Janet Parshall

Sally Kern Thinks People Who Disagree With Her That Homosexuality Is A 'Bigger Threat Than Terrorism' Are The Real Haters

In a radio show posted online on Monday, Oklahoma GOP state representative Sally Kern told In The Market host Janet Parshall that she stands by her repeated claims that homosexuality is “more dangerous” than terrorist attacks because gay rights will destroy America, a claim she outlines in her book The Stoning of Sally Kern.

Kern told Parshall that she was outraged that people wanted to make her seem like an “idiot” for simply stating that “the homosexual agenda is a bigger threat than terrorism.”

“I was using what I use as a teacher, you know when you’re teaching high school students you try to find something they can relate to, to share a concept with, so they can grasp that concept better,” Kern continued. “So everybody understands terrorism destroys people’s lives, it destroys property. All I meant was, all I was saying was the homosexual agenda is destroying people’s lives. More people have died from AIDS than have died from a terrorist attack here in America. It’s destroying the moral fiber of our nation, that’s all I meant.”

She lamented that gay rights advocates “try to ridicule you and make you feel like an idiot so that you’ll be intimidated and not speak out anymore.”

In fact, she said her detractors are actually “stoning” God himself: “It just broke my heart because so often what they were doing, they weren’t just stoning me, they were stoning and desecrating the God that I love.”

“There was just so much hate, they accuse me of being hateful, and I never once said anything hateful,” Kern said. “Such hate expressed against the Lord and against his word and then the way they, I mean, these people, I believe these people, I believe scripture teaches this, they’re deceived and to me the real hate is from those people who say ‘you’re born this way and you can’t change, deal with it.’”

Paulk: God Punishes Gays With Early Death, Disease

Last year, Anne Paulk and her husband, ex-gay poster boy John Paulk, separated after he announced that he is still gay and criticized the ex-gay movement.

But she is still very much the ex-gay activist and on Wednesday appeared on Religious Right broadcaster Janet Parshall’s radio show to “offer Biblical answers for those struggling with same sex attraction,” including her belief that gay men are punished with disease and early death for having sex with other men:

Our functionality of our bodies aligns with the intended functionality of our sexuality and put within parameters that are healthy and safe for us. Men having sex with men is medically unsound, it propels a man towards an early death by a disastrous disease. Romans 1 of course talks about that sort of thing occurring with those that do such things, ‘the due penalty for their error.’ That’s not quite what we’re after; what we’re after is repentance and rest for those who are struggling with their identity and for those who are thinking ‘am I gay?’

She later spoke to a caller who said that Satan haunted him through the night telling him he was gay, but Paulk said that since he resisted and “threw off the lie that he is gay,” he became a “whole man.”

Caller: I actually stayed up one night in college and at the time I wasn’t a Christian but I was under so much depression from previous relationships with other women that the Devil actually kept me up that night trying to tell me that ‘you’re gay, you’re gay, you’re gay’ because I was just that depressed and I was almost haunted and he was trying to make me believe that. I just kind of prayed it out because I had that biblical background and I woke up and I was like, ‘oh my gosh, it’s gone, thank the Lord.’ It’s really interesting.

Paulk: Thank you Dustin. Certainly homosexual feelings or behavior can happen and then if you come to the Lord and you repent, which means to turn away from, to change your mind about, and you repent, and you surrender to him and you his forgiveness, in 1 John 1:9 it says ‘He will forgive you and cleanse you from your unrighteousness’ and that’s exactly what happened with Dustin. You have to believe what’s true and that will set the course of your life. Dustin threw off the lie that he is gay and he is a whole man walking forward but that takes some battle, takes some fight.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/4/14

  • For just $25, Rick Santorum will "add your name to the copy of the U.S. Constitution that we’ll send President Obama."
  • Dennis Prager says "Leftism is a religion. It even has a Bible - the editorial page of your newspaper (The New York Times)."
  • On his radio show today, Glenn Beck spent an hour talking with Ted Cruz as well as another segment interviewing Greg Abbot.
  • Janet Parshall says the recent Grammy awards proves that America has embraced the morals of ancient Rome.
  • Bryan Fischer is a conservative because "liberalism kills children."
  • Finally, Jim Garrow hopes that people who have been dismissed from the military will take advantage of "having been loosened from the constraints of obedience to a master [and] serve the nation in a new way, recognizing that the fight against a domestic enemy takes on the aspects of a guerrilla war."

Paulk: Have A 'Healthy Detachment' From Your Gay Son

After hosting ex-gay activist Trace McNutt, Janet Parshall invited Anne Paulk to her show to discuss “healing and hope for those longing to leave the gay lifestyle behind.” Paulk is an ex-gay activist who was married to John Paulk, the poster boy of the ex-gay movement, until his recent announcement that he is in fact still gay and apology for his role pushing ex-gay therapy.

Neither Parshall nor Paulk mentioned her husband’s renunciation of the ex-gay movement during the program, but Paulk was more than happy to field questions from listeners about their gay family members.

One caller said that her 27-year-old son “has chosen to be in the homosexual lifestyle” and wanted to know what to do about it.

Paulk responded that the caller’s son is “rebelling against God” and that she should have a “healthy detachment” from him due to his “choices.”

“You can then love them like you would a friend who is going astray in different areas that are damaging to friend.”

“I think the key part is being winsome” when you tell your son you are going to have a “healthy detachment” from him, she continued. “Son, I love you and I disagree with where you’re going in your life and this is why.”

'Satanic Drag Queen' Turned Ex-Gay Hero Not Exactly Ex-Gay

Last month, the “ex-gay” organization Voice of the Voiceless awarded its “Courage Award” to Trace McNutt, a “satanic drag queen” turned ex-gay activist.

But during an interview with conservative radio host Janet Parshall, McNutt admitted he was not “healed” of his homosexuality (for example, he says he fell in love with the male bassist in his Christian rock band).

“We know God heals some and others he doesn’t,” he told Parshall. “For me, the thorn remains…. Not all homosexuals get delivered of the same-sex attraction.”

Like other ex-gay activists, McNutt shared a harrowing life story of drug abuse and family problems, which are depicted as typical the life of the average gay man. McNutt said he became a sex addict and slept with “up to thirty people a day” in order to “get that masculine bond that I never got.”

“Not only was I a sex addict, but I was a homosexual on top of it, almost felt like a double whammy, you know?”

See his award video here:

Donnelly: 'Everything We Predicted' About the Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell 'Is Staring To Happen'

During an interview with Janet Parshall, anti-gay activist Elaine Donnelly pointed to a story about a drag performance at an Air Force base as proof that “everything we predicted is starting to happen” about the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Donnelly said that the USO may soon have drag shows and thus creating “social turmoil in the Armed Forces.”

Of course, Donnelly also predicted in 2010 that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would lead to the reinstatement of the draft.

'Ex-Gay' Activist: Gays and Lesbians 'Acting Out' Like Drug Addicts, Alcoholics

“Ex-gay” activist Anne Paulk (ex-wife of ex-ex-gay activist John Paulk) joined Janet Parshall yesterday to discuss the “way out of homosexuality.” Paulk, who has previously claimed that the majority of lesbians were sexually abused as children, told Parshall that “the reason most people end up gay is because they’ve had some really broken experiences in their early childhood” and that they are “acting out in this way” in response to “sorrow and pain.”

This “expression of sin,” she added, is “really not that much different” than alcoholism, drug abuse and “relational addiction.”

I do believe that if the Church understood that it’s the outcome of pain and sorrow and interpersonal challenges, and it’s the product of personal confusion. And that’s what I used to talk on all the time in years prior, is you know what, the reason why most people end up gay is because they’ve had some really broken experiences in their early childhood. It’s just manifesting in this way. And the more you get to know about what’s underlying of homosexuality, the more you get to understand that they’re just a human being that’s been wounded. That’s a little boy who’s grown up, who’s been very desperately hurt and is acting out in this way. That’s still, that was once a little girl whose heart was broken and her body misused. And the outcome is sorrow and pain, and this is the expression of it.

And I think that’s the expression of sin altogether, and it’s our rebellion against God, our rebellion against -- what we believe we want our way to be. Homosexuality is, not unlike any other sin, it’s a shortcut to getting your own needs met, and it’s not a healthy shortcut. Drugs don’t solve the problem of trying to hide from one’s trouble. Hiding doesn’t work at all. Alcohol doesn’t work that way, relational addiction doesn’t work that way, promiscuity doesn’t solve anything. Same thing with homosexuality. And I think when people understand that they’re really not that much different, it’s just a different outworking of similar underlying issues, it helps a lot.

But, like Sandy Rios, who takes heart in the fact that gay people sometimes get their hearts broken, Paulk has hope for gays and lesbians. “Even people in the gay community will celebrate someone’s amazing marriage, like the prince and the princess of England,” she said, meaning that they are in fact capable of understanding “the big picture of beauty that God has in mind.”

FRC Fellow: Allowing Women in Combat ‘Tragic,’ ‘Immoral,’ and ‘Un-American’

On her radio show this week, Janet Parshall spoke with Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and the current senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, about the Pentagon’s recent decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat units.

Maginnis, who recently wrote a book on the topic, said that allowing women into combat goes against science. He called the situation “tragic,” “unnecessary,” “immoral,” and “un-American.”
 

Maginnis: I’m concerned about the direction of my country. I see this as a tragic mistake that’s going to weaken our fighting forces, compromise the battle proven standards that we’ve shed a lot of blood over the last couple centuries for. And also it’s unnecessary risk for the people that ultimately are pushed into this environment. And finally I think it’s immoral and I think it’s un-American what these people want to do. And yet, I see- the subtitle I think is very fair- I see cowardice on the Capitol Hill. Because our Founders were wise people. They said we want the Congress to set the rules and regulations for the armed forces. And guess what, they haven’t had a hearing in 34 years in the House armed services and they haven’t had one in 23 years in the Senate. They’ve relegated, they’ve abandoned the responsibility that the founders intended them to have and they’ve pushed it into the administration. And the administration, you know, they’re going to do what’s politically expedient. And that just hurts my heart. Cause I know the environment that we’re going to push these young people into, I know how vicious it is. And it just doesn’t fit with the science and common sense, much less the interests of our country.

Parshall, for her part, blamed the decision on the “radical feminist movement,” claiming the policy change would not only “push women” into a situation that they don’t want to be in, it flies in the face of God and what is “natural.”

“I thought men were made by God to defend women,” Parshall lamented. “It was just a natural.”
 

Parshall: So it begs the question- and I'm asking it, but at some level it's rhetorical- and that is, why we got here? But Bobby you and I have been in Washington. We watched the radical feminist movement. We saw the residuals of all of that, so this is just a tendril outreach it seems to me. But it goes deeper than just ardent feminism. It violates a core principle. And I’m going to say something terribly politically incorrect. I thought men were made by God to defend women. It was just a natural. And to push women into combat, front line combat- and you draw a distinction by the way between high intensity combat and high intensity police work which I love and I want you to explain in a minute. It seems to me to violate the very core at some level of how God designed us. Is that an overreaction on my part?

Maginnis: Not at all, Janet. Men are hard wired to protect women.

Staver: Justice Kennedy Acted Like Dred Scott Judge In DOMA Ruling

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel continued to level attacks against the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision. On Janet Parshall’s radio show last week, Staver compared Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Windsor, to former Chief Justice Robert B. Taney, infamous for writing the Dred Scott ruling.

The Liberty University Law School dean told Parshall that the court decided wrongly in part because “our history has actually criminalized homosexual behavior” and alleged that Kennedy decided to “label everyone who believes and affirms in the natural created order of marriage between a man and a woman as a bigot and a hater.”

“How dare this court. How dare Justice Kennedy. How dare he actually give those kinds of labels to people,” Staver said. “I think the court crossed the line to illegitimacy by doing so and I think it put itself in the same category as Chief Justice Taney in the 1857 Dred Scott decision in which they said blacks were inferior human beings not entitled to citizenship, as they did in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that said ‘sorry Carrie Buck, Virginia has a right to forcibly sterilize you.’”

Franks: If We Don't Ban Abortion Then 'I Really Am Afraid For Us As A Human Society'

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), who introduced several anti-choice bills in Congress including the recent 20-week ban, appeared on In The Market With Janet Parshall yesterday to warn about the deleterious societal consequences of not banning abortion. The congressman said if Americans “turn a blind eye” to the “horror” of legal abortion, “I wonder then what hope remains.”

“If we still let ourselves become insensitive at that point then I really am afraid for us as a human society,” he continued.

Franks then once again likened abortion rights to slavery and racism: “We wonder how our forbearers dehumanized African Americans, we wonder and say, ‘couldn’t they see the humanity in them?’ But they didn’t. And today we think they were so blind yet we are blind staggering blind in our own generation.”

Owens Calls for Anti-Gay Groups to Channel Civil Rights Movement, Parshall Botches DOMA Decision

Janet Parshall yesterday hosted William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors and the National Organization for Marriage to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent marriage cases.

Parshall twice asserted that Kennedy called anti-gay activists “in his words ‘enemies of the nation.’” Kennedy never used such language, but Justice Antonin Scalia did accuse Kennedy of calling gay rights opponents “enemies of humanity.”

The Supreme Court rules, in his opinion, stunningly, Kennedy says basically that those of us who don’t agree with his worldview are in his words “enemies of the nation.” So I have to tell you, what does that do for us as followers of Jesus? If God hasn’t changed his mind on the definition of marriage and immediately a Supreme Court justice says those of you who follow God’s word are “enemies of the nation,” it seems to me the temptation is going to be for us to just sit down, be quiet, keep our thoughts to ourselves because hey who wants to be marginalized by the culture?

Meanwhile, Owens announced that CAAP and the Heritage Foundation are hosting a conference in October for anti-gay activists who seek to “work together to stop this nonsense.”

“The adults are confused and they’re confusing the children,” Owens lamented, “how can two men rear a child? How can a man be a mother? Tell me that.”

He called on gay rights opponents to launch a new Civil Rights Movement: “You think we did something during the Civil Rights Movement? This is our Civil Rights Movement…. We are going to fight to the end, we are not going to give up, we are going to fight like we fought to get civil rights, like we marched for miles and miles and miles, we took the heat, whatever it took, we are going to stand for the family.”

Staver: SCOTUS Ruling for Marriage Equality Will Have 'A Catastrophic Consequence' for 'Human Existence'

In December, Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver told conservative radio host Janet Parshall that a Supreme Court ruling favorable to marriage equality “could cause another civil war” or even a second revolution. While speaking to Parshall last week, Staver argued that the court’s decision would have “a catastrophic consequence” for freedom, liberty and even “human existence” itself.

The Liberty University law school dean, who said that Obama will introduce “forced homosexuality,” went on to say that the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to civil and criminal penalties for opponents of same-sex marriage, such as losing one’s job. As a result, anti-gay activists “cannot acknowledge that decision as being a legitimate one” and should treat the Supreme Court as “an illegitimate institution.”

If the court goes the wrong way within the next week on these issues, it will become an illegitimate institution and we should treat it as such. It is that dire. It is exactly as simple and as plain as you said it: God said marriage is between one man and one woman, and some civil institution says no it’s not. That has a catastrophic consequence for our religious freedom, for the very function of the family, for marriage, for our human existence, for civil society and for any area of our liberty, it is a catastrophic game changer and it will be more destructive than Roe v. Wade. Why? Because Roe v. Wade, as destructive as it is and it is destructive, does not force you to have an abortion. Now Obamacare is forcing us now to fund abortion. But this will not just simply say, ‘ok same-sex marriage, I don’t agree with it but I can go on and live my life,’ no. You want to work in the DOJ? You’ve got to support it. You want to work in any other area? You’ve got to endorse it. This will not be coexistence, this will not be the government’s got a bad policy, this will be the government’s got a bad policy but you must advance it, you must support it; if you don’t, you will be punished, you won’t have your job, you will be punished in some other civil or even criminal way. That’s why it’s going to be more coercive than Roe v. Wade, it is a line—I’m telling you, I’m hoping people understand this—that we cannot cross. If we cross that line, we have to push back; we cannot acknowledge that decision as being a legitimate one.

Shirley Dobson Angry Obama Won't Attend Her Anti-Obama Prayer Event

A week after President Obama won re-election, James Dobson on Family Talk said that his wife Shirley and her colleague John Bornschein used the National Day of Prayer Task Force to actively pray for Obama’s defeat.

The National Day of Prayer Task Force never did a good job pretending to be nonpartisan, but Dobson’s admission made its far-right bias all too clear.

Of course, with the ‘National Day of Prayer’ scheduled for May 2, we now get to hear Shirley Dobson, who leads the task force, complain during an interview with Janet Parshall yesterday that Obama is not attending.

That’s right, she is angry that Obama isn’t attending a function that her own husband said prayed against his re-election.

She also told Parshall that the Obama administration is leading an “attack” on religious freedom and does not give Christians a seat at the table in the White House.

You know Janet our religious liberties have been under such attack that I think Christians have — I don’t want to use the term ‘have had it’ — but I think their eyes are being opened and they realize that we have to come against this and we have to come out in corporate prayer and different prayer meetings. More than ever I think they want to assemble this year just to make a stand that our country was based on religious freedom and we are not going to give it up easily.



We do have different congressmen, Congressman [Randy] Forbes has been a great ally and Congressman [Robert] Aderholt, they participate themselves and we never have a problem at that observance. This year our honorary chairperson is going to be Greg Laurie and he’s going to be giving the main message, Chaplain Barry Black who is the chaplain of the Senate is going to be participating and Chaplain Wannick from the Pentagon is coming over to participate and of course congressman [Frank] Wolf will stand in for the legislature.

We have somebody for every branch but Janet unfortunately we’ve never had anybody come over from the executive branch. Every year we call the White House, we ask how the President wants to celebrate the National Day of Prayer and we appreciate that he does give a proclamation every year and they’ve been good with proclamations proclaiming a day of prayer in our nation, but the answer comes back ‘well the President has decided to pray silently or pray alone’ or there’s always some excuse. So we’ll say, ‘can somebody from his Cabinet come over and represent the executive branch so we can pray for them and pray for the President,’ and they’ve never sent anybody from the executive branch. We pray for them; we have somebody there that stands in the gab. But it really is so sad that they have all these other special interest groups in the White House but the Christians are not represented.

Craig Parshall: Marriage Equality Victories Will Lead to 'Suppression of Speech'

Craig Parshall of National Religious Broadcasters added to the torrent of right-wing doomsday prophesies about marriage equality yesterday, claiming that a Supreme Court victory for gay rights would ultimately lead to hate speech laws wielded against Christians. In an interview with his wife Janet Parshall, a talk show host with Moody Radio, he warned that “the next victim will be not just the traditional view of marriage and the health of society, but it’s going to be the free speech rights of Christians as well.”

We have a hate crimes law on the federal level now that we didn’t used to have. It’s only been in play for a few years, but I’m already seeing indications that it could migrate toward the suppression of speech. So there’s no question in my mind that if either or both of these decisions go the wrong way, the next victim will be not just the traditional view of marriage and the health of society, but it’s going to be the free speech rights of Christians as well.

He was also upset that Justice Kennedy, during the arguments on Proposition 8, had brought up the well-being of California children being raised by same-sex couples. “There are some 40,000 children in California…that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?,” Kennedy asked.

Parshall, who has previously called the children of gay and lesbian parents “victims of gay mentality,” said that in this case the views of children shouldn’t be considered. “We don’t leave it up to children to make those decisions,” he said. “Either the parents make it, or a high-level court, or society through Proposition 8 voting, has to decide those moral, societal value questions.”

(Of course, in this case, the parents are not able to make the decision to get married because they are legally barred from doing so).

The issue was, I thought, brought to a head in a very interesting, but I think wrong-headed, question by Justice Kennedy, the swing vote again, who said, ‘Well, but what about those 37,000,’ and actually, excuse me, he said, ‘the 40,000 children living in same-sex relationships in California?’ Actually, the number’s 37,000, I think he rounded it up, that’s fine. The 37,000 children. ‘What about them? They want their putative father and other significant other to be called a married couple.’ Well, number one, do they? I don’t think a survey has been made of those 37,000 children. But, number two, we don’t leave it up to children to make those decisions. Either the parents make it, or a high-level court, or society through Proposition 8 voting, has to decide those moral, societal value questions. The child doesn’t make the decision about whether marriage should be instituted for the purpose of gay parents.

How Homosexuality is like 'When Teenage Girls Start Wearing Makeup'

Yesterday, Religious Right broadcaster Janet Parshall hosted ex-gay activists Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche, actress Anne Heche’s mom, to discuss their new book “The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality.”

A caller, John, said that based on his personal experiences with gays and lesbians he doesn’t consider homosexuality to be an “emotional or choice-oriented kind of decision” as they seem “compelled to be this way.”

Heche responded that gays and lesbians might seem different from straight people because they are trying to conform to the norms of the gay community, much like “when teenage girls start wearing makeup then they all want to wear makeup and if the in-group is wearing frilly skirts and ruffle t-shirts then everybody is going to wear a ruffle t-shirt.”

Caller: Their behavior doesn’t seem to be affected, it seems to be genuine and it seems that they are compelled to be this way. I don’t know if it’s hormonal differences or whatever chemical differences in the endocrine system in the body that affect the brain and the body but there is something going on that’s more than just emotional or choice-oriented kind of decisions that these people make.

Heche: What I think is that oftentimes once one associates herself or himself with a gay community or a gay fellowship group they settle in and want to make a distinction from others — others in the heterosexual world — they want to make a distinction and a statement about who they are. I’m just saying this might be 1 percent of the people you’re talking about or 99 percent, but sometimes I think people make a point to adapt and adopt to the community that they are associating with. It’s kind of like this when teenage girls start wearing makeup then they all want to wear makeup and if the in-group is wearing frilly skirts and ruffle t-shirts then everybody is going to wear a ruffle t-shirt. That might be very oversimplifying it but I think it is maybe a tiny explanation for a small group of people that you’re talking about. Does that make sense? Do you understand what I’m saying?

Dallas, meanwhile, said that even if it becomes scientifically proven that homosexuality is not a choice, gays and lesbians should suppress their sexuality in the same way that individuals who have predispositions to violence must suppress their violent urges.

Parshall: Let’s just say for discussion sake that we come out with a peer-reviewed, vetted, highly-scrutinized study that says: Tada! Definitively there is a gene, you are predisposed. God is not the author of confusion, He tells us in His word ‘don’t frustrate your children,’ so would God then say, ‘I’ve designed you that way and then I’m going to turn around and say that if you act on that behavior I’m going to call it a sin’? This is an argument all three of us have heard many a time, so how do we respond to that?

Dallas: First of all, even if we are born with something it does not mean that God designed that something. There are many external and internal inborn realities that God never intended. So I would not presume that if something is inborn that God ordained it, whether we are talking about something as serious as a birth defect or if we’re talking about, as you said Janet, a predisposition. I do think that for that individual who has a predisposition, whether it is to violence, or addictive behavior or homosexuality, that will be an area of weakness in their life and if they want to live an obedient life they’re going to be called to deal with that area of weakness in their life. But the fact that it may even be inborn would not be an excuse to indulge it.

Donnelly Seeks to Ban Marriage Equality in the Military to Protect Opponents from feeling Offended

Center for Military Readiness head Elaine Donnelly appeared on In The Market with Janet Parshall yesterday to discuss the Todd Akin-sponsored bill that would ban same-sex marriages at military installations and permit discrimination against gay service members under the guise of a “conscience clause.” The marriage equality ban was removed from the final language but the “conscience” language remained. However, that was not enough for Donnelly, who said that same-sex marriage services at military installations jeopardizes religious freedom:

Donnelly: There’s also pressure to perform same-sex marriages, there’s already been a few that have happened on military bases. Well the new legislation unfortunately did not include that clause, which had been approved by the House, but the conference committee did pass some legislation there to protect the rights of chaplains with regard to religious liberty.

Parshall: How will that play out though because they didn’t go as so far as to say whether or not they would be excused from performing such ceremonies.

Donnelly: The administration is saying that no one will be forced to perform a ceremony with which they disagree for reasons of their sincerely held moral beliefs. But the pressure is on, it’s a chilling effect. If a chaplain says, ‘well I rather not perform that ceremony,’ is that chaplain going to be demoted in terms of promotion? The pressure will be on to comply or to be punished with various kinds of career penalties. You can’t always document these things but you know that over time the pressure would increase. This is why even though there’s been progress made in this particular bill, there is still a lot more that needs done.

According to Donnelly, the freedom of religion in the military can only be secured by ending the freedom of chaplains and houses of worship to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

There are many chaplains who refuse to marry a couple if either partner is unbaptized or had a prior marriage that ended in divorce. Of course, the military would never prohibit unbaptized or divorced people from getting married for the mere reason that there are several chaplains who will not marry them. But that is effectively the argument conservative activists like Donnelly use when they insist that same-sex couples should be prohibited from marrying simply because some chaplains disapprove of it.

Staver: Supreme Court could spark Second Revolution and Civil War over Marriage Equality

According to Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, America may head toward outright revolt and a second civil war. Staver told Janet Parshall that marriage equality will mean that the institution of marriage, freedom of speech and the freedom of religion will be “destroyed” and “bulldozed over.”

Like Family Research Council president Tony Perkins who last month maintained that the Supreme Court may start a “revolution” and “break this nation apart” by striking down gay marriage bans, Staver said that the court “could split the country right in two” as “this is the thing that revolutions literally are made of.”

“This would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak and to Christians around the country, then anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing,” Staver said, “This could cause another civil war.”

Staver: Basically marriage will be completely destroyed, families will be destroyed, children will be hurt by this and freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including in the pulpit itself, will absolutely be bulldozed over. This would open a floodgate of unimaginable proportions. That’s why with those kinds of consequences to have five of the nine justices ultimately have this kind of power in their hands, that’s not how this court and this country was established, to have five individuals to be able to have that kind of catastrophic, social reengineering power in their hands, that’s just not something that was envisioned by the founders.

Parshall: Absolutely right. God hasn’t given us a spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a sound mind so we need to be in prayer, but I also think we need to be preparing our hearts as well Mat that if in fact the Supreme Court decides to trample underfoot the truth of God’s word, we as a church are going have to decide what we’re going to do. Mat, you know I’m going to appeal to your pastor’s heart, that means that every single pastor who is called to hold out the word of life is going to have to decide whether or not he is going to sidestep certain passages for fear of some sort of response from the government.

Staver: This is the thing that revolutions literally are made of. This would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak and to Christians around the country, then anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing. This would be the thing that revolutions are made of. This could split the country right in two. This could cause another civil war. I’m not talking about just people protesting in the streets, this could be that level because what would ultimately happen is a direct collision would immediately happen with pastors, with churches, with Christians, with Christian ministries, with other businesses, it would be an avalanche that would go across the country.

He even argued that marriage equality laws “destroy the very foundation of our family” and have “catastrophic consequences,” including “the unraveling of the United States.”

Parshall: There is no ambiguity as to what the definition of marriage is. Here are nine people in black robes who are basically going to judge, and I’m going to put this in the vernacular of the common man, these are nine people who are basically going to say: God didn’t say that and here’s our ruling. I know I really distilled it down but you’ve got judges who are basically going to decide for us at the high level, potentially, how marriage should be defined. That’s amazing. Who would have thought we would ever find ourselves in that place?

Staver: It’s stunning. That’s why I am very concerned that this has made its way to the United States Supreme Court because only five of those nine can make a decision and so five people, potentially, in the United States, only five out of the hundreds of millions that we have, have in their hand this opportunity to literally wreck marriage, to destroy the very foundation of our family and the biblical definition of marriage. The consequences are staggering. This could be the Roe v. Wade of marriage and family. If we ultimately say as a court and if the country follows it that marriage is between two people of the same sex and it’s now how common sense, history and the Bible ultimately defines it, that has catastrophic consequences. That is staggering and it is actually something that we ought to be in significant prayer about because this could be the unraveling of the United States.

Mat Staver Continues the Crusade Against Obamacare

Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver recently appeared on Janet Parshall’s radio show to promote his claim that the health care reform law is unconstitutional and an immense “setback to religious liberty.” While representing Liberty University, Staver sued over the health care law’s individual mandate in 2010, but the Supreme Court ruled in June that the mandate was constitutional. Over the summer, Liberty asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its arguments against the employer mandate and the contraceptive coverage mandate, which it said were not addressed by the court’s ruling. The court agreed to the request and told the 4th Circuit to hear arguments on the two pieces.

While speaking to Parshall, Staver fueled the myth that Obamacare is “a frontal assault to religious freedom” and that employers and individuals are “being forced to fund abortion.” Staver drew no difference between abortion and contraceptives in his assertions, and echoed the misconceptions of many Religious Right groups and conservative politicians who argue that the mandate compels religious individuals pay for abortion coverage.

But no part of Obamacare actually coerces anyone to fund abortion coverage. Women who choose health plans that do cover abortion must pay a separate premium out of their own pockets. Because insurers must assess a $1 per month surcharge on all enrollees in the plan to take into account the cost savings of abortion, anti-choice activists are complaining that this constitutes taxpayer funding for abortion.

Although a conscience clause was added allowing churches who object to birth control to be exempt from the requirement, many religious leaders argue that this exemption is not wide enough.

Precedents have already been set that counter Staver’s claims, as several judges have ruled that Obamacare does not violate the religious freedom of employers that do not want to cover contraceptives. A pivotal Supreme Court opinion previously established that a law that applies uniformly to the faithful and the non-faithful alike does not violate the First Amendment. Though individuals are still free to exercise their religion by abstaining from using contraceptives, Staver contends that the law is “[telling] you what to believe [and] how to practice.”

Staver: This is something that’s either or. Either we follow our religious conviction that life is sacred and it begins in the womb, and disobey Obamacare and pay the penalties for it, or we obey Obamacare and disobey our religious convictions and conscious. There is no in between. It is a frontal assault to religious freedom unprecedented in its scope since the founding of its country. So this I think is a very strong argument as we go back to the high court, and in addition to the free exercise for Liberty University and other religious employers, we have the free exercise claim for all individuals. Because in addition to being forced to fund abortion from an employer’s perspective, individuals are also forced to have a fee assessed which goes to funding abortion.



Parshall: If they say, you know what, too bad government has the right here, religious liberty, that’s nice, not now, not here, what would be the impact of religious liberty, far beyond the boundaries of Liberty University’s campus, what would it mean for the church capital C universal as well?

Staver: Oh it would be huge in terms of its setback to religious liberty because this is a classic conflict. A lot of times you have laws that, you know maybe an irritant, you know for example you might want to use a library for a room that’s a common meeting and you might want to have prayers and somebody says no you can’t do that because its religious speech. Well sort of another free speech issue the question is, is this a free religion exercise? It may be, but you know the argument would be well, you can still practice your religion, we’re not telling you what to believe, what to practice, but this here tells you what to believe, it tells you how to practice, it is a core component of your belief. So, if we were to lose on this issue, wow, I mean the implications of that would be huge, it would mean that the government, for the first time in history, is able to pass a law that directly conflicts with a religious belief.

Parshall: Satan the 'Great Deceiver' is behind Marriage Equality

Conservative talk show host Janet Parshall joined Crosstalk host Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America this week to promote her book, Buyer Beware: Finding Truth in the Marketplace of Ideas. The two spent much of the time discussing Parshall’s time working for VCY America, before becoming a leader of Concerned Women for America and National Religious Broadcasters, but soon began discussing a prior Crosstalk program that blamed Hurricane Sandy on the gay community. While Parshall said she is not in the position to say whether God used the hurricane to punish New York for legalizing same-sex marriage, she did claim once again that Satan is the main culprit behind the push for LGBT rights.

Listen:

Parshall: While this gets debated in the halls of Congress and while it gets adjudicated from the high courts of this country, in the end this is a spiritual battle and we need to put on spiritual eyes and understand that the Father of Lies hates the model of marriage because it is such a profound message of Christ’s unconditional love for us, the church. So we begin to see all of these skirmishes, so battles for same-sex marriage are nothing more than the Great Deceiver himself still rattling his tail saying to a watching culture, ‘did God really say’? And the answer back from the church has to be without blush, hesitation or embarrassment: ‘yes he did, and here I stand, marriage is and always shall be one man and one woman.’

Thomas More Law Center Warns the Muslim Brotherhood Helps Run the Military, FBI

When congressmen Michele Bachmann and Allen West promote extremist anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, remember that they are members of the advisory board of the rabidly right-wing Thomas More Law Center, whose head Richard Thompson warned talk show host Janet Parshall that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken “over the education system of the United States military.” Thompson said that Sharia law is becoming part of U.S. law and that the government is unable to fight it because Americans are too sensitive to criticize Islam, and so we are now “being destroyed from within.” Angry that the military is trying to remove anti-Muslim training materials, Thompson asserted that the government has “turned over our organizations that are supposed to protect us to the Muslim Brotherhood” and now America’s survival is in jeopardy.

They are establishing Sharia law slowly through our court system and you have Al Qaeda and its associates using terrorism to strike fear in the hearts of people. We’re still trying to define who the enemy is and we can’t do it, one of the reasons we can’t is because we don’t like—we’re very sensitive when we criticize religion. So even though these terrorists are coming out of mosques and their terrorism is promoted by them imams in those mosques, we’re afraid to connect the terrorist with the mosque and with the Islamic religion. Because we’re very sensitive about that and don’t do that we have opened ourselves up to being destroyed from within.



They took over the educational system of the United States military, they are telling the Pentagon what they should their officers, as well as the FBI, responsible for domestic violence and domestic terrorism. So we’ve turned over our organizations that are supposed to protect us to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now our officers and our FBI agents cannot be trained as to what is the true threat facing our nation and we can’t survive like that.
Syndicate content

Janet Parshall Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Thursday 03/20/2014, 2:50pm
In a radio show posted online on Monday, Oklahoma GOP state representative Sally Kern told In The Market host Janet Parshall that she stands by her repeated claims that homosexuality is “more dangerous” than terrorist attacks because gay rights will destroy America, a claim she outlines in her book The Stoning of Sally Kern. Kern told Parshall that she was outraged that people wanted to make her seem like an “idiot” for simply stating that “the homosexual agenda is a bigger threat than terrorism.” “I was using what I use as a teacher, you know when... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 02/28/2014, 2:50pm
Last year, Anne Paulk and her husband, ex-gay poster boy John Paulk, separated after he announced that he is still gay and criticized the ex-gay movement. But she is still very much the ex-gay activist and on Wednesday appeared on Religious Right broadcaster Janet Parshall’s radio show to “offer Biblical answers for those struggling with same sex attraction,” including her belief that gay men are punished with disease and early death for having sex with other men: Our functionality of our bodies aligns with the intended functionality of our sexuality and put within... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 02/04/2014, 6:30pm
For just $25, Rick Santorum will "add your name to the copy of the U.S. Constitution that we’ll send President Obama." Dennis Prager says "Leftism is a religion. It even has a Bible - the editorial page of your newspaper (The New York Times)." On his radio show today, Glenn Beck spent an hour talking with Ted Cruz as well as another segment interviewing Greg Abbot. Janet Parshall says the recent Grammy awards proves that America has embraced the morals of ancient Rome. Bryan Fischer is a conservative because "liberalism kills... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 10/18/2013, 3:30pm
After hosting ex-gay activist Trace McNutt, Janet Parshall invited Anne Paulk to her show to discuss “healing and hope for those longing to leave the gay lifestyle behind.” Paulk is an ex-gay activist who was married to John Paulk, the poster boy of the ex-gay movement, until his recent announcement that he is in fact still gay and apology for his role pushing ex-gay therapy. Neither Parshall nor Paulk mentioned her husband’s renunciation of the ex-gay movement during the program, but Paulk was more than happy to field questions from listeners about their gay family members... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 10/18/2013, 2:20pm
Last month, the “ex-gay” organization Voice of the Voiceless awarded its “Courage Award” to Trace McNutt, a “satanic drag queen” turned ex-gay activist. But during an interview with conservative radio host Janet Parshall, McNutt admitted he was not “healed” of his homosexuality (for example, he says he fell in love with the male bassist in his Christian rock band). “We know God heals some and others he doesn’t,” he told Parshall. “For me, the thorn remains…. Not all homosexuals get delivered of the same-sex... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 08/13/2013, 2:35pm
During an interview with Janet Parshall, anti-gay activist Elaine Donnelly pointed to a story about a drag performance at an Air Force base as proof that “everything we predicted is starting to happen” about the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Donnelly said that the USO may soon have drag shows and thus creating “social turmoil in the Armed Forces.” Of course, Donnelly also predicted in 2010 that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would lead to the reinstatement of the draft. MORE >
Miranda Blue, Friday 08/09/2013, 4:54pm
“Ex-gay” activist Anne Paulk (ex-wife of ex-ex-gay activist John Paulk) joined Janet Parshall yesterday to discuss the “way out of homosexuality.” Paulk, who has previously claimed that the majority of lesbians were sexually abused as children, told Parshall that “the reason most people end up gay is because they’ve had some really broken experiences in their early childhood” and that they are “acting out in this way” in response to “sorrow and pain.” This “expression of sin,” she added, is “really not that... MORE >
Tory Roberts, Thursday 08/08/2013, 3:01pm
On her radio show this week, Janet Parshall spoke with Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and the current senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, about the Pentagon’s recent decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat units. Maginnis, who recently wrote a book on the topic, said that allowing women into combat goes against science. He called the situation “tragic,” “unnecessary,” “immoral,” and “un-American.”   Maginnis: I’m concerned about the direction of my country... MORE >