news believe that what they're hearing on
the other side of the screen, or what they're reading
in a newspaper, is something that can be trusted. When
(12:24):
you decide to make the declaration in The New York
Times that the biblical story of Adam and Eve is
about the danger of innocent curiosity, your percentages are going
to fall even more. Although I don't know how many
conservatives and or Christians read the New York Times, we do,
because you I don't know what the other side is doing.
So you use that as your preparation homework. But again, Craig,
(12:45):
they get so much wrong. And so now these people
who probably couldn't even tell you where in the Bible
the story of Adam and Eve can be found. Make
the statement that it's the danger of innocent curiosity. Now some.
By the way, the New York Times is part of
what we call broadsheets. Okay? Those were written for people
who had commutes so they would have more space to fill.
They could put more content in. And so you can
just picture the guy coming in from new Jersey, commuting
(13:07):
into New York City and reading the newspaper, which would
have been a perfect hypothetical of how this magazine would
have been used in the past. I'm not sure how
many people would fact check the New York Times today
when they see that Adam and Eve, the story is
the story is about innocent curiosity. Um, if you don't
get that right, that tells me everything you're going to
write about. Jake Tapper's book is now up for question,
(13:27):
but hey, that's just me. Give me your thoughts.
S11 (13:29):
All the big stories. Um, and every major newspaper would
have to admit this because they've operated this way. And
I think it's commendable. In theory, they operated this way.
Which is the bigger the story, whether it's in political scandals,
of course, make headlines. Uh, if it bleeds, it leads.
(13:50):
And political bloodbaths, you know, because of scandals, make great
copy for the Washington Post and the New York Times
and so forth. So when things like Watergate and other
political hot button issues develop and people have seen the
movie will know it and people who have followed the story,
(14:12):
like you and I actually did at the time it
was unfolding, know this to be true, that, um, Bernstein
and Woodward, uh, were were told that they had to
have authentication by multiple sources, at least two sources for
(14:33):
what they were suspecting and thought was highly likely happening
in the white House in some kind of a cover up.
They needed to authenticate it and verify it. So you
need to get the witnesses. says now they may be anonymous,
that you may refuse to divulge them. It may be,
you know, in the Watergate case, uh, someone's name that
(14:58):
we didn't know for quite a while until it recently
came public. But you got to verify you got authenticated.
How do you do that? Well, you talk to a witness, okay?
If you're talking about the Bible, what's the best witness
for what the Bible has to say about that famous, uh,
garden incident? Well, wouldn't you go to what the Bible
has to say and then say, probably if you're in
(15:21):
New York Times. Oh, I didn't know it said that.
S1 (15:24):
Well, I.
S11 (15:25):
Think in this case.
S1 (15:25):
I think it was I thought the writer of the article,
I'm going to be gracious. I think the writer of
the article wanted to prove that he or she had
a rapier wit, and so they wanted to talk. They
picked up on the title Original Sin. Right. What is
the original sin took place in the Garden of Eden,
so at least they had a point of reference that
somehow the term original sin had to somehow tie back
to a Bible story. But again, in their desire to
(15:46):
have this rapier wit to be oh so culturally relevant
to be, um, just Hemingway esque, Hemingway esque to pick
up on the title of Original Sin. They fell flat
on their face by then saying that the story was
about curiosity instead. So if you're going to try to
prove to people how intellectually advanced you are, I think
(16:07):
you want to do your homework before you decide to
use a literary reference, because they fell flat on their face. Yeah.
S11 (16:13):
First, first, understand this. The original source for the literary reference.
If you're going to reference something in the Bible. And
by the way, the Bible is the biggest source of
information in literature in the Western civilization. So you better
know your source. But that doesn't excuse you from understanding
what the story is now. I guess if I were
(16:35):
to argue their case, I'd say as I look at it.
And by the way, Original Sin, like you said, they
cleverly tried. They wanted to use that as the hook.
So they had to somehow tie in biblical theology in
some way, even if they had to distort it. They
say the biblical story is about, well, not the Christian
(16:55):
theological story or the well-known, but the biblical story. So guys,
do your homework. Just pick a Bible up. Maybe you
don't have one in your office. Go down to the
public library. You got a big one there in New
York City and look up what Genesis had to say.
S1 (17:09):
Well, and it's why we will continue to encourage you
to be Bereans and to test all things. Now, again,
I bet you thought I was going to talk about
Jake Tapper and the previous administration and all that. No,
this was an interesting component about trusting media and you
and I learning how to go to independent verification as
we test all things back after this. So we're starting
(17:36):
our hour talking about original sin, which happens to be
something that's strong theologically. We know what that means contextually,
but it also happens to be the title of the
new book that Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper co-authored together
about the decline of President Biden while he was in office.
And so The New York Times clumsily writes about this,
picks up, and then basically completely misinterprets the meaning of
(18:00):
the original sin. And they wanted to be clever. Obviously,
they pulled from the idea of original sin, Adam and
Eve in the garden. Right. And this is, I'm quoting
the New York Times. Okay. Just the facts, ma'am. Just
the facts. Independent verification test, all things. The New York
Times writes boldly in black ink. The biblical story is
about the danger of innocent curiosity. It is anything but.
It is about rebellion. It is about sin. In fact,
(18:23):
more to the point, New York Times, as long as
you're taking notes, it's about death than by man came
death as a result of that, quote, innocent curiosity you
talked about. So nothing could be farther from the truth.
But I do want to talk about journalism here because
I think this is important. I find a paradox within
a paradox, within a paradox here. So The New York
Times slaughters the idea under their craven idea to be
(18:45):
literarily creative. They capture the word original sin and then
fall flat in their face by not defining what it
really was. But if you really wanted to go to
the title, I'd like to sit down with Jake and say, Jake,
do you really want to call the book Original Sin?
Because was the original sin that your peers in the
ABC Alphabet media didn't report what all of America could
(19:08):
see with their own eyes. And by the way, I
don't say that as saying ha ha ha, there's deterioration
going on. I have exactly the opposite response, because far
from the tally lights, there is a person who was
struggling in terms of their physical health, and I just
happen to have the most important job in America and
some would say possibly in the world. And so he
was struggling to make decisions. It is not a 9
to 5 job. It is not a Monday through Friday job.
(19:30):
It is a 24 over seven. You will get called
in the middle of the night by your security team
because there's terrorist threat that's taking place on the other
side of the globe. You travel with. And Craig, you
got an endorsement from one of the many books that
you wrote from the man who carried what we call
the nuclear football. It's a briefcase that a member of
the military watched sometimes when the president is moving with
his entourage, who has in his hand a briefcase. What's
(19:52):
in that briefcase? It is the codes to launch a
nuclear weapon. Should we be attacked? Now, some might think, oh,
that's an old movie with Henry or Henry Fonda back
in the 1960s. No, it's a reality. And if you
listen to my show with Bill Gertz yesterday, it is
as much as reality now as it was when that
black and white film was made. But was the original
(20:13):
sin that, in fact, there wasn't a compassionate cry in
the media, at least some level of accountability to be
able to say, does he need help? What can we
do to support him? What is the the chain of command?
How do you plan on continuity in the government in
the event that the president's health fails? Now, we've had
presidents who've been in wheelchairs. FDR was one of them. Um,
(20:36):
we've had presidents who have had strokes in office, and
the wife kind of covered for the presidency for the
rest of the time that he was in office. So
it's we don't we think because they're such big characters
in our culture and in our life that they're not
flesh and blood. To quote Shakespeare, if you prick us,
do we not bleed? They just we somehow think these
(20:56):
people aren't normal people that, um, can get sick. And
this individual clearly was getting sicker in office. So was
the title Original Sin really something that should be stated
when the secular press looks in the mirror? Was the
original sin fomenting a lie, as opposed to saying, we
need to get some answers here for the greater good
of the country, not to knock down the sitting president,
(21:19):
but to make sure that he's getting compassionate care and
that the continuity of government is preserved, because we can
pretty much guess that those rogue nations who hate America
and all that she stands for, were just waiting for
the other shoe to drop your thoughts.
S11 (21:32):
Well, you know this the New York Times reference to
the book in the review. Um, they, as we pointed out, aired, uh,
I mean substantially in saying the biblical story is about
innocent curiosity, but they used it as a counterpoint to
the real point of the article, which was about what
(21:54):
they called the danger of willful ignorance about the president's condition.
Now that that phrase, willful ignorance actually is much closer
to what Genesis tells us.
S1 (22:08):
Because that should have been the title of the book, right?
S11 (22:10):
Adam and Eve were told what the rule, what the
rules were. They said, you can have any fruit from
any tree except one. And by the way, I didn't
forbid you touching it. I'm forbidding you from eating it.
And Eve gave a false report to to the serpent, saying, well,
(22:33):
God told us we can't eat from it or even
touch it. No, he didn't say that. You can't touch it.
He said you can't eat from it. The point is,
the serpent. decides to create confusion and say, well, are
you sure that that's what you heard? The law has
a phrase called deliberate indifference, and it's very close to
(22:55):
willful ignorance. It's, you know, something bad is happening and
it's your moral responsibility to take care of it, maybe
even your legal responsibility. But you look away for whatever
reason self-interest, selfishness, you've been paid off. Whatever the reason,
you've you've willfully, deliberately looked away and allowed the bad
(23:17):
thing to continue. The law says you're responsible legally when
that happens. And I think morally in terms of the
the responsibility of the press when they know something is
going on, you can't just ignore it. The reason we
have a press, and if you go back to the
pre-revolution days when the Patriots were trying to get the
(23:38):
support of the citizens of Quebec to help fund the
revolution against Britain. They said we are going to be
a new nation with a free press so that we
can hold government to account. They said it in writing
and they also practiced it with the Free press phrase
in the First Amendment. But are they practicing it now? No.
(23:59):
And that's really the question.
S1 (24:00):
So this is an interesting topic only because it's an
amalgamation of a myriad of issues. Trusting the press when
it's at an all time low, being complicit in advancing
a false story. By the way, one person posted on X,
maybe it's time to test Jake Tapper's mental decline. Because
what they're saying is, look, how are you trying to
profit off a story that you helped promote his defense?
(24:21):
We were lied to in the press as well. We'll
never know that. But now we can set the facts straight.
New York Times, you got it wrong back after this.
Our team of partial partners is growing, and I love
communicating behind the scenes with this special group of friends
who are devoted to giving a monthly gift in the
market Our partial partners receive private emails direct from me
(24:43):
on issues we don't address on radio, and I even
send a weekly audio message straight from my heart to yours.
Ready to become a partial partner? Call 87758877 Janet 58
or go to in the market with Janet Parshall dot.
So we're going to linger with the role of media
in our lives, because there's certainly a lot of news
(25:05):
in that particular area. So we just talked about this
grotesque blunder The New York Times made in misinformation, disinformation.
I'll use those Zuckerberg terms here. His disinformation on original sin,
which was, no, it wasn't an act of innocent curiosity
by any stretch of the imagination. It was an act
of outright rebellion. Don't do this. They did it. And
(25:26):
the rest is history. And as a result of us,
that every single one of us has a fallen sin nature.
So check, fact check on that. So this is part
of being a good brand is fact checking all the time.
So there's a movement afoot now to say, you know what,
maybe we need to be looking at National Public Radio
and PBS, which is a unique entity for all other
(25:46):
broadcasting platforms out there, because they get government money, taxpayer dollars,
but they're also privately funded, not unlike the Smithsonian Institute,
by the way. They get government money, but they also
get private funds as well. Usually broadcast falls into two
categories for profit or not for profit. NPR would technically
be in the not for profit category. So an executive
(26:08):
order got signed that says it's time to end taxpayer
funding for NPR and PBS. And if you're counting the
numbers on this, remember, they're trying to tighten the belt here.
And a lot of people are squawking because it's okay
if you tighten somebody else's belt. But the minute you're
withholding of funds affects me, well, then it's a bad,
terrible idea. But if you're interested, we the people give
about a half $1 billion in public money to NPR
(26:30):
and PBS. Um, the the thinking is there are so
many outlets now, and there are there are a million
outlets out there. That's why you and I will never
see the ugly monster known as the Fairness Doctrine ever
raise its head again. That's because now, if you don't
like it, change the channel or flip your screen or
go to your streaming platform. We have thousands and thousands
(26:51):
and thousands of outlets now. And so there doesn't need
to be a special niche for government funded broadcasting, particularly
if the content of that broadcasting doesn't meet all the
people's needs all the time. If you have a particular
penchant to the right or to the left, and you're
getting government money, that raises a specter of whether or
not that funding should continue. Or maybe it's an and
(27:14):
or this might be an ancient paradigm. Maybe PBS and
NPR don't need public funding anymore. So part of the
EO says, unlike in 1967, when the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting was was established, today the media landscape is filled
with abundant, diverse and innovative news options. Government funding of
news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary,
(27:36):
but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence. I will
tell you, I happen to agree with that 1,000%. If
you don't like what I'm saying, you can change the channel.
That's why we'll never see the Fairness Doctrine, which at
one point in time said that when I spoke about Jesus,
I'd have to give equal time to Buddha and L
Ron Hubbard and Muhammad. I don't have to do that anymore.
If you don't like what you're hearing, you can change
the channel. That's because this is why I'm a great
(27:58):
believer in competition. You end up getting a better product.
If you don't like it, you can change the channel.
So it's not 1967 anymore. It's 2025. Should we be
funding in particular this outlet? And by the way, I
think it's a little bit discriminatory. Why'd you pick NPR
and PBS as opposed to any other not for profit
outlet out there? Well, of course, the head of PBS
(28:18):
is jumping up and down saying this is absolutely unlawful.
And really, what the president does is, is not unlike
what he did with the Department of Education. If you
want to know how the sausage is made here in
Washington is he can ignite the conversation with the executive order,
but he has any president has small enumerated powers. His
executive order is a sense of the office. Excuse me.
(28:39):
And it might have some temporary impact, but the finality
of withdrawing funding for NPR and PBS could only come
through Congress. Now, that might be a difficult battle. There
might be people who agree with the content of that
EO that said, yeah, you know what? It's too diverse
right now. We don't need to be funding one. And
there are others who are going to say no. We
very much want to make sure that the funding continues.
(28:59):
And I'm going to guess opinion. No. Note to file
that because the news content and the Masterpiece Theater I
absolutely adore on PBS. I just love the historical ones.
If you haven't seen Wolf Hall, that's an absolutely fascinating
story about Thomas Cromwell. Absolutely thrilling bit of history and
beautifully done by Mark Rylance. However, when you get to
the NewsHour. Mhm. Not so much. Then you're off to
(29:22):
one side of the political spectrum. And so my guess
is the people who want to support it are going
to want to make sure that that particular bent on
the news is in fact upheld. Not. Let me give
you a quick example of that. And Craig, then I
want your response. So the NPR used to read the
Declaration of Independence over the air. A long period of
time in 2022. So just a few years ago, they
(29:44):
scrapped their decades long Independence Day tradition of reading the declaration,
because instead they wanted to discuss equality. And not only that.
NPR subsequently issued an editor's note warning that the Declaration
of Independence is a document that contains offensive language. I'm
reading NPR's editor's note July 8th, 2022. This story quotes
(30:08):
the U.S. Declaration of Independence, a document that contains offensive
language about Native Americans, including a racial slur. Okay, I
could I don't want you to have to drink from
a fire fire hose here because there's a ton of
examples I could give. So that's one example about, again,
the particular political penchant, by the way. So let's just
get through the bramble bushes right away, sir. You study
(30:31):
the Constitution. You study the declaration, you practice law based
on what those documents say. Could you point the offensive
language out to me in the Declaration of Independence?
S11 (30:41):
Yeah. And I think this is what they're talking about.
I'm positive. And the list of grievances. And by the way,
the brilliance of the Declaration of Independence is it set
forth some general moral and political principles upon which this
revolution was going to be based? And then they gave
examples of how those principles have been violated by Great Britain.
(31:04):
You know, when at the at the founding of the
the colonies promises were made and then promises were not
kept about self-governance and retaining all the rights.
S1 (31:15):
From England.
S11 (31:16):
Right from from the King and Parliament to the colonists.
You are going to be and remain to be vested
with all the rights of Englishmen, they used to say,
except when we want to take them away. And so
when the House of Burgesses would have a session and
the local colonists would want to vote on a certain issue,
(31:37):
and the king didn't like it. Well, then he'd send
in the military and they shut down basically the local parliament.
So that's that's the kind of tyranny. Well, so here's
the language, um, in, um, so the general principles and
then the grievances of how Great Britain had violated it.
So here's the example. I think they're talking about the
(31:58):
you know, he has he has he has that refers
to King George, right. He has, they say, constrained our
fellow citizens. The next paragraph says he has excited domestic
insurrections against us and has endeavored to bring on the
inhabitants of our frontiers. That's an important, uh, modifier here.
(32:22):
He's talking about the western frontier as it existed then
on the western edge of the colonies. Uh, the inhabitants
of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages whose known rule
of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes,
sexes and conditions. In other words, from the Western frontiers.
(32:44):
England encouraged some of these more savage Indian tribes to attack,
and this is historical. Attack those frontiers, and those colonists
who were English subjects, allowing them to be slaughtered for
political purposes. And that's what it means now, were some
of the Indian savages? Well, they certainly were in those episodes. Um,
(33:09):
so that's what I'm sure he's referring to. And of course,
it is. Referring to it is NPR is referring to
us as a racial slur. Well, in order to understand
whether it is or isn't, you better go back and
view the historical context of what was happening. And the
grievances actually happened. And they were acts of savagery carried
(33:33):
out by savage Indians.
S1 (33:34):
And fomented by the British. British.
S11 (33:36):
Right now we're all Indian. Savage? No. But those. And
by the way, some of the tribes had a reputation
of being savage. Others didn't. And so England used those
that kind of savagery against some of the frontier areas
to keep the peace and for political purposes.
S1 (33:53):
Right. So NPR featured a Valentine's story around queer animals,
in which it suggested that make believe clownfish in Finding
Nemo would have been better off as a female, that
banana slugs are hermaphrodites and that some deer are non-binary.
S11 (34:08):
So there's no agenda there, right? This is not. And
by the way, and you and I have been talking
about this issue of NPR and PBS, what, a couple decades. Um,
I had an opportunity to testify in front of the
Federal Communications Commission, uh, honored to be surrounded by executives
(34:29):
from both NPR and PBS on both ends. Um, and
I used an opportunity to say, look, um, media needs
to be open to everybody, and we need to listen
to each other. And I don't I still I still
to this day, I wish they'd listen to the rest
of America.
S1 (34:48):
Right.
S11 (34:48):
Which they don't.
S1 (34:49):
If you come to DC, you'll see a very exquisite
building with the initials NPR at the top. So they've
got their own building. Um, and again, I think, agree
or disagree with the content, if this is your worldview,
you're going to love it and you're going to say, yay,
let's keep funding it. If you don't, if you have
a problem, then your attitude is, I don't understand why
we're taking one media entity. Two. If you talk about
NPR and PBS, why they should continue to get tax
(35:11):
funded dollars, they are not for profit. So the counterargument
is do what's called a subscription model. So if you
love NPR and PBS, then send in your donor dollars, right.
And in other words, if you if if you do
good media, they will donate, right.
S11 (35:27):
They will come.
S1 (35:27):
They will come. Exactly. Borrow from Field of Dreams there.
So the bottom line is, if you like the idea
that in 2021, a PBS station aired a children's program
that featured a drag queen named Little Miss Hot Mess.
And that's the thing that you like. Then you just
keep on giving to NPR and PBS. But if you don't,
it really does raise the question of whether or not,
given the new age of technology in which we live,
(35:50):
the paradigm, the model of the government funding one outlet
that is a not for profit. Maybe its time has
come and gone. I'll give you a parallel. Planned Parenthood
you're a not for profit. Why are we funding not
for profits through the government? This is what the housekeeping
in Washington is all about. We're going to take a break.
We'll be right back. So we're talking about where should
(36:30):
our dollars go. And by the way, remember, there's a
stewardship issue here. Um, we send our tax dollars to Washington, DC,
and then the federal government. Excuse me. Makes the decision
on how that money should be used. Likewise, you pay
state tax with the same idea, and then the state
decides how that money is going to be used. So
and you can go all the way back to people
like Alexander Hamilton who set up this idea, and this
(36:50):
is how you were going to fund the government. So
when you decide that you're going to take tax dollars.
And by the way, I have to tell you that
as much as I loathe, like anybody else paying taxes,
I'll take our system of government over the founders. Do
you know that if you lived, for example, in Fredericksburg, Virginia,
where George Washington lived for many, many years of his life,
you would be taxed if there was too much space
(37:13):
between your house and the person next to you. You
would be taxed. If you played lawn bowling, you would
be taxed if you went and had a mug and
you drank a certain amount of ale in the pub,
you'd get taxed at a certain dollar amount. This is what.
So history is fascinating. So. So there's a derivation they kept.
S11 (37:32):
They kept adding to try to break the back of
local commerce among the colonies.
S1 (37:37):
That's exactly right. And hence the hue and cry no,
no taxation without representation. So this is a checks and balance.
But we the people are the check to the balance
of government when it comes to spending our money. So
there's a lot of conversation now about what we are
going to continue to fund. NPR, PBS is just one
of them. I think that's an important conversation, because this
is the people we send to Washington being stewards with
(37:59):
the tax dollars that we've sent to Washington, D.C., and
there should necessarily biblically be a high level of accountability,
not machinations and not wondering whether gerbils on fentanyl are
happy or sad. I mean, this there's some bizarre funding
that's out there. So one of the things that's currently
being reviewed, and it goes right to the core of
what I said before in the last segment, is a
not for profit. In other words, you're responsible for raising
(38:21):
your own money. Not that the government feeds you, but
a not for profit organization called Planned Parenthood. And so
just this week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced
that its component of the budget Reconciliation bill, which deals
with mandatory spending revenue and the federal debt limit, includes
language that not only removes funding the abortion giant, but
(38:41):
also cuts funding for organizations that participate in transgender medical
interventions for minors. Now, in some cases, that's Planned Parenthood times, too.
In fact, if you listen to us last week, we
played some undercover video that Lila Rose's live action team
got where a person posing as a 16 year old
was told without any prep whatsoever, she could just waltz
in and get those hormone, those puberty blockers in her
(39:03):
life would be irreparably changed. It's, uh. It's horrific. It's
a demonic activity. So there is. Now, whether or not
it'll stay in right, the. We'll wait to see. But
the budget reconciliation reconciliation process lowers the Senate passage threshold
from 60 votes to 51. Now, why is that important?
Because you're going to win the Super Bowl ring if
you win by one poll one point, right? And that's
(39:24):
the way you'd like to get this done. But there
are certain bits of legislation that require a supermajority or
60 votes to invoke cloture. In other words, stop debate
on the bill. And they get a little more complicated,
because particularly when you have a divided Senate like we do,
so narrowly divided between both parties, are you going to
be able to convince enough people from the opposing party,
from the idea you're trying to advance, to see things
(39:46):
your way? So it gets a little more dicey. But
because money is necessary in Washington and around our kitchen table,
they lowered this to 51. That makes it. I think
it's more equitable, but that's just me. And it follows
the ruling party to sidestep the minority in passing legislation
as long as it addresses taxes, spending or the national debt. Now,
several committees are working on portions of the bill that
(40:07):
will later be put together in a mega bill to
pass through the House and the Senate. But the Energy
and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction that includes Medicare, Medicaid, telecommunications
and energy production, and members are being tasked with finding
at least 880 billion in spending cuts out of a
total of 1.5 billion to 2 trillion. These numbers, after
(40:30):
a while, it's just monopoly money. It's just. That's funny money.
We don't understand it. So basically, because America is going
to go bankrupt if we don't pull in the belt
and start making some cuts. And listen, if you're around
your kitchen table and you say, honey, we just can't
afford that, raise your hand if you like cuts in
your family budget. Nobody does, particularly if you've created an
appetite for whatever that happens to be funding. So it's
(40:51):
going to be interesting to see whether or not and again,
it isn't about the merits of which Planned Parent doesn't
have any, but it isn't about arguing the merits of
Planned Parenthood. It's once again raising what I think is
a very transcendent and important question, which is why is
the government funding not for profit organizations? Um, it's it's
(41:12):
there's a kind of viewpoint, um, bias there that I
do not appreciate. There are all kinds of Americans who
wouldn't want their money going there. We don't send our
taxes to Washington going, by the way, you can have
all of this tax dollars, but you're going to remove
X for NPR and X for Planned Parenthood and X4
fill in the blank, whatever your particular issue is. So
this taxation issue is a is a really interesting one.
(41:32):
But you have to have the political will to be
able to say we can make that cut. I don't
know if it'll happen.
S11 (41:37):
There are areas where the federal government provides grant money
on a nonpartisan, non viewpoint based foundation. Some social some
social services where 99.9% of the American people would probably agree.
This is something that is helpful to a community, helpful
(41:58):
to people in need and so forth. And it includes
not only secular organizations, nonprofits, but also religious ones, Christian organizations.
And that's where the ACLU comes in and files a
suit and says, no, no, no, you can't give money
to religious organizations. But they've you know, they've lost those
lawsuits as long as it's on a non viewpoint basis
(42:20):
and you're not funding the religious exercise or doctrine of
that religious or Christian organization, rather their social service aspects.
So I'm okay with that. The problem is in in
in politics it's always been done. It's going to continue
being done. It's like a rule of physics that you well,
(42:42):
we've always funded Planned Parenthood. Well, we always talked about
defunding them. And yet nobody does anything. That's because they
have a big political voice, particularly for one political party.
But if you're going to fund organizations that are nonprofits,
pick an issue or a viewpoint that almost all of
us agree on. And there are so many points, common
(43:02):
points of agreement among Americans, regardless of politics, that we
could agree on and fund those kinds of efforts from nonprofits.
Why pick the most divisive, disagreeable values such as Planned Parenthood?
S1 (43:17):
Well, how about I mean, let me take your hypothetical, okay?
If you were going to do that, first of all,
I think there should be a separation. If you talk
about a separation of church and state, if you're a
not for profit, then you are making money. You are.
Let me scratch the word making. You are raising money
to support your C3 based on the merits of what
it is you deliver. So that's a model that doesn't
have anything to do with saying you can't ask for
(43:38):
a handout for the government while you're trying to advance
the merits of your organization.
S11 (43:42):
There's always there's always a lifeline that's tied to you.
S1 (43:45):
But if you wanted to say, well, we're going to
do it as a kind of charitable aspect of government funding,
you could deal with hunger. You could deal with school choice.
S11 (43:52):
Universal values that we all agree on. If you're going
to do it. But they seem to miss that point, Jenna.
And I think it has to do with political campaigns,
money in the coffers and, you know, your district and
whether they support Planned Parenthood.
S1 (44:07):
Promises for votes. What can I tell you? It's as
old as the hills. Thank you so much for joining
us this hour. I just want to remind you, we
do this for two hours. We get a lot of
things to share during our number two. But if you
can't listen live, just go to wherever you find your
favorite podcast and download in the market with Janet Parshall.
Have a great weekend. See you next time.
Hi friend, thanks so much for downloading this broadcast and
it is my hope that you'll hear something that will
challenge you, grow you up in him, and get you
out into the marketplace of ideas. But before you start listening,
let me take a moment and tell you what this
month's truth tool is. It's the Mediterranean Sea Rules by
Robert Morgan. I talked to him often on the air
because he's such a superb writer, and in this particular book,
he takes the story of Paul's shipwreck, recorded in the
(00:20):
book of acts, and gives us ten principles of how
we push through the storm, learning to trust in God
and all that he has done for us. It's a
magnificent book. It's a short book, and in typical Robert
Morgan writing style, it is a powerful book. I strongly
recommend that you have a copy of The Mediterranean Sea Rules,
because trust me, every single one of us will find
(00:40):
ourselves on stormy seas at some point in our voyage
through life. As for your copy of the Mediterranean Sea
Rules by calling 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58.
Or go online to. In the market with Janet Parshall.
Scroll to the bottom of the page. There's the book.
Click it on, make Your Gift and we'll send you
a copy. My way of saying thank you because we
are listener supported radio. Your gifts keep this broadcast on
(01:03):
the air. By the way, if you'd like to give regularly,
you're called a partial partner. You give every single month
a level of your own choosing. You always get the
truth tool. But in addition, I'll send out a weekly
newsletter that only my partial partners get. It contains my
writing and a little audio piece as well. So pray
about it and thanks in advance. Just call eight 7758
or online at in the Market with Janet Parshall. Again
(01:25):
the truth tool the Mediterranean Sea rules. Thanks so much.
And now please enjoy the broadcast. Important.
S2 (01:35):
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 (01:54):
When you look at the scriptures, the corpus of the scriptures,
and you think from Genesis to Just a revelation. There
has been no book studied more than this book, no
no book more criticized even by its own followers, even
by its own adherents. There has been no book more
scrutinized in terms of its historical relevance and its historical record,
its scientific record, its philosophical acumen, and the ways in
(02:18):
which it's been written. About infected central figure Jesus is,
without question, the most written about figure in all of history.
S4 (02:27):
Why is the man get a helper? I should get
a helper. And why? And it felt like, you know,
helper means a subservient.
S5 (02:34):
A little helper.
S4 (02:35):
You know, that just bows down to her, man. And
then when you study the original Hebrew in the, you know,
the book of Genesis in chapter two and Azure, a
helper suitable it's powerful. The power that he has put
in this wife to be a man's partner, to stand
(02:56):
toe to toe. It's like it isn't some little servant
that just, you know, does whatever the man wants. It's like, no,
you are his equal and he needs you both need
one another to accomplish God's mission and to defeat the
enemy in the garden. You can't do it without her.
S6 (03:15):
Daniel gives us 75 days from when he returns to
when his kingdom starts. He's going to replenish and fix
the Earth, but he's also going to send out the
angels to gather those who've survived the tribulation. And Janet,
that's not going to be a lot of them, because
they'll fit all in one valley. And he will hold
what's called in Matthew 25, the sheep goat judgment, those
(03:36):
who've rejected him and accepted the mark of the beast.
In other words, they declared, loyalty to Satan will be
sent to torments where they will await punishment. But those
who have accepted Christ will go on into the kingdom
in their earthly bodies.
S7 (03:50):
Proverbs 18 two A fool finds no pleasure in understanding,
but delights in airing his own opinions. That's that arrogant,
haughty behavior. And so I just love that God talked
about all of this, even though we call it narcissism.
God called it biblical foolishness or mockers who make a
mockery of his instruction or wicked. They're all interchanged in
(04:14):
the Bible. But there is nothing that isn't that that
diagnostic manual that God didn't talk about in the Bible.
S2 (04:22):
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.
S8 (04:33):
The first direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in
more than three years lasted well under two hours in Turkey,
with no apparent sign of progress towards peace between the sides.
S9 (04:43):
Dreams of tourists flock to the ancient Croatian city of Dubrovnik,
but US President Donald Trump's threats to impose a 100%
tariff on all movies produced outside the US have alarmed
the entertainment industry.
S10 (04:57):
Shoppers at the world's largest retailer will face higher prices.
Walmart said it will have to start raising them later
this month due to the high cost of tariffs.
S2 (05:07):
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 (05:29):
When your plans collapse, make sure you don't. That's just
one of ten powerful principles in this month's Truth Tool.
The Mediterranean Sea Rules by Robert Morgan draws life changing
lessons from Paul's shipwreck recorded in acts. Learn to navigate
through the storm with faith and courage. As for your
copy of the Mediterranean Sea Rules, when you give a
gift of any amount to in the market, call 877.
Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go to in
(05:52):
the market with Janet Parshall. Happy Friday to you friends.
It is Friday and on this broadcast we should call
it In the Market with Janet and Craig. Partial because
Craig joins me on most Fridays. And what we do
is we take out those glasses, the lens of Scripture,
put them on, take a look at the world around us,
and then we measure what's being bought and sold in
(06:13):
the marketplace of ideas to see whether or not they
measure the plumb line of God's truth. Are they crooked ideas?
Are they counterfeits? Are they artificial ideas? Are they the
kind of stuff that tickles our ears, but it has
no forbearance and truth whatsoever. So we go round robin
and really practice what we like to call applied Christianity,
taking the Word of God and applying it to the
(06:34):
world around us. And I have to tell you, if
you're paying attention, if you're really listening with the ears
on your heart, and I do hope you're showing up
in that marketplace of ideas, you will understand that the
world gives us a ton of materials which are really,
in truth, open doors to start engaging for the cause
of the cross. And we're going to give you a
myriad of those examples during the course of this hour.
(06:55):
So I want to start with this one now. And
you're going to think I'm going to go One Direction
with this topic, but I'm not I'm going to go
another direction. So stay with me if I can just
set this up for a minute because there's an interesting twist.
So there's a new book out by CNN anchor Jake Tapper,
and it has ignited fierce criticism from liberals and media
observers who accuse him of profiting from a narrative he
(07:18):
once helped downplay. And that narrative was that President Joe
Biden was perfectly fine when he was in office, when
in fact, you can't tell me my eyes are not
seeing what I'm not seeing. That's sort of the thesis
of the majority of Americans now. In fact, he was
in great decline. And my heart goes out to him. That's, uh,
I think, very sad. I do not know what his
diagnosis is, but we could all see the fact that
(07:40):
his health was failing. And that, by the way, creates
a kind of constitutional crisis because you're wondering what's going
to happen. One of the things, apparently, that's come out
in this book is that if Joe Biden had been elected,
the word was he would need to have used a
wheelchair during his second term. Now far from the lights,
by the way, you need to know that that disease,
whatever it might be, is going to accompany him. He
had a physical this week, and they did discover a
(08:02):
nodule on his prostate. So there's a prayer request for
Joe Biden and for his family as well. So I'm
not really talking about whether or not we were snookered,
as the old word goes by the press, because the
answer is yes. Absolutely. The people who supported the ideology
of the last administration, we're going to tell you right
to your lying eyes. No, he's not in decline whatsoever.
(08:23):
He doesn't meander. He hasn't lost his thought. He isn't
kind of neurologically decomposing by any stretch of the imagination.
Jake Tapper of CNN was one of the people who
promulgated the idea that, hey, look away, look away. Nothing
to see here. He's fine. So the book is entitled
Original Sin. Now, do you see where I'm going to
go with this? So stick with me. Original sin. President
Biden's decline, its cover up, and his disastrous choice to
(08:45):
run again. Now the book is co-authored isn't just by
Jake Tapper. There's a fellow from Axios which is very
left of center, a journalist by the name of Alex Thompson.
And they allege that Biden's inner circle, including his family
and top aides there claim, orchestrated a comprehensive effort to
obscure the president's deteriorating condition from the public, donors and
even members of his own cabinet. Yes, but wait, wait, wait.
(09:07):
Hit the pause button for a minute, and we could
do multiple hours on this, but I'm just going to
throw out a couple of seeds here to think about.
You're in the media. You are supposed to be Mr. Tapper.
And I know, Jake, you are supposed to give the facts, ma'am.
Just the facts, not your opinion. Not practice the sin
of omission and pull things out of your coverage. And
this goes to anybody, whether they're on the right or
(09:27):
the left. This is supposed to be journalism. It was
once upon a time in a land far, far away.
It's not that anymore. So Jake Tapper was a part
of promoting the idea that Joe Biden was not in decline.
So it does raise a morality question of whether or
not a man who promoted that idea should, in fact,
now profit from a book that he's writing about the
(09:49):
former president's decline. So these claims now have reverberated across
the political spectrum, stirring both indignation, indignation and introspection within
the Democratic Party. Now, I have to tell you that
what I find very impressive is that there are some
of the Democratic Party who have openly admitted that this
was wrong, should not have been done. There are others who,
no matter what, and this is what blindness looks like,
(10:11):
have decided that they're just going to continue to foment
the idea that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Joe
Biden whatsoever while he was serving as president. Now, you
and I could talk about that for hours. That's not
where I want to go. I want to bring the
New York Times into this. Okay. Now, the New York Times,
the old gray lady. Oh, she ain't what she used
to be by any stretch of the imagination. And now
she is so ideologically far left that the whole idea
(10:34):
of good standards of journalism have no place whatsoever within
their newsroom. They don't care to fact check. They'll promote
an idea whether it's true or not. Retractions, all they'll
show up in page 23. Who cares? Just get the
story out there. So when they were writing about Jake's
new book, they said this. Remember the original? The title
of the book is called The Original Original Sin. Here's
(10:54):
what The New York Times said. In Christian theology, original
sin begins with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit
from the Tree of Knowledge. But Jake Tapper and Alex
Thompson's original Sin chronicles a different fall from grace. The
cover image is a black and white portrait of Joe
Biden with a pair of hands clamped over his eyes.
The biblical story is about the danger of innocent curiosity.
(11:19):
Let me say that again. This is the New York Times, not.
It's not worth the paper that it's printed on. Okay,
there's my $0.02. And yes, that is an opinion. They
say declaratively because they always get their facts right. You know,
the biblical story is about the danger of innocent curiosity.
They end the sentence by saying, the story in this
new book is about the danger of willful ignorance. Well,
(11:41):
I'll tell you what. Maybe the book is about willful ignorance,
and I will leave people who just want to play
around in the political playground to talk about whether or
not this was a political hack job. This is a
political cover up or whether or not. And by the way,
let me just throw this one fact in before I
get Craig's response. Gallop, by the way, measures America's trust
in the media every single year. They just did it
(12:03):
in March of this year. This is the lowest it
has ever been. Only 31% of Americans surveyed believe and
trust the media. 31. That's three out of ten people
who consume the news believe that what they're hearing on
the other side of the screen, or what they're reading
in a newspaper, is something that can be trusted. When
(12:24):
you decide to make the declaration in The New York
Times that the biblical story of Adam and Eve is
about the danger of innocent curiosity, your percentages are going
to fall even more. Although I don't know how many
conservatives and or Christians read the New York Times, we do,
because you I don't know what the other side is doing.
So you use that as your preparation homework. But again, Craig,
(12:45):
they get so much wrong. And so now these people
who probably couldn't even tell you where in the Bible
the story of Adam and Eve can be found. Make
the statement that it's the danger of innocent curiosity. Now some.
By the way, the New York Times is part of
what we call broadsheets. Okay? Those were written for people
who had commutes so they would have more space to fill.
They could put more content in. And so you can
just picture the guy coming in from new Jersey, commuting
(13:07):
into New York City and reading the newspaper, which would
have been a perfect hypothetical of how this magazine would
have been used in the past. I'm not sure how
many people would fact check the New York Times today
when they see that Adam and Eve, the story is
the story is about innocent curiosity. Um, if you don't
get that right, that tells me everything you're going to
write about. Jake Tapper's book is now up for question,
(13:27):
but hey, that's just me. Give me your thoughts.
S11 (13:29):
All the big stories. Um, and every major newspaper would
have to admit this because they've operated this way. And
I think it's commendable. In theory, they operated this way.
Which is the bigger the story, whether it's in political scandals,
of course, make headlines. Uh, if it bleeds, it leads.
(13:50):
And political bloodbaths, you know, because of scandals, make great
copy for the Washington Post and the New York Times
and so forth. So when things like Watergate and other
political hot button issues develop and people have seen the
movie will know it and people who have followed the story,
(14:12):
like you and I actually did at the time it
was unfolding, know this to be true, that, um, Bernstein
and Woodward, uh, were were told that they had to
have authentication by multiple sources, at least two sources for
(14:33):
what they were suspecting and thought was highly likely happening
in the white House in some kind of a cover up.
They needed to authenticate it and verify it. So you
need to get the witnesses. says now they may be anonymous,
that you may refuse to divulge them. It may be,
you know, in the Watergate case, uh, someone's name that
(14:58):
we didn't know for quite a while until it recently
came public. But you got to verify you got authenticated.
How do you do that? Well, you talk to a witness, okay?
If you're talking about the Bible, what's the best witness
for what the Bible has to say about that famous, uh,
garden incident? Well, wouldn't you go to what the Bible
has to say and then say, probably if you're in
(15:21):
New York Times. Oh, I didn't know it said that.
S1 (15:24):
Well, I.
S11 (15:25):
Think in this case.
S1 (15:25):
I think it was I thought the writer of the article,
I'm going to be gracious. I think the writer of
the article wanted to prove that he or she had
a rapier wit, and so they wanted to talk. They
picked up on the title Original Sin. Right. What is
the original sin took place in the Garden of Eden,
so at least they had a point of reference that
somehow the term original sin had to somehow tie back
to a Bible story. But again, in their desire to
(15:46):
have this rapier wit to be oh so culturally relevant
to be, um, just Hemingway esque, Hemingway esque to pick
up on the title of Original Sin. They fell flat
on their face by then saying that the story was
about curiosity instead. So if you're going to try to
prove to people how intellectually advanced you are, I think
(16:07):
you want to do your homework before you decide to
use a literary reference, because they fell flat on their face. Yeah.
S11 (16:13):
First, first, understand this. The original source for the literary reference.
If you're going to reference something in the Bible. And
by the way, the Bible is the biggest source of
information in literature in the Western civilization. So you better
know your source. But that doesn't excuse you from understanding
what the story is now. I guess if I were
(16:35):
to argue their case, I'd say as I look at it.
And by the way, Original Sin, like you said, they
cleverly tried. They wanted to use that as the hook.
So they had to somehow tie in biblical theology in
some way, even if they had to distort it. They
say the biblical story is about, well, not the Christian
(16:55):
theological story or the well-known, but the biblical story. So guys,
do your homework. Just pick a Bible up. Maybe you
don't have one in your office. Go down to the
public library. You got a big one there in New
York City and look up what Genesis had to say.
S1 (17:09):
Well, and it's why we will continue to encourage you
to be Bereans and to test all things. Now, again,
I bet you thought I was going to talk about
Jake Tapper and the previous administration and all that. No,
this was an interesting component about trusting media and you
and I learning how to go to independent verification as
we test all things back after this. So we're starting
(17:36):
our hour talking about original sin, which happens to be
something that's strong theologically. We know what that means contextually,
but it also happens to be the title of the
new book that Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper co-authored together
about the decline of President Biden while he was in office.
And so The New York Times clumsily writes about this,
picks up, and then basically completely misinterprets the meaning of
(18:00):
the original sin. And they wanted to be clever. Obviously,
they pulled from the idea of original sin, Adam and
Eve in the garden. Right. And this is, I'm quoting
the New York Times. Okay. Just the facts, ma'am. Just
the facts. Independent verification test, all things. The New York
Times writes boldly in black ink. The biblical story is
about the danger of innocent curiosity. It is anything but.
It is about rebellion. It is about sin. In fact,
(18:23):
more to the point, New York Times, as long as
you're taking notes, it's about death than by man came
death as a result of that, quote, innocent curiosity you
talked about. So nothing could be farther from the truth.
But I do want to talk about journalism here because
I think this is important. I find a paradox within
a paradox, within a paradox here. So The New York
Times slaughters the idea under their craven idea to be
(18:45):
literarily creative. They capture the word original sin and then
fall flat in their face by not defining what it
really was. But if you really wanted to go to
the title, I'd like to sit down with Jake and say, Jake,
do you really want to call the book Original Sin?
Because was the original sin that your peers in the
ABC Alphabet media didn't report what all of America could
(19:08):
see with their own eyes. And by the way, I
don't say that as saying ha ha ha, there's deterioration
going on. I have exactly the opposite response, because far
from the tally lights, there is a person who was
struggling in terms of their physical health, and I just
happen to have the most important job in America and
some would say possibly in the world. And so he
was struggling to make decisions. It is not a 9
to 5 job. It is not a Monday through Friday job.
(19:30):
It is a 24 over seven. You will get called
in the middle of the night by your security team
because there's terrorist threat that's taking place on the other
side of the globe. You travel with. And Craig, you
got an endorsement from one of the many books that
you wrote from the man who carried what we call
the nuclear football. It's a briefcase that a member of
the military watched sometimes when the president is moving with
his entourage, who has in his hand a briefcase. What's
(19:52):
in that briefcase? It is the codes to launch a
nuclear weapon. Should we be attacked? Now, some might think, oh,
that's an old movie with Henry or Henry Fonda back
in the 1960s. No, it's a reality. And if you
listen to my show with Bill Gertz yesterday, it is
as much as reality now as it was when that
black and white film was made. But was the original
(20:13):
sin that, in fact, there wasn't a compassionate cry in
the media, at least some level of accountability to be
able to say, does he need help? What can we
do to support him? What is the the chain of command?
How do you plan on continuity in the government in
the event that the president's health fails? Now, we've had
presidents who've been in wheelchairs. FDR was one of them. Um,
(20:36):
we've had presidents who have had strokes in office, and
the wife kind of covered for the presidency for the
rest of the time that he was in office. So
it's we don't we think because they're such big characters
in our culture and in our life that they're not
flesh and blood. To quote Shakespeare, if you prick us,
do we not bleed? They just we somehow think these
(20:56):
people aren't normal people that, um, can get sick. And
this individual clearly was getting sicker in office. So was
the title Original Sin really something that should be stated
when the secular press looks in the mirror? Was the
original sin fomenting a lie, as opposed to saying, we
need to get some answers here for the greater good
of the country, not to knock down the sitting president,
(21:19):
but to make sure that he's getting compassionate care and
that the continuity of government is preserved, because we can
pretty much guess that those rogue nations who hate America
and all that she stands for, were just waiting for
the other shoe to drop your thoughts.
S11 (21:32):
Well, you know this the New York Times reference to
the book in the review. Um, they, as we pointed out, aired, uh,
I mean substantially in saying the biblical story is about
innocent curiosity, but they used it as a counterpoint to
the real point of the article, which was about what
(21:54):
they called the danger of willful ignorance about the president's condition.
Now that that phrase, willful ignorance actually is much closer
to what Genesis tells us.
S1 (22:08):
Because that should have been the title of the book, right?
S11 (22:10):
Adam and Eve were told what the rule, what the
rules were. They said, you can have any fruit from
any tree except one. And by the way, I didn't
forbid you touching it. I'm forbidding you from eating it.
And Eve gave a false report to to the serpent, saying, well,
(22:33):
God told us we can't eat from it or even
touch it. No, he didn't say that. You can't touch it.
He said you can't eat from it. The point is,
the serpent. decides to create confusion and say, well, are
you sure that that's what you heard? The law has
a phrase called deliberate indifference, and it's very close to
(22:55):
willful ignorance. It's, you know, something bad is happening and
it's your moral responsibility to take care of it, maybe
even your legal responsibility. But you look away for whatever
reason self-interest, selfishness, you've been paid off. Whatever the reason,
you've you've willfully, deliberately looked away and allowed the bad
(23:17):
thing to continue. The law says you're responsible legally when
that happens. And I think morally in terms of the
the responsibility of the press when they know something is
going on, you can't just ignore it. The reason we
have a press, and if you go back to the
pre-revolution days when the Patriots were trying to get the
(23:38):
support of the citizens of Quebec to help fund the
revolution against Britain. They said we are going to be
a new nation with a free press so that we
can hold government to account. They said it in writing
and they also practiced it with the Free press phrase
in the First Amendment. But are they practicing it now? No.
(23:59):
And that's really the question.
S1 (24:00):
So this is an interesting topic only because it's an
amalgamation of a myriad of issues. Trusting the press when
it's at an all time low, being complicit in advancing
a false story. By the way, one person posted on X,
maybe it's time to test Jake Tapper's mental decline. Because
what they're saying is, look, how are you trying to
profit off a story that you helped promote his defense?
(24:21):
We were lied to in the press as well. We'll
never know that. But now we can set the facts straight.
New York Times, you got it wrong back after this.
Our team of partial partners is growing, and I love
communicating behind the scenes with this special group of friends
who are devoted to giving a monthly gift in the
market Our partial partners receive private emails direct from me
(24:43):
on issues we don't address on radio, and I even
send a weekly audio message straight from my heart to yours.
Ready to become a partial partner? Call 87758877 Janet 58
or go to in the market with Janet Parshall dot.
So we're going to linger with the role of media
in our lives, because there's certainly a lot of news
(25:05):
in that particular area. So we just talked about this
grotesque blunder The New York Times made in misinformation, disinformation.
I'll use those Zuckerberg terms here. His disinformation on original sin,
which was, no, it wasn't an act of innocent curiosity
by any stretch of the imagination. It was an act
of outright rebellion. Don't do this. They did it. And
(25:26):
the rest is history. And as a result of us,
that every single one of us has a fallen sin nature.
So check, fact check on that. So this is part
of being a good brand is fact checking all the time.
So there's a movement afoot now to say, you know what,
maybe we need to be looking at National Public Radio
and PBS, which is a unique entity for all other
(25:46):
broadcasting platforms out there, because they get government money, taxpayer dollars,
but they're also privately funded, not unlike the Smithsonian Institute,
by the way. They get government money, but they also
get private funds as well. Usually broadcast falls into two
categories for profit or not for profit. NPR would technically
be in the not for profit category. So an executive
(26:08):
order got signed that says it's time to end taxpayer
funding for NPR and PBS. And if you're counting the
numbers on this, remember, they're trying to tighten the belt here.
And a lot of people are squawking because it's okay
if you tighten somebody else's belt. But the minute you're
withholding of funds affects me, well, then it's a bad,
terrible idea. But if you're interested, we the people give
about a half $1 billion in public money to NPR
(26:30):
and PBS. Um, the the thinking is there are so
many outlets now, and there are there are a million
outlets out there. That's why you and I will never
see the ugly monster known as the Fairness Doctrine ever
raise its head again. That's because now, if you don't
like it, change the channel or flip your screen or
go to your streaming platform. We have thousands and thousands
(26:51):
and thousands of outlets now. And so there doesn't need
to be a special niche for government funded broadcasting, particularly
if the content of that broadcasting doesn't meet all the
people's needs all the time. If you have a particular
penchant to the right or to the left, and you're
getting government money, that raises a specter of whether or
not that funding should continue. Or maybe it's an and
(27:14):
or this might be an ancient paradigm. Maybe PBS and
NPR don't need public funding anymore. So part of the
EO says, unlike in 1967, when the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting was was established, today the media landscape is filled
with abundant, diverse and innovative news options. Government funding of
news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary,
(27:36):
but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence. I will
tell you, I happen to agree with that 1,000%. If
you don't like what I'm saying, you can change the channel.
That's why we'll never see the Fairness Doctrine, which at
one point in time said that when I spoke about Jesus,
I'd have to give equal time to Buddha and L
Ron Hubbard and Muhammad. I don't have to do that anymore.
If you don't like what you're hearing, you can change
the channel. That's because this is why I'm a great
(27:58):
believer in competition. You end up getting a better product.
If you don't like it, you can change the channel.
So it's not 1967 anymore. It's 2025. Should we be
funding in particular this outlet? And by the way, I
think it's a little bit discriminatory. Why'd you pick NPR
and PBS as opposed to any other not for profit
outlet out there? Well, of course, the head of PBS
(28:18):
is jumping up and down saying this is absolutely unlawful.
And really, what the president does is, is not unlike
what he did with the Department of Education. If you
want to know how the sausage is made here in
Washington is he can ignite the conversation with the executive order,
but he has any president has small enumerated powers. His
executive order is a sense of the office. Excuse me.
(28:39):
And it might have some temporary impact, but the finality
of withdrawing funding for NPR and PBS could only come
through Congress. Now, that might be a difficult battle. There
might be people who agree with the content of that
EO that said, yeah, you know what? It's too diverse
right now. We don't need to be funding one. And
there are others who are going to say no. We
very much want to make sure that the funding continues.
(28:59):
And I'm going to guess opinion. No. Note to file
that because the news content and the Masterpiece Theater I
absolutely adore on PBS. I just love the historical ones.
If you haven't seen Wolf Hall, that's an absolutely fascinating
story about Thomas Cromwell. Absolutely thrilling bit of history and
beautifully done by Mark Rylance. However, when you get to
the NewsHour. Mhm. Not so much. Then you're off to
(29:22):
one side of the political spectrum. And so my guess
is the people who want to support it are going
to want to make sure that that particular bent on
the news is in fact upheld. Not. Let me give
you a quick example of that. And Craig, then I
want your response. So the NPR used to read the
Declaration of Independence over the air. A long period of
time in 2022. So just a few years ago, they
(29:44):
scrapped their decades long Independence Day tradition of reading the declaration,
because instead they wanted to discuss equality. And not only that.
NPR subsequently issued an editor's note warning that the Declaration
of Independence is a document that contains offensive language. I'm
reading NPR's editor's note July 8th, 2022. This story quotes
(30:08):
the U.S. Declaration of Independence, a document that contains offensive
language about Native Americans, including a racial slur. Okay, I
could I don't want you to have to drink from
a fire fire hose here because there's a ton of
examples I could give. So that's one example about, again,
the particular political penchant, by the way. So let's just
get through the bramble bushes right away, sir. You study
(30:31):
the Constitution. You study the declaration, you practice law based
on what those documents say. Could you point the offensive
language out to me in the Declaration of Independence?
S11 (30:41):
Yeah. And I think this is what they're talking about.
I'm positive. And the list of grievances. And by the way,
the brilliance of the Declaration of Independence is it set
forth some general moral and political principles upon which this
revolution was going to be based? And then they gave
examples of how those principles have been violated by Great Britain.
(31:04):
You know, when at the at the founding of the
the colonies promises were made and then promises were not
kept about self-governance and retaining all the rights.
S1 (31:15):
From England.
S11 (31:16):
Right from from the King and Parliament to the colonists.
You are going to be and remain to be vested
with all the rights of Englishmen, they used to say,
except when we want to take them away. And so
when the House of Burgesses would have a session and
the local colonists would want to vote on a certain issue,
(31:37):
and the king didn't like it. Well, then he'd send
in the military and they shut down basically the local parliament.
So that's that's the kind of tyranny. Well, so here's
the language, um, in, um, so the general principles and
then the grievances of how Great Britain had violated it.
So here's the example. I think they're talking about the
(31:58):
you know, he has he has he has that refers
to King George, right. He has, they say, constrained our
fellow citizens. The next paragraph says he has excited domestic
insurrections against us and has endeavored to bring on the
inhabitants of our frontiers. That's an important, uh, modifier here.
(32:22):
He's talking about the western frontier as it existed then
on the western edge of the colonies. Uh, the inhabitants
of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages whose known rule
of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes,
sexes and conditions. In other words, from the Western frontiers.
(32:44):
England encouraged some of these more savage Indian tribes to attack,
and this is historical. Attack those frontiers, and those colonists
who were English subjects, allowing them to be slaughtered for
political purposes. And that's what it means now, were some
of the Indian savages? Well, they certainly were in those episodes. Um,
(33:09):
so that's what I'm sure he's referring to. And of course,
it is. Referring to it is NPR is referring to
us as a racial slur. Well, in order to understand
whether it is or isn't, you better go back and
view the historical context of what was happening. And the
grievances actually happened. And they were acts of savagery carried
(33:33):
out by savage Indians.
S1 (33:34):
And fomented by the British. British.
S11 (33:36):
Right now we're all Indian. Savage? No. But those. And
by the way, some of the tribes had a reputation
of being savage. Others didn't. And so England used those
that kind of savagery against some of the frontier areas
to keep the peace and for political purposes.
S1 (33:53):
Right. So NPR featured a Valentine's story around queer animals,
in which it suggested that make believe clownfish in Finding
Nemo would have been better off as a female, that
banana slugs are hermaphrodites and that some deer are non-binary.
S11 (34:08):
So there's no agenda there, right? This is not. And
by the way, and you and I have been talking
about this issue of NPR and PBS, what, a couple decades. Um,
I had an opportunity to testify in front of the
Federal Communications Commission, uh, honored to be surrounded by executives
(34:29):
from both NPR and PBS on both ends. Um, and
I used an opportunity to say, look, um, media needs
to be open to everybody, and we need to listen
to each other. And I don't I still I still
to this day, I wish they'd listen to the rest
of America.
S1 (34:48):
Right.
S11 (34:48):
Which they don't.
S1 (34:49):
If you come to DC, you'll see a very exquisite
building with the initials NPR at the top. So they've
got their own building. Um, and again, I think, agree
or disagree with the content, if this is your worldview,
you're going to love it and you're going to say, yay,
let's keep funding it. If you don't, if you have
a problem, then your attitude is, I don't understand why
we're taking one media entity. Two. If you talk about
NPR and PBS, why they should continue to get tax
(35:11):
funded dollars, they are not for profit. So the counterargument
is do what's called a subscription model. So if you
love NPR and PBS, then send in your donor dollars, right.
And in other words, if you if if you do
good media, they will donate, right.
S11 (35:27):
They will come.
S1 (35:27):
They will come. Exactly. Borrow from Field of Dreams there.
So the bottom line is, if you like the idea
that in 2021, a PBS station aired a children's program
that featured a drag queen named Little Miss Hot Mess.
And that's the thing that you like. Then you just
keep on giving to NPR and PBS. But if you don't,
it really does raise the question of whether or not,
given the new age of technology in which we live,
(35:50):
the paradigm, the model of the government funding one outlet
that is a not for profit. Maybe its time has
come and gone. I'll give you a parallel. Planned Parenthood
you're a not for profit. Why are we funding not
for profits through the government? This is what the housekeeping
in Washington is all about. We're going to take a break.
We'll be right back. So we're talking about where should
(36:30):
our dollars go. And by the way, remember, there's a
stewardship issue here. Um, we send our tax dollars to Washington, DC,
and then the federal government. Excuse me. Makes the decision
on how that money should be used. Likewise, you pay
state tax with the same idea, and then the state
decides how that money is going to be used. So
and you can go all the way back to people
like Alexander Hamilton who set up this idea, and this
(36:50):
is how you were going to fund the government. So
when you decide that you're going to take tax dollars.
And by the way, I have to tell you that
as much as I loathe, like anybody else paying taxes,
I'll take our system of government over the founders. Do
you know that if you lived, for example, in Fredericksburg, Virginia,
where George Washington lived for many, many years of his life,
you would be taxed if there was too much space
(37:13):
between your house and the person next to you. You
would be taxed. If you played lawn bowling, you would
be taxed if you went and had a mug and
you drank a certain amount of ale in the pub,
you'd get taxed at a certain dollar amount. This is what.
So history is fascinating. So. So there's a derivation they kept.
S11 (37:32):
They kept adding to try to break the back of
local commerce among the colonies.
S1 (37:37):
That's exactly right. And hence the hue and cry no,
no taxation without representation. So this is a checks and balance.
But we the people are the check to the balance
of government when it comes to spending our money. So
there's a lot of conversation now about what we are
going to continue to fund. NPR, PBS is just one
of them. I think that's an important conversation, because this
is the people we send to Washington being stewards with
(37:59):
the tax dollars that we've sent to Washington, D.C., and
there should necessarily biblically be a high level of accountability,
not machinations and not wondering whether gerbils on fentanyl are
happy or sad. I mean, this there's some bizarre funding
that's out there. So one of the things that's currently
being reviewed, and it goes right to the core of
what I said before in the last segment, is a
not for profit. In other words, you're responsible for raising
(38:21):
your own money. Not that the government feeds you, but
a not for profit organization called Planned Parenthood. And so
just this week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced
that its component of the budget Reconciliation bill, which deals
with mandatory spending revenue and the federal debt limit, includes
language that not only removes funding the abortion giant, but
(38:41):
also cuts funding for organizations that participate in transgender medical
interventions for minors. Now, in some cases, that's Planned Parenthood times, too.
In fact, if you listen to us last week, we
played some undercover video that Lila Rose's live action team
got where a person posing as a 16 year old
was told without any prep whatsoever, she could just waltz
in and get those hormone, those puberty blockers in her
(39:03):
life would be irreparably changed. It's, uh. It's horrific. It's
a demonic activity. So there is. Now, whether or not
it'll stay in right, the. We'll wait to see. But
the budget reconciliation reconciliation process lowers the Senate passage threshold
from 60 votes to 51. Now, why is that important?
Because you're going to win the Super Bowl ring if
you win by one poll one point, right? And that's
(39:24):
the way you'd like to get this done. But there
are certain bits of legislation that require a supermajority or
60 votes to invoke cloture. In other words, stop debate
on the bill. And they get a little more complicated,
because particularly when you have a divided Senate like we do,
so narrowly divided between both parties, are you going to
be able to convince enough people from the opposing party,
from the idea you're trying to advance, to see things
(39:46):
your way? So it gets a little more dicey. But
because money is necessary in Washington and around our kitchen table,
they lowered this to 51. That makes it. I think
it's more equitable, but that's just me. And it follows
the ruling party to sidestep the minority in passing legislation
as long as it addresses taxes, spending or the national debt. Now,
several committees are working on portions of the bill that
(40:07):
will later be put together in a mega bill to
pass through the House and the Senate. But the Energy
and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction that includes Medicare, Medicaid, telecommunications
and energy production, and members are being tasked with finding
at least 880 billion in spending cuts out of a
total of 1.5 billion to 2 trillion. These numbers, after
(40:30):
a while, it's just monopoly money. It's just. That's funny money.
We don't understand it. So basically, because America is going
to go bankrupt if we don't pull in the belt
and start making some cuts. And listen, if you're around
your kitchen table and you say, honey, we just can't
afford that, raise your hand if you like cuts in
your family budget. Nobody does, particularly if you've created an
appetite for whatever that happens to be funding. So it's
(40:51):
going to be interesting to see whether or not and again,
it isn't about the merits of which Planned Parent doesn't
have any, but it isn't about arguing the merits of
Planned Parenthood. It's once again raising what I think is
a very transcendent and important question, which is why is
the government funding not for profit organizations? Um, it's it's
(41:12):
there's a kind of viewpoint, um, bias there that I
do not appreciate. There are all kinds of Americans who
wouldn't want their money going there. We don't send our
taxes to Washington going, by the way, you can have
all of this tax dollars, but you're going to remove
X for NPR and X for Planned Parenthood and X4
fill in the blank, whatever your particular issue is. So
this taxation issue is a is a really interesting one.
(41:32):
But you have to have the political will to be
able to say we can make that cut. I don't
know if it'll happen.
S11 (41:37):
There are areas where the federal government provides grant money
on a nonpartisan, non viewpoint based foundation. Some social some
social services where 99.9% of the American people would probably agree.
This is something that is helpful to a community, helpful
(41:58):
to people in need and so forth. And it includes
not only secular organizations, nonprofits, but also religious ones, Christian organizations.
And that's where the ACLU comes in and files a
suit and says, no, no, no, you can't give money
to religious organizations. But they've you know, they've lost those
lawsuits as long as it's on a non viewpoint basis
(42:20):
and you're not funding the religious exercise or doctrine of
that religious or Christian organization, rather their social service aspects.
So I'm okay with that. The problem is in in
in politics it's always been done. It's going to continue
being done. It's like a rule of physics that you well,
(42:42):
we've always funded Planned Parenthood. Well, we always talked about
defunding them. And yet nobody does anything. That's because they
have a big political voice, particularly for one political party.
But if you're going to fund organizations that are nonprofits,
pick an issue or a viewpoint that almost all of
us agree on. And there are so many points, common
(43:02):
points of agreement among Americans, regardless of politics, that we
could agree on and fund those kinds of efforts from nonprofits.
Why pick the most divisive, disagreeable values such as Planned Parenthood?
S1 (43:17):
Well, how about I mean, let me take your hypothetical, okay?
If you were going to do that, first of all,
I think there should be a separation. If you talk
about a separation of church and state, if you're a
not for profit, then you are making money. You are.
Let me scratch the word making. You are raising money
to support your C3 based on the merits of what
it is you deliver. So that's a model that doesn't
have anything to do with saying you can't ask for
(43:38):
a handout for the government while you're trying to advance
the merits of your organization.
S11 (43:42):
There's always there's always a lifeline that's tied to you.
S1 (43:45):
But if you wanted to say, well, we're going to
do it as a kind of charitable aspect of government funding,
you could deal with hunger. You could deal with school choice.
S11 (43:52):
Universal values that we all agree on. If you're going
to do it. But they seem to miss that point, Jenna.
And I think it has to do with political campaigns,
money in the coffers and, you know, your district and
whether they support Planned Parenthood.
S1 (44:07):
Promises for votes. What can I tell you? It's as
old as the hills. Thank you so much for joining
us this hour. I just want to remind you, we
do this for two hours. We get a lot of
things to share during our number two. But if you
can't listen live, just go to wherever you find your
favorite podcast and download in the market with Janet Parshall.
Have a great weekend. See you next time.
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.