Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast of In the Market with Janet Parshall, and I sincerely hope you hear something that will encourage you, edify you, enlighten you, equip you, and then we'll get you out the door into the marketplace of ideas. But before you go, let me tell you a little bit about this month's truth tool. It's written by a man who was a chronic doubter. Doctor Bobby Conway was a Christian, and after years, he began doubting his own faith. As a result of that, he's come out now stronger, fully committed to the validity and the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but keenly aware of the kinds of questions that chronic doubters ask. So in his book, Does Christianity Still Make sense? Doctor Conway does a superb job of telling us how we can answer 20 of the most difficult questions you and I will ever be asked about Christianity. Questions like why are there so many scandals in the church? And aren't Christians just a bunch of hypocrites? And why does God allow evil in the world? Is there really reliable evidence for the existence of God? This is a must read for everyone who wants to know how to contend for the faith when they get out there in the marketplace of ideas. This is this month's truth tool, and it's my way of saying thank you. When you give a gift of any amount to in the market with Janet Parshall, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 and ask for your copy of Does Christianity Still Make sense? And I'll gladly send it off to you as my way of saying thank you for financially supporting this program. You can also give online just go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Scroll to the bottom of the page. There's the cover of the book. Click on Make Your Donation online and likewise you'll also get a copy of Does Christianity Still make Sense? While you're there, consider becoming a partial partner. Those are my group of friends who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. They always get the truth tool of the month every month, as long as they're a partial partner. And they will also get a weekly newsletter from me that includes some of my writing and an audio piece just for my partial partners. So pray about it. Consider a one time gift or an ongoing contributor to the program by becoming a partial partner at 877. Janet 58. That's 877. Janet 58. Or online at In the Market with Janet Parshall. Thanks so much. And now please enjoy the broadcast.

Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast of In the Market with Janet Parshall, and I sincerely hope you hear something that will encourage you, edify you, enlighten you, equip you, and then we'll get you out the door into the marketplace of ideas. But before you go, let me tell you a little bit about this month's truth tool. It's written by a man who was a chronic doubter. Doctor Bobby Conway was a Christian, and after years, he began doubting his own faith. As a result of that, he's come out now stronger, fully committed to the validity and the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but keenly aware of the kinds of questions that chronic doubters ask. So in his book, Does Christianity Still Make sense? Doctor Conway does a superb job of telling us how we can answer 20 of the most difficult questions you and I will ever be asked about Christianity. Questions like why are there so many scandals in the church? And aren't Christians just a bunch of hypocrites? And why does God allow evil in the world? Is there really reliable evidence for the existence of God? This is a must read for everyone who wants to know how to contend for the faith when they get out there in the marketplace of ideas. This is this month's truth tool, and it's my way of saying thank you. When you give a gift of any amount to in the market with Janet Parshall, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 and ask for your copy of Does Christianity Still Make sense? And I'll gladly send it off to you as my way of saying thank you for financially supporting this program. You can also give online just go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Scroll to the bottom of the page. There's the cover of the book. Click on Make Your Donation online and likewise you'll also get a copy of Does Christianity Still make Sense? While you're there, consider becoming a partial partner. Those are my group of friends who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. They always get the truth tool of the month every month, as long as they're a partial partner. And they will also get a weekly newsletter from me that includes some of my writing and an audio piece just for my partial partners. So pray about it. Consider a one time gift or an ongoing contributor to the program by becoming a partial partner at 877. Janet 58. That's 877. Janet 58. Or online at In the Market with Janet Parshall. Thanks so much. And now please enjoy the broadcast.

Here are some of the news headlines we're watching.

Here are some of the news headlines we're watching.

The conference was over. The president won a pledge.

The conference was over. The president won a pledge.

Americans worshiping government over God.

Americans worshiping government over God.

Extremely rare.

Extremely rare.

Safety.

Safety.

Move by a major.

Move by a major.

17 years. The Palestinians and Israelis negotiated.

17 years. The Palestinians and Israelis negotiated.

This is not over.

This is not over.

Hi, friends. Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. A very happy Monday to you. I hope your week has started out well. Well, it is the last day of March and in my neck of the woods here in Washington, D.C., which, by the way, I posted on X today a picture of the cherry blossoms. Absolutely breathtaking. A gift to us, by the way, from the nation of Japan. And so we always look forward to seeing in the basin around the Jefferson Memorial when those blossoms pop open and tourists come from around the world to literally see it. And it is spectacular. So I can tell you, in my neck of the woods, March came in like a lion. It is going out by a lamb. I don't know how it is in your neighborhood, but I can tell you that's what's going to happen. For March. We turn the page and tomorrow is April Fool's Day. Don't you be fooling anybody, okay? I have to be very careful. I remember what happened to Orson Welles when he tried to fool people over the radio. And the rest is broadcast history. So no April Fool's jokes for me. But here's no joke. Tomorrow we have a brand new truth tool, which means today is the last day you can get your copy of Does Christianity Still make sense? Doctor Bobby Conway is the author. He calls himself a former skeptic, and what he wanted to do was to respond to today's toughest objections to Christianity. You know, the questions like, why are there so many scandals in the church and aren't Christians just a bunch of hypocrites? And why do Christians use God's name to oppress others? You know, those kinds of tough questions that really kind of get us stuck in a spot and we don't know how to respond. We feel embarrassed. We feel ashamed. We're afraid we're going to give the right answer. Well, this book does Christianity still make sense? Gives you the answers. So when someone asks you and trust me, someone will bring up this kind of a question. That is, of course, if you're out there in the marketplace of ideas and you have fire in your bones to go out and share the gospel message, somebody's going to bring these points up and you are going to want to know how to respond. That's why I chose this book. But today's the last day. You can get it. We're listener supported radio, and when you give a financial gift, I want in some way, shape or form for you to know how much I appreciate it. And the best way I can do that is to pick what I call a truth tool, some resource that's going to help you grow up in Christ, get you off that diet of milk into a diet of meat, and get some spiritual heft on your bones. And because the idea is to get you out into the marketplace of ideas, this book is a perfect selection. But at midnight. Dong. Dong. Dong. Forget Cinderella, the pumpkin and the shoes. This book goes into the annals of history, so if you don't yet have your copy of Does Christianity Still make sense? All you have to do is call 877 Janet 58. That's 877. Janet 58. Give a gift of any amount and we'll send you a copy of. Does Christianity Still make sense? You can do it online if you're a preferred person who likes that kind of internet stuff all the time, just go to in the market with Janet parshall.org. Scroll to the bottom of the page. There's the title of the book. Click it on Make Your Gift. We'll send you a copy of Does Christianity Still make Sense? By the way, when you're there, you might want to discover what it means to be a partial partner. Those are people. And that list is growing and growing and growing, who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. My way of saying thank you to partial partners is by always making sure you're offered the truth tool, and weekly you get a newsletter that includes some of my writing and an audio piece that only my partial partners hear. So. 877 Janet 58. Say, I either want to be a partial partner or I want to become, or I want a copy of. Does Christianity still makes sense or do it online in the market with Janet Parshall. Oh, in the market with Janet Parshall. But tomorrow we turn the page. New month. April showers will, I'm pretty sure, bring those May flowers, but it also will bring a brand new truth tool. Big day at the Supreme Court today. Members of Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior were at the Supreme Court asking the court to confirm that its case for the poor, the elderly and the disabled is part of its religious mission. Can I say that again? The poor, the elderly, the disabled, according to the Catholic Charities in Wisconsin, say that's part of our religious mission. I don't know, it sounds kind of New Testament to me. But then again, so in this case, it's called Catholic Charities Bureau versus Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court activist court, by the way, that's why Elon Musk was there this past weekend because they have an election coming up for their court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last year that Catholic Charities ministry to the poor and needy were not, quote, typical of religious activity. When you do it to the least of these, my brothers, you do it to me. I mean, wow, that's pretty generally understood. Even if you're not a Christ follower. But the Supreme Court said, no, no, that's not typical religious activity. And that meant for the Catholic Charities, they couldn't join the Wisconsin Catholic Churches unemployment and compensation program, but was stuck paying into the state's less efficient and more costly plan. They were represented by Becket, Go Becket and I just love that. Legal organization Catholic Charities asked the justices to protect its freedom to join the church program. Now, I have to tell you and again, you never predict. You never try to read the tea leaves when it comes to the Supreme Court justices. But based on the Q&A back and forth today during oral arguments, it looks like the court just might be poised to protect Catholic Charities and recognize certainly the religious work that's being done there. Just a couple of Catholics who sit up on that High court. So I think they pretty much have figured that out ahead of time. So Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, said, for over a century, Catholic Charities has been a good Samaritan to the poor, elderly and disabled throughout northern Wisconsin. We pray the court protects this vital work of improving the human condition, recognizing recognizing it as central to our duty as Catholics. So there's something you can pray about because this is about religious liberty writ large, not just the Catholic Church, by the way, but religious liberties writ large. For the Wisconsin State Supreme Court saying that the disabled and the elderly and the poor are not part of their religious activities. Well, that's that's just so far afield. It's amazing to me. But then again, it makes perfect sense because, you know, we talked about this on Friday with Craig, um, that there was going to be a satanic black mass inside the Kansas State House. Why? Because this group of Satanists wanted to make sure that no more pro-life laws got passed. And though they kind of want to stick their thumb in the eye of pro-lifers in Kansas. Well guess what? It got a little nasty. There was actually a showdown between Satanists and Christian counter-protesters on Friday. This was after Craig and I talked about this, and that's when a Satanic leader tried to perform a Satanic ritual inside the statehouse in violation of an order by the governor. So the leader of the group called the Satanic Grotto. They always have these interesting names. And three other people were arrested in the incident. So the founder of the Satanic group, and I'm not naming him on national radio, he's had his five seconds of fame already, has vowed to hold a demonic ritual as a form of therapeutic blasphemy inside the Capitol, even though the governor, Laura Kelly, had declared that the Black Mass would not be allowed indoors, he had temporarily banned all protests inside the rotunda. Well, he tried to have that mass and he held up the Eucharist, and he threw it on the ground. And there was a scuffle. And long story short, he ended up being put in cuffs and he got taken away. Now we'll see what happens when it's all said and done. Uh, But it's one. It's wonderful to see that there's a governor who has issued an order to block all those protests that were dealing with that kind of specific bigotry, by the way. Uh, and it was interesting because a pastor at a church in Kansas City said, the Bible says Satan comes to steal, kill, and destroy. And so when we dedicated a state to Satan, we're dedicating it to death back after this. What happens when a pastor starts questioning everything he believes? Our truth tool this month is a raw, honest journey through doubt to deeper faith in does Christianity still makes sense? Doctor Bobby Conway addresses 20 of Christianity's toughest challenges. As for your copy of Does Christianity still make sense when you give a gift of any amount to in the market, call eight 7758, that's eight 7758 or go to in the market with Janet parshall.org. We always love spending time with Doctor Michael Njoo, who's an associate assistant rather professor of business at the Catholic University of America. He's also senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. And Michael, you were busy this weekend. Before we jump into a couple of pieces that you've written recently for National Review, which you do all the time. And so many of us are so grateful for that, actually, in front of the Planned Parenthood of Washington, DC this weekend. What happened?

Hi, friends. Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. A very happy Monday to you. I hope your week has started out well. Well, it is the last day of March and in my neck of the woods here in Washington, D.C., which, by the way, I posted on X today a picture of the cherry blossoms. Absolutely breathtaking. A gift to us, by the way, from the nation of Japan. And so we always look forward to seeing in the basin around the Jefferson Memorial when those blossoms pop open and tourists come from around the world to literally see it. And it is spectacular. So I can tell you, in my neck of the woods, March came in like a lion. It is going out by a lamb. I don't know how it is in your neighborhood, but I can tell you that's what's going to happen. For March. We turn the page and tomorrow is April Fool's Day. Don't you be fooling anybody, okay? I have to be very careful. I remember what happened to Orson Welles when he tried to fool people over the radio. And the rest is broadcast history. So no April Fool's jokes for me. But here's no joke. Tomorrow we have a brand new truth tool, which means today is the last day you can get your copy of Does Christianity Still make sense? Doctor Bobby Conway is the author. He calls himself a former skeptic, and what he wanted to do was to respond to today's toughest objections to Christianity. You know, the questions like, why are there so many scandals in the church and aren't Christians just a bunch of hypocrites? And why do Christians use God's name to oppress others? You know, those kinds of tough questions that really kind of get us stuck in a spot and we don't know how to respond. We feel embarrassed. We feel ashamed. We're afraid we're going to give the right answer. Well, this book does Christianity still make sense? Gives you the answers. So when someone asks you and trust me, someone will bring up this kind of a question. That is, of course, if you're out there in the marketplace of ideas and you have fire in your bones to go out and share the gospel message, somebody's going to bring these points up and you are going to want to know how to respond. That's why I chose this book. But today's the last day. You can get it. We're listener supported radio, and when you give a financial gift, I want in some way, shape or form for you to know how much I appreciate it. And the best way I can do that is to pick what I call a truth tool, some resource that's going to help you grow up in Christ, get you off that diet of milk into a diet of meat, and get some spiritual heft on your bones. And because the idea is to get you out into the marketplace of ideas, this book is a perfect selection. But at midnight. Dong. Dong. Dong. Forget Cinderella, the pumpkin and the shoes. This book goes into the annals of history, so if you don't yet have your copy of Does Christianity Still make sense? All you have to do is call 877 Janet 58. That's 877. Janet 58. Give a gift of any amount and we'll send you a copy of. Does Christianity Still make sense? You can do it online if you're a preferred person who likes that kind of internet stuff all the time, just go to in the market with Janet parshall.org. Scroll to the bottom of the page. There's the title of the book. Click it on Make Your Gift. We'll send you a copy of Does Christianity Still make Sense? By the way, when you're there, you might want to discover what it means to be a partial partner. Those are people. And that list is growing and growing and growing, who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. My way of saying thank you to partial partners is by always making sure you're offered the truth tool, and weekly you get a newsletter that includes some of my writing and an audio piece that only my partial partners hear. So. 877 Janet 58. Say, I either want to be a partial partner or I want to become, or I want a copy of. Does Christianity still makes sense or do it online in the market with Janet Parshall. Oh, in the market with Janet Parshall. But tomorrow we turn the page. New month. April showers will, I'm pretty sure, bring those May flowers, but it also will bring a brand new truth tool. Big day at the Supreme Court today. Members of Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior were at the Supreme Court asking the court to confirm that its case for the poor, the elderly and the disabled is part of its religious mission. Can I say that again? The poor, the elderly, the disabled, according to the Catholic Charities in Wisconsin, say that's part of our religious mission. I don't know, it sounds kind of New Testament to me. But then again, so in this case, it's called Catholic Charities Bureau versus Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court activist court, by the way, that's why Elon Musk was there this past weekend because they have an election coming up for their court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last year that Catholic Charities ministry to the poor and needy were not, quote, typical of religious activity. When you do it to the least of these, my brothers, you do it to me. I mean, wow, that's pretty generally understood. Even if you're not a Christ follower. But the Supreme Court said, no, no, that's not typical religious activity. And that meant for the Catholic Charities, they couldn't join the Wisconsin Catholic Churches unemployment and compensation program, but was stuck paying into the state's less efficient and more costly plan. They were represented by Becket, Go Becket and I just love that. Legal organization Catholic Charities asked the justices to protect its freedom to join the church program. Now, I have to tell you and again, you never predict. You never try to read the tea leaves when it comes to the Supreme Court justices. But based on the Q&A back and forth today during oral arguments, it looks like the court just might be poised to protect Catholic Charities and recognize certainly the religious work that's being done there. Just a couple of Catholics who sit up on that High court. So I think they pretty much have figured that out ahead of time. So Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, said, for over a century, Catholic Charities has been a good Samaritan to the poor, elderly and disabled throughout northern Wisconsin. We pray the court protects this vital work of improving the human condition, recognizing recognizing it as central to our duty as Catholics. So there's something you can pray about because this is about religious liberty writ large, not just the Catholic Church, by the way, but religious liberties writ large. For the Wisconsin State Supreme Court saying that the disabled and the elderly and the poor are not part of their religious activities. Well, that's that's just so far afield. It's amazing to me. But then again, it makes perfect sense because, you know, we talked about this on Friday with Craig, um, that there was going to be a satanic black mass inside the Kansas State House. Why? Because this group of Satanists wanted to make sure that no more pro-life laws got passed. And though they kind of want to stick their thumb in the eye of pro-lifers in Kansas. Well guess what? It got a little nasty. There was actually a showdown between Satanists and Christian counter-protesters on Friday. This was after Craig and I talked about this, and that's when a Satanic leader tried to perform a Satanic ritual inside the statehouse in violation of an order by the governor. So the leader of the group called the Satanic Grotto. They always have these interesting names. And three other people were arrested in the incident. So the founder of the Satanic group, and I'm not naming him on national radio, he's had his five seconds of fame already, has vowed to hold a demonic ritual as a form of therapeutic blasphemy inside the Capitol, even though the governor, Laura Kelly, had declared that the Black Mass would not be allowed indoors, he had temporarily banned all protests inside the rotunda. Well, he tried to have that mass and he held up the Eucharist, and he threw it on the ground. And there was a scuffle. And long story short, he ended up being put in cuffs and he got taken away. Now we'll see what happens when it's all said and done. Uh, But it's one. It's wonderful to see that there's a governor who has issued an order to block all those protests that were dealing with that kind of specific bigotry, by the way. Uh, and it was interesting because a pastor at a church in Kansas City said, the Bible says Satan comes to steal, kill, and destroy. And so when we dedicated a state to Satan, we're dedicating it to death back after this. What happens when a pastor starts questioning everything he believes? Our truth tool this month is a raw, honest journey through doubt to deeper faith in does Christianity still makes sense? Doctor Bobby Conway addresses 20 of Christianity's toughest challenges. As for your copy of Does Christianity still make sense when you give a gift of any amount to in the market, call eight 7758, that's eight 7758 or go to in the market with Janet parshall.org. We always love spending time with Doctor Michael Njoo, who's an associate assistant rather professor of business at the Catholic University of America. He's also senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. And Michael, you were busy this weekend. Before we jump into a couple of pieces that you've written recently for National Review, which you do all the time. And so many of us are so grateful for that, actually, in front of the Planned Parenthood of Washington, DC this weekend. What happened?

Yeah, I run a pro-life sidewalk counseling ministry, so I am there every Saturday morning with a group of people, some of whom pray. Some of whom sidewalk counsel and try to offer pro-life alternatives to women seeking abortions. You know, it's very powerful being there. I mean, writing and research is great, but we're not going to win this. Flying a desk often need to be there where the action is happening. And we saw a lot of women leave the Planned Parenthood with white bags and exit with a white bag. That usually means she has a chemical abortion pill. So right toward the end, we just saw, I hate to use this phrase, like a parade. Ten, 11. 12 women just left with these white bags. We do have literature on abortion, pill reversal. You know, if a woman acts quickly, she can take progesterone. Uh, there's a good chance that pregnancy can be saved. So we do offer that to them. And thankfully, a few women did take those pamphlets. Uh, they didn't seem real enthusiastic, but they did take them. So please pray for them. Uh, their women, their partners, the unborn children. And we do our best out there. You know, we can't save all the children, but we can love them, and we can give them all some dignity. So we did the best we could.

Yeah, I run a pro-life sidewalk counseling ministry, so I am there every Saturday morning with a group of people, some of whom pray. Some of whom sidewalk counsel and try to offer pro-life alternatives to women seeking abortions. You know, it's very powerful being there. I mean, writing and research is great, but we're not going to win this. Flying a desk often need to be there where the action is happening. And we saw a lot of women leave the Planned Parenthood with white bags and exit with a white bag. That usually means she has a chemical abortion pill. So right toward the end, we just saw, I hate to use this phrase, like a parade. Ten, 11. 12 women just left with these white bags. We do have literature on abortion, pill reversal. You know, if a woman acts quickly, she can take progesterone. Uh, there's a good chance that pregnancy can be saved. So we do offer that to them. And thankfully, a few women did take those pamphlets. Uh, they didn't seem real enthusiastic, but they did take them. So please pray for them. Uh, their women, their partners, the unborn children. And we do our best out there. You know, we can't save all the children, but we can love them, and we can give them all some dignity. So we did the best we could.

Oh, Michael, you know, the Bible says out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. And it's just precious to hear your heart on this. And also, I think, for our friends, helps them understand that you're not just professorial someone, somewhere in a dusty library, doing research on all of the things that intersect with the issue of life, that you really put shoe leather in what you believe, which I think is precious. But let me linger here just a little bit longer, because you painted this very somber picture of women parading out. And I think your word is apt. Carrying white bags indicative of having received chemical abortion drugs. Praise God. There is a way to intercede if it's done in a timely fashion, and we do need to pray for those women who did take begrudgingly or not did take the literature. And maybe God will change their hearts as they start this. Or maybe they won't even start it at all once they read the literature that's there. But Michael, this changes everything about abortion. I know we're in a Dobbs world now, not a real world, but chemical abortion really is such a severe and deadly game changer, is it not?

Oh, Michael, you know, the Bible says out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. And it's just precious to hear your heart on this. And also, I think, for our friends, helps them understand that you're not just professorial someone, somewhere in a dusty library, doing research on all of the things that intersect with the issue of life, that you really put shoe leather in what you believe, which I think is precious. But let me linger here just a little bit longer, because you painted this very somber picture of women parading out. And I think your word is apt. Carrying white bags indicative of having received chemical abortion drugs. Praise God. There is a way to intercede if it's done in a timely fashion, and we do need to pray for those women who did take begrudgingly or not did take the literature. And maybe God will change their hearts as they start this. Or maybe they won't even start it at all once they read the literature that's there. But Michael, this changes everything about abortion. I know we're in a Dobbs world now, not a real world, but chemical abortion really is such a severe and deadly game changer, is it not?

Correct? Essentially, I mean, a very high percentage of all abortions are now chemical abortions. I think it's over 60%. Now. What's even more insidious and more dangerous is telehealth. You know, during the pandemic, the Biden administration allowed women to obtain these dangerous chemical abortion drugs without in-person medical exam. And they continued this unwise policy even after the Covid 19 pandemic ended. And this is obviously fatal for unborn children, but terrible public health for women. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy obtains chemical abortion, that can be fatal. If she's further along in gestation, she realizes and obtains a chemical abortion that can have some very negative health consequences. So, uh, it's just insidious. Uh, we're really hoping that RFK Jr and his team and HHS and FDA put some safeguards, put some clamps on these chemical abortion drugs, and try to be a good incremental step toward building a culture of life.

Correct? Essentially, I mean, a very high percentage of all abortions are now chemical abortions. I think it's over 60%. Now. What's even more insidious and more dangerous is telehealth. You know, during the pandemic, the Biden administration allowed women to obtain these dangerous chemical abortion drugs without in-person medical exam. And they continued this unwise policy even after the Covid 19 pandemic ended. And this is obviously fatal for unborn children, but terrible public health for women. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy obtains chemical abortion, that can be fatal. If she's further along in gestation, she realizes and obtains a chemical abortion that can have some very negative health consequences. So, uh, it's just insidious. Uh, we're really hoping that RFK Jr and his team and HHS and FDA put some safeguards, put some clamps on these chemical abortion drugs, and try to be a good incremental step toward building a culture of life.

Amen. Couldn't agree more. You know, I was encouraged that he did say that he felt the abortion pill does need serious reconsideration. So let's hope he likewise puts shoe leather to that and follows through. But thank you so much for what you did on Saturday, what you do every Saturday with that pro-life ministry. And thank you for reminding us that we talk about these things on the air. But so many of these decisions, literally life and death decisions, end up being made Saturday down at the local clinic. So thank you for your presence and for being there. But it really segues beautifully into a piece that you wrote in the middle of March about data collection. And Guttmacher, which is basically the research arm of Planned Parenthood, doesn't like the fact that people want to keep data on the numbers of abortion in this country. Pick it up from there and explain why.

Amen. Couldn't agree more. You know, I was encouraged that he did say that he felt the abortion pill does need serious reconsideration. So let's hope he likewise puts shoe leather to that and follows through. But thank you so much for what you did on Saturday, what you do every Saturday with that pro-life ministry. And thank you for reminding us that we talk about these things on the air. But so many of these decisions, literally life and death decisions, end up being made Saturday down at the local clinic. So thank you for your presence and for being there. But it really segues beautifully into a piece that you wrote in the middle of March about data collection. And Guttmacher, which is basically the research arm of Planned Parenthood, doesn't like the fact that people want to keep data on the numbers of abortion in this country. Pick it up from there and explain why.

Yeah. It's disappointing. Guttmacher. Up until around 2006, 2007 was the official research arm of Planned Parenthood. They have a very strong pro abortion, pro contraception bias. And they came out with a policy piece in March that said that they oppose rules that require abortion facilities to release data on the amount of abortions they do. And I think this is just, again, you know, the other side likes to claim they're on the side of science and transparency. That's not the case. You know, I think good, accurate data on abortion would help everybody in this debate. It would give us some good information about the impact of contraception programs, impact of sex education programs, Impact of different pro-life laws and policies. You know, again, I think more data, more transparency should be, you know, supported by everyone. They claim there's issues with privacy, but it's hard to see how aggregate abortion data will compromise anybody's privacy. I mean, in situations where there's small counties or small towns, there's ways to, you know, hide and conceal certain things. Um, you know, the CDC and other professionals have done that for years. Uh, but again, I think the privacy complaints are very weak. Uh, we need accurate data. And it's just disappointing to see a research arm like Guttmacher come out against, you know, Acura comprehensive abortion data.

Yeah. It's disappointing. Guttmacher. Up until around 2006, 2007 was the official research arm of Planned Parenthood. They have a very strong pro abortion, pro contraception bias. And they came out with a policy piece in March that said that they oppose rules that require abortion facilities to release data on the amount of abortions they do. And I think this is just, again, you know, the other side likes to claim they're on the side of science and transparency. That's not the case. You know, I think good, accurate data on abortion would help everybody in this debate. It would give us some good information about the impact of contraception programs, impact of sex education programs, Impact of different pro-life laws and policies. You know, again, I think more data, more transparency should be, you know, supported by everyone. They claim there's issues with privacy, but it's hard to see how aggregate abortion data will compromise anybody's privacy. I mean, in situations where there's small counties or small towns, there's ways to, you know, hide and conceal certain things. Um, you know, the CDC and other professionals have done that for years. Uh, but again, I think the privacy complaints are very weak. Uh, we need accurate data. And it's just disappointing to see a research arm like Guttmacher come out against, you know, Acura comprehensive abortion data.

Well, in the privacy issue is a cudgel when it's convenient. I mean, how private were things when they were trying to force you to take the vaccine for Covid? So privacy apparently is a revolving door, and you don't even have to violate a woman's privacy. You can simply decide how many abortions have been done and where you point out in the article. And this was stunning that California hasn't reported any abortion data to the CDC since 1997. How many other states are like that?

Well, in the privacy issue is a cudgel when it's convenient. I mean, how private were things when they were trying to force you to take the vaccine for Covid? So privacy apparently is a revolving door, and you don't even have to violate a woman's privacy. You can simply decide how many abortions have been done and where you point out in the article. And this was stunning that California hasn't reported any abortion data to the CDC since 1997. How many other states are like that?

Right? I mean, the reporting requirements for abortion are very weak in this country, that the CDC does collect data, but states are under no real obligation to report data. So California has not done so since 1997. Other states frequently don't report, including Maryland, where I live. New Hampshire is another state that doesn't report. Again, I think it's just tragic that again, no matter what you think about legal abortion, you know, data on this issue can be helpful to policymakers. You know, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies. We want to reduce abortions. You know, good data can help us do that.

Right? I mean, the reporting requirements for abortion are very weak in this country, that the CDC does collect data, but states are under no real obligation to report data. So California has not done so since 1997. Other states frequently don't report, including Maryland, where I live. New Hampshire is another state that doesn't report. Again, I think it's just tragic that again, no matter what you think about legal abortion, you know, data on this issue can be helpful to policymakers. You know, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies. We want to reduce abortions. You know, good data can help us do that.

Now, you write in your piece, which was excellent, as always, Michael, that the Charlotte Lozier Institute ranks states on the quality, detail and timeliness timeliness of their abortion data. In contrast, you write organizations that favor abortion rights have never Ever expended serious political capital trying to improve the quality or reliability of publicly reported abortion data. Well, as so much of a shell game going on in this again life and death issue, we've got more to talk about because, of course, Doctor Michael Njoo has written more. In fact, he's very prolific in his writing and we're very grateful for that. So stay tuned. More with doctor Michael Njoo right after this. We're visiting with Doctor Michael Njoo, who's an assistant professor at the School of Business at Catholic University. He's also a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. He writes frequently, and we're very grateful for that. Showing up on National Review Online. And a few days ago, a piece was written by Ryan Mills that dealt with the subject of abortion and this time in Medicaid. But you were quoted in this article, so what's the background on this? What's the issue right now that is being fomented in Colorado?

Now, you write in your piece, which was excellent, as always, Michael, that the Charlotte Lozier Institute ranks states on the quality, detail and timeliness timeliness of their abortion data. In contrast, you write organizations that favor abortion rights have never Ever expended serious political capital trying to improve the quality or reliability of publicly reported abortion data. Well, as so much of a shell game going on in this again life and death issue, we've got more to talk about because, of course, Doctor Michael Njoo has written more. In fact, he's very prolific in his writing and we're very grateful for that. So stay tuned. More with doctor Michael Njoo right after this. We're visiting with Doctor Michael Njoo, who's an assistant professor at the School of Business at Catholic University. He's also a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. He writes frequently, and we're very grateful for that. Showing up on National Review Online. And a few days ago, a piece was written by Ryan Mills that dealt with the subject of abortion and this time in Medicaid. But you were quoted in this article, so what's the background on this? What's the issue right now that is being fomented in Colorado?

No. Well it's interesting. Colorado is considering having their state Medicaid program pay for elective abortions. That Colorado put a stop to this practice in the mid 1980s. But unfortunately, this election cycle. Amendment 79 passed, which does allow for the state to use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. And that is an issue the state legislature is taking up right now. Democrats control the state legislature, so it's likely that this sadly will happen. What's sad, and even more tragic, is the rationale that some Democrats are giving. You had the speaker of the state House, uh, testified that this is a good thing because it will save taxpayers money. Um, I find this just shocking and appalling. You know, she claims that if women carry pregnancies to term, the Medicaid program will pay for their births if they obtain an abortion. The Medicaid program will pay for that, since abortions are cheaper than births. Um, the state should go ahead and pay for abortions. Um, you know, I think this is just ghastly. I think, you know, you don't get rid of problems or getting rid of people, and you certainly don't try to save money by aborting children. Uh, I'll add that the fiscal analysis she cites is flawed. Uh, one thing that's important to know is that because of the Hyde Amendment, if your state pays for abortion through Medicaid, uh, your state's pretty much paying the whole thing. But with other things, you know, Medicaid is subsidized with federal taxpayer dollars. So Colorado would only pay for a fraction of the births that occur through its state Medicaid program. So it's bad economics, bad politics, but even worse morals. Again, the fact that you would try to save money by aborting children, you know, I never think the other side could do anything worse, but they never cease to amaze me.

No. Well it's interesting. Colorado is considering having their state Medicaid program pay for elective abortions. That Colorado put a stop to this practice in the mid 1980s. But unfortunately, this election cycle. Amendment 79 passed, which does allow for the state to use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. And that is an issue the state legislature is taking up right now. Democrats control the state legislature, so it's likely that this sadly will happen. What's sad, and even more tragic, is the rationale that some Democrats are giving. You had the speaker of the state House, uh, testified that this is a good thing because it will save taxpayers money. Um, I find this just shocking and appalling. You know, she claims that if women carry pregnancies to term, the Medicaid program will pay for their births if they obtain an abortion. The Medicaid program will pay for that, since abortions are cheaper than births. Um, the state should go ahead and pay for abortions. Um, you know, I think this is just ghastly. I think, you know, you don't get rid of problems or getting rid of people, and you certainly don't try to save money by aborting children. Uh, I'll add that the fiscal analysis she cites is flawed. Uh, one thing that's important to know is that because of the Hyde Amendment, if your state pays for abortion through Medicaid, uh, your state's pretty much paying the whole thing. But with other things, you know, Medicaid is subsidized with federal taxpayer dollars. So Colorado would only pay for a fraction of the births that occur through its state Medicaid program. So it's bad economics, bad politics, but even worse morals. Again, the fact that you would try to save money by aborting children, you know, I never think the other side could do anything worse, but they never cease to amaze me.

Yeah, well, it's a doctrine that emanates from the halls of hell. That's why it's just this is a this a spiritual issue at its core? And that's why I think it's important we really expose this stuff to the disinfectant of sunlight. I mean, one of the members of the Colorado Senate and you, this is quoted in Ryan's article, said, ultimately, we do achieve a cost saving because of the averted births that will not take place. Now, that's about a sanitized language, as you can get. What she's saying in plain talk is we save money when a baby is killed, rather than have to fund through Medicaid when a baby survives. So, I mean, if you took that to its most illogical and immoral conclusion, Michael, you could say straight across the board, don't ever have kids because it costs government money. That's an unconscionable posture to take for any government.

Yeah, well, it's a doctrine that emanates from the halls of hell. That's why it's just this is a this a spiritual issue at its core? And that's why I think it's important we really expose this stuff to the disinfectant of sunlight. I mean, one of the members of the Colorado Senate and you, this is quoted in Ryan's article, said, ultimately, we do achieve a cost saving because of the averted births that will not take place. Now, that's about a sanitized language, as you can get. What she's saying in plain talk is we save money when a baby is killed, rather than have to fund through Medicaid when a baby survives. So, I mean, if you took that to its most illogical and immoral conclusion, Michael, you could say straight across the board, don't ever have kids because it costs government money. That's an unconscionable posture to take for any government.

Absolutely. I mean, kids cost money. I mean, you know, it takes money to educate kids, whether they're educated in public schools, private schools, religious schools. Kids don't work. They don't pay taxes. They are costs. But eventually they grow up into adults and mature adults and pay taxes down the road. And those costs are recouped. But the notion that, you know, we should provide dollars and cents about whether, you know, birth is more cost effective than abortion or vice versa is ridiculous. I mean, even going down this road further, should we encourage mothers to abort children with disabilities because certain disabilities will cost the state more? I mean, that's just heinous. You know, again, it never gets worse.

Absolutely. I mean, kids cost money. I mean, you know, it takes money to educate kids, whether they're educated in public schools, private schools, religious schools. Kids don't work. They don't pay taxes. They are costs. But eventually they grow up into adults and mature adults and pay taxes down the road. And those costs are recouped. But the notion that, you know, we should provide dollars and cents about whether, you know, birth is more cost effective than abortion or vice versa is ridiculous. I mean, even going down this road further, should we encourage mothers to abort children with disabilities because certain disabilities will cost the state more? I mean, that's just heinous. You know, again, it never gets worse.

Well, Michael, if you use the economic justification, then you you open the doors of hell wide because you really and truly that this is not this is Imago dei. These are our fellow human beings. We're not going to equate what their fiscal worth or burden is to a state's economy. Whether a child lives or does not live or comes into the world with some disabilities. And so you wonder what's going on in Colorado, who's got a real big problem with religious liberties to begin with? They've gone after Jack Phillips, you know, so many times. We're starting to lose count now. But the reality is, are they is there. And I'm going to use an Old Testament idea here. Are their consciences so seared and I don't care what party they belong to. It's immaterial. I'm talking about the transcendence of their belief or the other or the the really, it's not transcendence. It would be the degradation of their belief. But do they think they can make a statement that basically says the state's going to save money if we get more babies to die by abortion, that that is going to resonate with popularity throughout the state of Colorado. These are, after all, people who have to winsomely try to win votes to keep their job. The tone deafness on this is stunning to me.

Well, Michael, if you use the economic justification, then you you open the doors of hell wide because you really and truly that this is not this is Imago dei. These are our fellow human beings. We're not going to equate what their fiscal worth or burden is to a state's economy. Whether a child lives or does not live or comes into the world with some disabilities. And so you wonder what's going on in Colorado, who's got a real big problem with religious liberties to begin with? They've gone after Jack Phillips, you know, so many times. We're starting to lose count now. But the reality is, are they is there. And I'm going to use an Old Testament idea here. Are their consciences so seared and I don't care what party they belong to. It's immaterial. I'm talking about the transcendence of their belief or the other or the the really, it's not transcendence. It would be the degradation of their belief. But do they think they can make a statement that basically says the state's going to save money if we get more babies to die by abortion, that that is going to resonate with popularity throughout the state of Colorado. These are, after all, people who have to winsomely try to win votes to keep their job. The tone deafness on this is stunning to me.

Yeah. I mean, you would hope that Colorado voters would be paying attention to this. And, you know, even if you do think abortion should be a legal option, you would just find it repugnant that you would view abortion as some kind of cost saving strategy or cost saving mechanism. I mean, that's just I think would help be a bridge too far for anyone. You know, I think that, again, the notion that you're trying to quantify the value of human life, it's such a crass way is just just appalling. And I do hope voters are listening. And I do hope that, you know, there's a 26 elections. You see, pro-life people use this to their advantage.

Yeah. I mean, you would hope that Colorado voters would be paying attention to this. And, you know, even if you do think abortion should be a legal option, you would just find it repugnant that you would view abortion as some kind of cost saving strategy or cost saving mechanism. I mean, that's just I think would help be a bridge too far for anyone. You know, I think that, again, the notion that you're trying to quantify the value of human life, it's such a crass way is just just appalling. And I do hope voters are listening. And I do hope that, you know, there's a 26 elections. You see, pro-life people use this to their advantage.

Yeah, 100%. Right. I like what Ryan did. He quoted a man who's the president of Democrats for Life of Colorado, who apparently spoke before a committee hearing on this, and he said the analysis is so simplistic that it insults the intelligence of lawmakers who earnestly wish to understand the implications of state funding, and then went on to say, this is fiscal malpractice. Now, this is a Democrat for life who's making this statement? So as you are looking at this particular issue, what do you think the chances are that this gets out of a committee, gets to the floor and becomes the law of the land in Colorado?

Yeah, 100%. Right. I like what Ryan did. He quoted a man who's the president of Democrats for Life of Colorado, who apparently spoke before a committee hearing on this, and he said the analysis is so simplistic that it insults the intelligence of lawmakers who earnestly wish to understand the implications of state funding, and then went on to say, this is fiscal malpractice. Now, this is a Democrat for life who's making this statement? So as you are looking at this particular issue, what do you think the chances are that this gets out of a committee, gets to the floor and becomes the law of the land in Colorado?

You know, I'm not, you know, an expert on the nuances of Colorado politics. But Democrats in Colorado, like Democrats everywhere, have really moved a lot to the left. You know, if you look, you know, Democrats nationally, they oppose the Hyde Amendment. I think that's probably true of most Colorado Democrat state legislators. Sadly, I think Coloradans will have to pay for abortion with their taxpayer dollars. We can pray and we can try to get better people in office next time.

You know, I'm not, you know, an expert on the nuances of Colorado politics. But Democrats in Colorado, like Democrats everywhere, have really moved a lot to the left. You know, if you look, you know, Democrats nationally, they oppose the Hyde Amendment. I think that's probably true of most Colorado Democrat state legislators. Sadly, I think Coloradans will have to pay for abortion with their taxpayer dollars. We can pray and we can try to get better people in office next time.

Yeah, exactly. And the organization that you're associated with, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, over 3%. According to your institute, over 3% of abortions in Colorado occur after 21 weeks, higher than the national average, according to Colorado Health Department data. And by the way, pregnancy is on average 40 weeks. This means almost over over half through halfway through your pregnancy. Stunning. Michael, thank you so much. Always a delight. You open our eyes and you open our hearts and I appreciate you so much. Thank you. We'll talk again soon. We'll be back after this. We live in complicated times and in the market. We're helping you interpret complex cultural issues through the lens of Scripture. Our team of partial partners is growing. And to say thank you, they receive exclusive information from me. In fact, I talk to you directly from my personal computer to yours by email. Become a partial partner today and you'll receive these exclusive benefits. Call eight 7758 or go online to. In the market with Janet Parshall. We're going to turn our attention now to climate change. Steve Gorman joins us. He is the executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America. He's the author of Not One, but four books on energy, climate change and sustainable development. With over 100,000 copies in print, that number is growing all the time. His latest book, sitting right on my desk in front of me, green break down the coming renewable energy failure. Steve, the warmest of welcomes I always appreciate so much you're talking to us because you really countermand the narrative. That is, it's an agenda driven conversation and unfortunately not science driven. But I want to start with something that is interesting. If we're going to be cleaning house in America through Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, it is this idea of looking at wasteful spending that's going on. And part of the wasteful spending is taking place at the Pentagon. And so it was interesting because the Secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, says that his department isn't going to do climate change stuff. My mama said discretion is the better part of valor, so I won't use the word that he did. But instead he wants to focus on things like war fighting and training. Hello? That's pretty much what I think the Pentagon should be doing. So what's the background on this? You know, under the previous administration, there was this conversation all the time. And I don't think most Americans received it or believed it because it didn't show up. Even in the top ten issues of what voters voted on when they went to the polls. But the idea that somehow climate change was a, quote, existential threat coming out of the Department of Defense when you're watching nuclear capabilities build up in Iran, I'm pretty sure that doesn't resonate with the average American. So tell me about the past story and then what do you think the plans will be for the future here?

Yeah, exactly. And the organization that you're associated with, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, over 3%. According to your institute, over 3% of abortions in Colorado occur after 21 weeks, higher than the national average, according to Colorado Health Department data. And by the way, pregnancy is on average 40 weeks. This means almost over over half through halfway through your pregnancy. Stunning. Michael, thank you so much. Always a delight. You open our eyes and you open our hearts and I appreciate you so much. Thank you. We'll talk again soon. We'll be back after this. We live in complicated times and in the market. We're helping you interpret complex cultural issues through the lens of Scripture. Our team of partial partners is growing. And to say thank you, they receive exclusive information from me. In fact, I talk to you directly from my personal computer to yours by email. Become a partial partner today and you'll receive these exclusive benefits. Call eight 7758 or go online to. In the market with Janet Parshall. We're going to turn our attention now to climate change. Steve Gorman joins us. He is the executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America. He's the author of Not One, but four books on energy, climate change and sustainable development. With over 100,000 copies in print, that number is growing all the time. His latest book, sitting right on my desk in front of me, green break down the coming renewable energy failure. Steve, the warmest of welcomes I always appreciate so much you're talking to us because you really countermand the narrative. That is, it's an agenda driven conversation and unfortunately not science driven. But I want to start with something that is interesting. If we're going to be cleaning house in America through Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, it is this idea of looking at wasteful spending that's going on. And part of the wasteful spending is taking place at the Pentagon. And so it was interesting because the Secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, says that his department isn't going to do climate change stuff. My mama said discretion is the better part of valor, so I won't use the word that he did. But instead he wants to focus on things like war fighting and training. Hello? That's pretty much what I think the Pentagon should be doing. So what's the background on this? You know, under the previous administration, there was this conversation all the time. And I don't think most Americans received it or believed it because it didn't show up. Even in the top ten issues of what voters voted on when they went to the polls. But the idea that somehow climate change was a, quote, existential threat coming out of the Department of Defense when you're watching nuclear capabilities build up in Iran, I'm pretty sure that doesn't resonate with the average American. So tell me about the past story and then what do you think the plans will be for the future here?

Hey Janet, great to join you again. Yeah, the the the last decade and a half, the United States military has been embarked on this crazy idea that they need to change what they do to keep the climate in shape. By the way, the U.S., the Department of Defense is the biggest institutional user of petroleum fuel in the world, $4.6 billion a year. But way back about 2010, the, uh, Secretary of the Navy, um, said that, uh, he was going to do a great Green fleet. This was a Ray Mabus. And he said by 2020, half of the fuel that the Navy uses was going to be from non-petroleum sources. And so the Navy spent $100 billion from about 2010 up until the early 2020s trying to do a great green fleet. But they ran into all kinds of problems. Uh, the biofuels they were trying to use were very expensive. Seven times as expensive as diesel fuel. Uh, they also proposed they would do a bunch of, uh, hybrid destroyers that could run both on electric engines and on petroleum. But that was a disaster. The hybrid destroyers couldn't keep up with the carriers in the fleet, so they had to stop doing that, and they shut that down. And by 2020, by 2022, only a half of a half of a percent of the U.S. Navy came. Fuel came from biofuels. So it was a complete failure. But the Biden administration wanted to double down and doing all these sorts of things for climate change. I got a hold of a document on there, the Navy's Climate Action 2030 plan, and you should hear some of the things in here. This this reads just like what Elon Musk is saying. They did one project on Mekong Delta climate research collaboration with the government of Vietnam. Now, how is that for Navy readiness, right. Another one was California. California organic recycling and composting. They spent money on that. They worked on vector borne diseases in Ghana. You know, none of these things are Navy readiness sorts of things, But it's not only the Navy. We had the, the, the army that was saying they were going to convert all their vehicles to electric, even heavy vehicles in the field. And they were they were developing battlefield electric chargers for these vehicles, if you can imagine, because there's no charging stations on the battlefield. So they're going to bring those out there, you know, just goofy stuff. But anyway, night and day, black and white. Secretary Hegseth is getting rid of all of this stuff. And, um, it really is a big turnaround.

Hey Janet, great to join you again. Yeah, the the the last decade and a half, the United States military has been embarked on this crazy idea that they need to change what they do to keep the climate in shape. By the way, the U.S., the Department of Defense is the biggest institutional user of petroleum fuel in the world, $4.6 billion a year. But way back about 2010, the, uh, Secretary of the Navy, um, said that, uh, he was going to do a great Green fleet. This was a Ray Mabus. And he said by 2020, half of the fuel that the Navy uses was going to be from non-petroleum sources. And so the Navy spent $100 billion from about 2010 up until the early 2020s trying to do a great green fleet. But they ran into all kinds of problems. Uh, the biofuels they were trying to use were very expensive. Seven times as expensive as diesel fuel. Uh, they also proposed they would do a bunch of, uh, hybrid destroyers that could run both on electric engines and on petroleum. But that was a disaster. The hybrid destroyers couldn't keep up with the carriers in the fleet, so they had to stop doing that, and they shut that down. And by 2020, by 2022, only a half of a half of a percent of the U.S. Navy came. Fuel came from biofuels. So it was a complete failure. But the Biden administration wanted to double down and doing all these sorts of things for climate change. I got a hold of a document on there, the Navy's Climate Action 2030 plan, and you should hear some of the things in here. This this reads just like what Elon Musk is saying. They did one project on Mekong Delta climate research collaboration with the government of Vietnam. Now, how is that for Navy readiness, right. Another one was California. California organic recycling and composting. They spent money on that. They worked on vector borne diseases in Ghana. You know, none of these things are Navy readiness sorts of things, But it's not only the Navy. We had the, the, the army that was saying they were going to convert all their vehicles to electric, even heavy vehicles in the field. And they were they were developing battlefield electric chargers for these vehicles, if you can imagine, because there's no charging stations on the battlefield. So they're going to bring those out there, you know, just goofy stuff. But anyway, night and day, black and white. Secretary Hegseth is getting rid of all of this stuff. And, um, it really is a big turnaround.

100%, 100%. And keeping the job of the military to protect us, to keep us safe. That's really what it's all about. Let me go back to what you said before, because I want to make sure friends understand that, that this isn't a tall tale. This is not a Bunyan Paul Bunyan story. This is a real tale. When I heard about the Army wanting to work with EVs on the battlefield, I just. I stopped in my tracks because I thought, surely I've heard that wrong. Are you going to tell the enemy to stop firing while you plug in your vehicle and recharge it, and then go back to the battle again. So this is where the the blind allegiance to agenda is the quickest killer of common sense, it seems to me. And so many of these issues really at their core, while they masquerade as political issues, they're common sense issues. If your job is to build a military fighting machine, which is what the Department of Defense is all about to keep America safe, which, by the way, let the record reflect is the job of government biblically is to protect its people, to foster good, to keep away evil. Then why you would be spending billions and billions of dollars on these projects that really and truly have nothing to do with building a strong national defense is stunning to me. So again, it's turning the page. It's a new day and I think there's a lot of housekeeping going on. So thank you for providing that to us to let us know that there's a turnaround there. This is really what I think Americans want. So what are the changes to the US climate policy and staffing. Because this is we just talked about a new day. So we've got various agencies. We've got NOAA, we've got the Environmental Protection Agency, we've got FEMA. How are all of these which intersect with the environment at some point? How are the what are the changes we should anticipate here?

100%, 100%. And keeping the job of the military to protect us, to keep us safe. That's really what it's all about. Let me go back to what you said before, because I want to make sure friends understand that, that this isn't a tall tale. This is not a Bunyan Paul Bunyan story. This is a real tale. When I heard about the Army wanting to work with EVs on the battlefield, I just. I stopped in my tracks because I thought, surely I've heard that wrong. Are you going to tell the enemy to stop firing while you plug in your vehicle and recharge it, and then go back to the battle again. So this is where the the blind allegiance to agenda is the quickest killer of common sense, it seems to me. And so many of these issues really at their core, while they masquerade as political issues, they're common sense issues. If your job is to build a military fighting machine, which is what the Department of Defense is all about to keep America safe, which, by the way, let the record reflect is the job of government biblically is to protect its people, to foster good, to keep away evil. Then why you would be spending billions and billions of dollars on these projects that really and truly have nothing to do with building a strong national defense is stunning to me. So again, it's turning the page. It's a new day and I think there's a lot of housekeeping going on. So thank you for providing that to us to let us know that there's a turnaround there. This is really what I think Americans want. So what are the changes to the US climate policy and staffing. Because this is we just talked about a new day. So we've got various agencies. We've got NOAA, we've got the Environmental Protection Agency, we've got FEMA. How are all of these which intersect with the environment at some point? How are the what are the changes we should anticipate here?

Yeah, they're all they're all working on it now. Uh, NOAA has talked about, uh, cutting I think they've cut 1000 staff. They're cutting another thousand out of a 13,000 staff group. Um, the, uh, NASA has been told that they're going to concentrate on space. Isn't that isn't that refreshing? Right. And they have a bunch of climate departments, and those are being cut. The Environmental Protection Agency is cutting a lot of their their climate work. And the climate area in Federal Emergency Management Agency is also going away. And they're even taking out, uh, the language of climate change. The U.S. Coast Guard, which is, uh, part of the Department of Homeland Security, has announced it's removing climate change from its academic curriculum. And this is just going throughout the departments, Months in the United States. The another example is the General Services Administration, which is responsible for all federal buildings. They were going to build 8000 electric vehicle chargers. They have shut that down. They're not going to build any. They're not going to have funding for it. And they're going to get rid of any electric vehicles they have bought. So so this is a really a really a big change. Oh, by the way, just, uh, just a week ago, Tulsi Gabbard was in front of the, the Senate and, uh, talking about their annual threat assessment, which is something the intelligence community does every year. And, um, one of the senators, um, let's see, who was that? I've. I've lost his name. Oh, wait a minute here. Yeah, it was Angus King of Maine. Noted he'd been on the committee for 13 years, and he said every climate change was regarded as a threat to national security. For the last 13 years. And he asked, why is it in the document? And Tulsi Gabbard said, well, I didn't I didn't order everybody to admit it, but it's not there anymore. So this is what's going on throughout the administration. Now it's just being erased. And again, the only sensible policy for climate is adaptation. To think that we can mitigate the climate, mitigate temperatures. There's really no evidence that is true.

Yeah, they're all they're all working on it now. Uh, NOAA has talked about, uh, cutting I think they've cut 1000 staff. They're cutting another thousand out of a 13,000 staff group. Um, the, uh, NASA has been told that they're going to concentrate on space. Isn't that isn't that refreshing? Right. And they have a bunch of climate departments, and those are being cut. The Environmental Protection Agency is cutting a lot of their their climate work. And the climate area in Federal Emergency Management Agency is also going away. And they're even taking out, uh, the language of climate change. The U.S. Coast Guard, which is, uh, part of the Department of Homeland Security, has announced it's removing climate change from its academic curriculum. And this is just going throughout the departments, Months in the United States. The another example is the General Services Administration, which is responsible for all federal buildings. They were going to build 8000 electric vehicle chargers. They have shut that down. They're not going to build any. They're not going to have funding for it. And they're going to get rid of any electric vehicles they have bought. So so this is a really a really a big change. Oh, by the way, just, uh, just a week ago, Tulsi Gabbard was in front of the, the Senate and, uh, talking about their annual threat assessment, which is something the intelligence community does every year. And, um, one of the senators, um, let's see, who was that? I've. I've lost his name. Oh, wait a minute here. Yeah, it was Angus King of Maine. Noted he'd been on the committee for 13 years, and he said every climate change was regarded as a threat to national security. For the last 13 years. And he asked, why is it in the document? And Tulsi Gabbard said, well, I didn't I didn't order everybody to admit it, but it's not there anymore. So this is what's going on throughout the administration. Now it's just being erased. And again, the only sensible policy for climate is adaptation. To think that we can mitigate the climate, mitigate temperatures. There's really no evidence that is true.

You know what's interesting on that point? And let me linger here, because I think it's a very important one. It's a pressing issue when we think about the fact that I love the way we have all these conversations about the climate, and ultimately, I know the one who made the climate. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't need man to tell him what to do. But the reality is, we've already got the prophets of doom saying, oh, this is going to be an absolutely horrible hurricane season. Now I'm on the Mid-Atlantic, so we obviously care about this. I have listeners all over the country who are impacted by hurricanes, but the reality is when they start doing these doomsday predictions and I'm sure they're looking at their models, it's just that it's like my talking to a guy on Wall Street who's telling me what the Dow is going to do six months from now. So you have to take all of that stuff with a grain of salt. But it really at its core, this is a change in worldview, is it not? If you no longer look at climate change as a, quote, existential threat, if you decide that you're going to determine what is the role of the federal government in the lives of the people of this country, you start trimming and you start redirecting, and some people are going to like it because it comes into an alliance with their particular worldview. And others are going to say, you're not advancing my agenda. I take umbrage with this. And that's why the only mitigator here is science. It seems to me to be able to say, look, science is the great leveler. It doesn't care what your opinion is. It's just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts. As they used to say in Dragnet, if you don't know what that is, you can Google it. But I love my conversations with you because you come back with the facts. And I think that's important. So talk to me because people outside of the Beltway in Washington, D.C. might not know what the GSA is, the General Services Administration, what is that and what do they do or going to do in regards to the climate.

You know what's interesting on that point? And let me linger here, because I think it's a very important one. It's a pressing issue when we think about the fact that I love the way we have all these conversations about the climate, and ultimately, I know the one who made the climate. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't need man to tell him what to do. But the reality is, we've already got the prophets of doom saying, oh, this is going to be an absolutely horrible hurricane season. Now I'm on the Mid-Atlantic, so we obviously care about this. I have listeners all over the country who are impacted by hurricanes, but the reality is when they start doing these doomsday predictions and I'm sure they're looking at their models, it's just that it's like my talking to a guy on Wall Street who's telling me what the Dow is going to do six months from now. So you have to take all of that stuff with a grain of salt. But it really at its core, this is a change in worldview, is it not? If you no longer look at climate change as a, quote, existential threat, if you decide that you're going to determine what is the role of the federal government in the lives of the people of this country, you start trimming and you start redirecting, and some people are going to like it because it comes into an alliance with their particular worldview. And others are going to say, you're not advancing my agenda. I take umbrage with this. And that's why the only mitigator here is science. It seems to me to be able to say, look, science is the great leveler. It doesn't care what your opinion is. It's just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts. As they used to say in Dragnet, if you don't know what that is, you can Google it. But I love my conversations with you because you come back with the facts. And I think that's important. So talk to me because people outside of the Beltway in Washington, D.C. might not know what the GSA is, the General Services Administration, what is that and what do they do or going to do in regards to the climate.

Yeah. And again, they are they are responsible for all the federal buildings. And they have no more money for EV chargers. So they're they are they're getting rid of that. They're shutting that down. And they're they're awfully offloading their EV fleet. And this is this is very apparent in the United States because what the Trump administration is doing. But there's a lot of undercurrents across the globe. A good friend of mine, Doctor Benny Peiser in England, was just pointing out he thinks that most of the people in Europe have have changed their opinion. They think this climate thing isn't something to be feared. They're worn out about all of this. We also had the alternative for Deutschland. It's now the second biggest party in Germany. Uh, they have like 22% of the vote in the last election. And part of their plank is to ban all wind turbines. So we sort of see this arising in a lot of places around the world. And then in the US as well, we, uh, not only the federal government, but we now have towns and cities pushing back against green energy.

Yeah. And again, they are they are responsible for all the federal buildings. And they have no more money for EV chargers. So they're they are they're getting rid of that. They're shutting that down. And they're they're awfully offloading their EV fleet. And this is this is very apparent in the United States because what the Trump administration is doing. But there's a lot of undercurrents across the globe. A good friend of mine, Doctor Benny Peiser in England, was just pointing out he thinks that most of the people in Europe have have changed their opinion. They think this climate thing isn't something to be feared. They're worn out about all of this. We also had the alternative for Deutschland. It's now the second biggest party in Germany. Uh, they have like 22% of the vote in the last election. And part of their plank is to ban all wind turbines. So we sort of see this arising in a lot of places around the world. And then in the US as well, we, uh, not only the federal government, but we now have towns and cities pushing back against green energy.

Wow. That's amazing. You know, to your point about Europe, and I think that's a great comfort to a lot of people listening to you right now, Steve, is that they're waking up. The sky is falling. Can only work so long until the sky doesn't fall. And then you're not worried about the sky anymore. But I think one indicator for me was Greta Thunberg, who's not talking about the environment anymore. Now she's chanting with the crowd from the river to the sea. And those are the demonstrations she's showing up at now, not at any climate change issue. So there you go. There's more. And that's very typical. When Steve comes to visit with us again, I want you to know that he's a prolific author on this topic, done four books, his most recent, green break down the coming Renewable Energy failure. More with Steve right after this. We're visiting with Steve Gorman, who's the executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America. He's the author of four books on energy, Excuse Me, Climate Change and Sustainable Development, over 100,000 copies in print. His latest green breakdown the coming renewable energy failure. Steve, you wrote a fascinating piece mid-month in Real Clear Energy about the reality check between towns and states when it comes to green energy. And you point out that it isn't just this current administration that's deciding to scale back on some of the things that have really been offered and run unopposed for years and years and years. But it's now the people. And this is a great segue from you're just talking about what happened in Germany in particular, and a general pushback there that people are just not buying the fear mongering anymore. But tell me how towns and states here in the U.S. are responding.

Wow. That's amazing. You know, to your point about Europe, and I think that's a great comfort to a lot of people listening to you right now, Steve, is that they're waking up. The sky is falling. Can only work so long until the sky doesn't fall. And then you're not worried about the sky anymore. But I think one indicator for me was Greta Thunberg, who's not talking about the environment anymore. Now she's chanting with the crowd from the river to the sea. And those are the demonstrations she's showing up at now, not at any climate change issue. So there you go. There's more. And that's very typical. When Steve comes to visit with us again, I want you to know that he's a prolific author on this topic, done four books, his most recent, green break down the coming Renewable Energy failure. More with Steve right after this. We're visiting with Steve Gorman, who's the executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America. He's the author of four books on energy, Excuse Me, Climate Change and Sustainable Development, over 100,000 copies in print. His latest green breakdown the coming renewable energy failure. Steve, you wrote a fascinating piece mid-month in Real Clear Energy about the reality check between towns and states when it comes to green energy. And you point out that it isn't just this current administration that's deciding to scale back on some of the things that have really been offered and run unopposed for years and years and years. But it's now the people. And this is a great segue from you're just talking about what happened in Germany in particular, and a general pushback there that people are just not buying the fear mongering anymore. But tell me how towns and states here in the U.S. are responding.

Yeah, there's a lot of towns and a lot of states, cities that that are saying, hey, enough, enough of of the wind and the solar in particular. Um, a couple of examples. The state House of Arizona passed legislation that would prohibit construction of wind systems within 12 miles of any property, any residential property, and that means 90% of the state's land would be barred from putting in wind turbines. Oklahoma is the third largest generator of electricity from wind in the U.S., but they're having rallies at the state Capitol, and they're calling for a ban on new wind and solar projects. And opposition to wind and solar has been growing. Uh, USA today, uh, in 2023 published a study and they pointed out that we had bans for wind in two counties in 2008, two out of the 1500 counties in the United States. Now, that has risen to over 500 counties. 16% of U.S. counties now ban or restrict wind systems, and more than 100 counties restrict the deployment of solar systems. So this is a this is a growing kind of thing, and it's getting tougher and tougher for these renewable systems to be deployed.

Yeah, there's a lot of towns and a lot of states, cities that that are saying, hey, enough, enough of of the wind and the solar in particular. Um, a couple of examples. The state House of Arizona passed legislation that would prohibit construction of wind systems within 12 miles of any property, any residential property, and that means 90% of the state's land would be barred from putting in wind turbines. Oklahoma is the third largest generator of electricity from wind in the U.S., but they're having rallies at the state Capitol, and they're calling for a ban on new wind and solar projects. And opposition to wind and solar has been growing. Uh, USA today, uh, in 2023 published a study and they pointed out that we had bans for wind in two counties in 2008, two out of the 1500 counties in the United States. Now, that has risen to over 500 counties. 16% of U.S. counties now ban or restrict wind systems, and more than 100 counties restrict the deployment of solar systems. So this is a this is a growing kind of thing, and it's getting tougher and tougher for these renewable systems to be deployed.

Yeah. And I think the consumer has had it. You know, you point out in this piece that apparently, like in California, Berkeley, California was the first city in the country to prohibit natural gas in new residential construction. And now you say cities and counties in seven states ban gas in new construction, including a statewide ban in New York. So when the government starts telling you what you can and cannot have in terms of your stove or your refrigerator or your air conditioner, that that whether or not you even happen to be somebody who's interested in this whole contentious issue, it's just a liberty issue, is why is the government telling me whether I have to have a gas or an electric stove? Why isn't that decision made up to me? And can I just go to the front of the line? Can you please tell me when incandescent light bulbs are coming back? I can't stand these LEDs. I think I'm in an operating room in my living room most of the time.

Yeah. And I think the consumer has had it. You know, you point out in this piece that apparently, like in California, Berkeley, California was the first city in the country to prohibit natural gas in new residential construction. And now you say cities and counties in seven states ban gas in new construction, including a statewide ban in New York. So when the government starts telling you what you can and cannot have in terms of your stove or your refrigerator or your air conditioner, that that whether or not you even happen to be somebody who's interested in this whole contentious issue, it's just a liberty issue, is why is the government telling me whether I have to have a gas or an electric stove? Why isn't that decision made up to me? And can I just go to the front of the line? Can you please tell me when incandescent light bulbs are coming back? I can't stand these LEDs. I think I'm in an operating room in my living room most of the time.

Yeah, they they don't last as long as they say they do either, although.

Yeah, they they don't last as long as they say they do either, although.