Britain already had one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, allowing women to seek abortions through 24 weeks of pregnancy, and even later under many circumstances. The new measure removes all criminal sanctions for any woman who seeks or self-administers an abortion at any point in the pregnancy, for any reason. It will result in abortion on demand that extends from the moment of fertilization all the way to the moment prior to birth.

Tellingly, the measure does not decriminalize a physician’s involvement in elective abortions after 24 weeks. Thus, under the new legislation a woman could abort her own child at the latest stage of pregnancy, by use of the abortion pill, for example. That is why so many people opposed the measure, for a woman could use a drug like Mifepristone to cause the death of a fully developed infant, but the baby’s dead body would remain in her womb and could not safely be expelled. Thus, in the name of a woman’s personal autonomy the British government would put the mother’s own life in danger. Make no mistake: The Culture of Death kills, and it kills both babies and their mothers.

Allison Pearson, columnist for The Telegraph, referred to the “sickening change in the abortion law” that the bill proposed, calling it legalized infanticide. Pearson referred to Britain’s already radical abortion laws, which she described as “shockingly out of step with the majority of European countries.”

She continued: “The only other country with our brutal disregard for the unborn child is China, where abortion is generally legal at any stage of pregnancy.” She pointed out that even China disallows abortion for reason of sex-selection, but Britain’s shocking new abortion would not. Sex-selection abortions would be of no legal consequence. Want a boy? Just abort the girl. A woman would be able to end her pregnancy at any point, for any reason, without legal consequence.

The debate yesterday in the House of Lords went on for hours, going late into London’s night. The votes finally came and the House of Lords went home, handing the Culture of Death yet another huge victory. Britain’s upper house would not even slow the legislation, abdicating its historic responsibility. The Lords Spiritual—Church of England bishops seated in the House of Lords—did register their support for the amendments, or at least for further study of the matter and the impact on women’s health.

The new archbishop of Canterbury, Dame Sarah Mullally, who had previously served as a registered nurse, did call for a delay in the approval of any abortion measure, but her argument before the House of Lords was not marked by moral passion and abortion itself was not revealed as a great moral evil.

Calum Miller, a medical doctor and medical ethicist in Britain, lamented openly that many in Britain’s medical establishment supported the bill. “The medical profession is fundamentally untrustworthy with these people at its head,” he argued. “They have no credibility whatsoever.”

Right to Life UK released a statement immediately after the vote stating that the legislation would “make it more likely that healthy babies are aborted at home for any reason, up to birth.” The group also asserted that the measure “would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and including birth.” Note those words carefully—up to and including birth.

Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right to Life UK, said that the abortion up to birth measure “is one of the most extreme pieces of legislation ever to pass the House of Commons and the House of Lords.” She continued: “It is a travesty that such an enormous and terrible legislative change, which will directly endanger the lives of unborn babies well beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb, as well as the lives of their mothers, has been allowed to happen.”

Later, Ms. Robinson simply stated: “A civilized society does not permit abortion up to birth.” That is certainly true, but the sentence should actually be much shorter, like this: “A civilized society does not permit abortion.”

Last night’s vote in the House of Lords tells us that a dark new age is upon us. Hug your children and grandchildren tight, and, as you hug them, pray for the unborn.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on March 19, 2026.

The post The Culture of Death wins yet again: Britain moves to decriminalize abortion right up to the moment of birth appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Ehrlich, who died last week at age 93, was the most consequential false prophet of the population control movement, one of the darkest chapters in modern history. Thankfully, his stark warning of unavoidable death of hundreds of millions of people by mass starvation didn’t come to pass—not even close. But the population control ideology remains one of the central ideologies of the culture of death.

Interestingly enough, Paul Ehrlich was a scientist with a specialty in butterflies. Seriously. Alfred Kinsey, another of the darkest figures of the 20th century, was a sexual pervert who emerged as the prophet of the sexual revolution, usually dressed in a scientist’s white coat for effect. His actual specialty was gall wasps. Like Kinsey, Ehrlich wanted to change the world…and he did.

His fame started with an address to a civic club in California in which he warned of a coming ecological catastrophe driven by an expanding human population. By his logic, an explosion of human beings would produce mass starvation and ecological devastation. He was encouraged to write a book explaining his theory, and so he did, joined by his wife, Anne. Ehrlich turned in a book manuscript with the title, Population, Resources, and Environment, which publisher Ian Ballentine changed to The Population Bomb. That book, with those opening words, changed the world.

The population control movement was not entirely new, and figures such as Britain’s Thomas Malthus had warned as early as 1798 of a looming population catastrophe and mass starvation. Thankfully, the Malthusian global nightmare never came, but the warning clearly had a hold on elite minds. The upper classes feared being overcome by a mass population expansion among the urban poor or third world nations.

Ehrlich and The Population Bomb were organically linked to other leftist theories of the 20th century including the birth control movement, the sexual revolution, and secular progressivism. Along with many others, Ehrlich was linked to eugenics—the argument that the wrong kind of people were having too many babies. In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich wrote about visiting Delhi in India, recalling: “The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people.”

Ehrlich became famous—as a celebrity catastrophe scientist—and he was promoted by politicians and famous personalities. Most famously, Johnny Carson repeatedly featured Ehrlich on The Tonight Show, once airing an interview that lasted an hour. In some programs the bearded scientist sat with Hollywood starlets explaining how babies were going to ruin the planet, and millions watched.

Governments also listened. In the United States, there was bipartisan concern that the population explosion was contributing to both inner city crime and other pathologies, including ecological threats. Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter all affirmed the looming threat. In China, communist authorities imposed the nation’s draconian “one child only policy” that led to mass abortion, infanticide, sterilization, and more. From the United States, the federal government pushed a population control message worldwide and Congress held numerous hearings on the challenge.

For the ideological left, the population control movement was a great gift and The Population Bomb was gift-wrapping. The abortion rights movement and the sexual revolutionaries joined the ecological movement in pushing a common message—there are too many human beings, and more are coming.

The prophets of population doom were flat wrong. They were not so much wrong in their initial run of the numbers, but they were very wrong in their analysis of how human beings would respond to rapid increases in family income and trends such as urbanization and mass agriculture. A “green revolution” in farming headed off the predicted mass global famine, and by the first decades of the 21st century, the big threat to human societies was not a looming explosion in population, but a rapid decline in birthrates. Very soon, society after society will count more annual deaths than births, and the very survival of those societies is already in question.

Paul Ehrlich was a radical leftist on several fronts, and his warnings were proved false. Nevertheless, he remained certain of his basic worldview in his old age and he also remained a celebrity figure on the left. He knew that his understanding of the world ran into direct collision with the worldview of the Bible and the Creator’s command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. He was certain—even to the end—that he knew better.

It is certainly true that some false prophets are hard to spot, at least at first sight. On the other hand, some false prophets reveal themselves from the start, and Paul Ehrlich stands at the top of that list. It wasn’t like he was hiding from view. Sadly, his basic message seeped deep into the cultural mainstream. You want proof? Just look at the collapsing birthrate worldwide. That’s the real population bomb.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on March 17, 2026.

The post The population bomber: Paul Ehrlich, prophet of the population explosion, dies at age 93 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Talarico is now the Democratic Party’s nominee for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who has held the seat for four terms. Cornyn, a fixture in Texas politics for decades, is an establishment Republican who has a near-perfect voting record in line with President Donald J. Trump. Cornyn looks and sounds like what he is—a respected and statesmanlike U.S. senator. He now faces a runoff with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running as a Republican populist. Paxton carries a lot of controversy wherever he goes, and his personal and public lives are what one observer described as “rather complicated.” As you can imagine, that’s an understatement. To my knowledge, he is the first senate candidate to run for office just as his wife filed for divorce “for cause.” These are strange days, and not just in Texas.

But it is in Texas that James Talarico, a young member of the Texas House of Representatives and a seminary student, is trying to raise the banner of religious liberalism in the name of opposing the influence of conservative Christians. David French likes what he sees. While French says he disagrees with Talarico on some issues, he says that Talarico is “giving people hope.”

Hope of what? It has been a long time since the Democrats in Texas have won an election for statewide office. Every cycle or two, the public is told that a “new” kind of Democrat is running for office, hoping to bring in the lost sheep of moderate voters. In 2018, Texans were told that Beto O’Rourke was the shiny new thing what would attract the middle. Now, it’s James Talarico. The really interesting thing about Talarico is the extent to which he pushed his personal identity with his personal religious faith, which is why David French labeled him “faith-forward.”

The Democratic Party has not been overwhelmingly positive about faith-forward candidates, and a Talarico ticket would never get far in lands of Democratic dominance. That party is rapidly secularizing as it moves ever further to the ideological and political left. But in Texas, Talarico might have a shot.

David French likes Talarico’s attack on what he calls Christian nationalism, which is all about hate. French quotes Talarico as stating in 2023: “Christian nationalism controls. Jesus saves. Christian nationalism kills. Jesus started a universal movement based on mutual love. Christian nationalism is a sectarian movement based on mutual hate.”

There is a lot to unpack there, but neither French nor Talarico bothered to define Christian nationalism. Listening to Talarico, it’s clear he refers to any Christian citizen who believes, for example, that unborn human life should be protected and who does so based in Christian conviction as a Christian nationalist. He constantly refers to conservative Christians trying to impose their values on the nation, which he declares is a threat to the republic, while peddling his own version of liberal Christianity that allows him to be enthusiastically pro-abortion and all in on the LGBTQ revolution. By his definition, the vast majority of evangelical Christians and a good number of conservative Catholics are Christian nationalists. But he says it all with a smile.

Liberal Christianity is, as Presbyterian stalwart J. Gresham Machen recognized a century ago, a new religion posing as Christianity. Talarico may be David French’s ideal of a “faith forward” politician, but Talarico’s brand of theology not only includes abortion rights and the LGBTQ revolution, but is part and parcel with the liberal theology of his own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA). He proudly relates that his boyhood pastor was one of the first to perform same-sex celebrations. In one video clip, Talarico has pressed even further, declaring, “God is nonbinary.”

Like the “red-letter Christians” who have sought for decades to reduce Christianity to a reduction of the four New Testament Gospels, Talarico wants to stand on the Sermon on the Mount and selected texts including the parable of the good Samaritan, while quickly directing attention away from the rest of the Bible. The Jesus he describes is the Jesus of liberal theology through the last century and more. In an interview with Ezra Klein, Talarico relativized Christianity by asserting: “I believe Christianity points to the truth. I also think other religions of love point to the same truth. I think of different religious traditions as different languages.” He continued, “I believe Jesus Christ reveals that reality to us. But I also think that other traditions reveal that reality in their own ways, with their own symbol structures.” Wow. He sounds just like a religious liberal, going back at least to the 19th century.

He cites a boyhood pastor as explaining that “religious symbols are like aspirin: In order to work, they have to dissolve.” Let that sink in. Say goodbye to Christianity as the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.”

In his column, David French states that “Talarico is one of the few openly Christian politicians in the United States who acts like a Christian, and by acting like a Christian he reveals a profound contrast with so many members of the MAGA Christian movement that’s dominated American political life for 10 years.”

A few paragraphs later, he cites Talarico as saying, “I’m tired of being pitted against my neighbor. I’m tired of being told to hate my neighbor.” Who told him such a vile thing? To state my frustration clearly, I am tired of being told about people who told him to hate his neighbor. Who told him that? To be even more clear, we know what he is doing here. He is a talented politician who is running as a “faith-forward” candidate while condemning conservatives for running as “faith-forward” candidates, and he condemns evangelical Christians for attempting to influence politics while he seeks to establish his own religious liberalism as law. Talarico wants to divide voters just as much as Donald Trump, but on different grounds and along different lines.

What is David French really telling us here? Honestly, there was nothing new about James Talarico in French’s column. What’s new is the public intensity of David French’s dismissal of conservative Christians as sold-out on the issue of character, combined with his admiration of a liberal candidate like James Talarico. I don’t think his argument will convince many evangelicals. He predicts that if Ken Paxton wins the Republican primary, evangelical Texans will still vote for him rather than Talarico.

I think he is right about that, and it’s because most evangelical Christians understand that moral character includes taking responsibility for the ideologies at stake and the policies that would result from your vote. Politics in a fallen world is messy and getting messier. This is no time for triumphalism in Christian political life. On the other hand, it’s certainly no time for deception and surrender, which is exactly what the “Talarico moment” would represent.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on March 10, 2026.

The post The great clarification: James Talarico, David French, and the battle for the evangelical soul appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

President Donald Trump released the news early Saturday morning in the United States, and the news was already exploding around the world, even as powerful weapons were exploding all over Iran. The eventual outcome of the combined U.S-Israeli effort is still to be determined—that’s just the way history unfolds—but it is already clear that the world around us is being reshaped.

The Middle East has been in the forefront of international news for decades now, but it wasn’t always so. Seen as exotic and distant, the entire region of Islamic domination was rarely in leading Western headlines, even if it was often invoked in imagination and sometimes erupted in rebellion. All that began to change in wake of World War I and the demise of the Ottoman Empire. The region was largely under British and French control by a series of international mandates, but it became increasingly clear that rising spirits of nationalism and Islamic resurgence were reshaping the region.

Criticizing the modern age and rejecting Western imperialism, nationalist movements began to reshape imagination and redraw maps. The Shiite-Sunni divide in Islam was always apparent on that map, with the Sunni majority (close to 85%) controlling most of the territory. Nevertheless, Shiite Muslims had brought Islam to the territory of the former Persian Empire, establishing the Safavid dynasty in 1501. One hallmark of Shi’a Islam is a prominent sense of the apocalyptic, and that has in recent times been tied to zeal for rule by religious clerics known as ayatollahs.

But the region now occupied by Iran has been a center of world events, going back even before the glory days of the Persian Empire, and events such as the two world wars of the 20th century and the eventual cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union reshaped the political landscape. The establishment of autocratic rule by the Pahlavi dynasty under the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, friendly to Western interests, established stability in the Persian Gulf region, but at a cost. Next in the dynasty came Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, now known to most Americans as the late shah of Iran. Except for a few years of political experimentation, the shah’s rule was absolute, and, in the case of the second shah, that meant competence in repression but little competence in governance.

By the 1970s, forces of unrest and revolution began to gather energy, and the shah fell in the wake of an uprising that toppled the dynasty. The exit of the shah coincided with the return of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had been in exile in France and had a base of popular support for his vision of Iran brought under Islamic rule and sharia law. In a stunning succession of events, the Islamic Revolution, as it was called, eventually put Khomeini in power in 1979. In another turn, Khomeini declared an Islamic republic under his own absolute rule as supreme leader.

Relations with the United States and the West in general collapsed, but the rest of the Muslim world also looked to the Iranian regime with fear—and for good reason. By the end of the year, radical students would enter the U.S. embassy and take 52 Americans hostage for 444 days—an event that was humiliating to the United States and certainly contributed to President Jimmy Carter’s landslide defeat by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election.

In general, relations between the United States and Iran have been bitter and tense, with the regime in Tehran turning Iran into one of the most destabilizing forces in the world, sponsoring terrorism on a scale unprecedented in human history. Iran also sought to subvert other majority Muslim nations, particularly Sunni dominated nations, directing particular ire and subversion toward Saudi Arabia and its gulf allies.

At the same time, even as Iran was seen as the main source of state-sponsored terror, it also sought to attain nuclear weapons. An unbroken series of American presidents has pledged that Iran must not gain nuclear weapons, though presidents have disagreed over how to prevent Iran from doing so. President Trump ordered direct bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites just last year, but the regime resisted any agreement that would prevent the development of weapons-grade materials.

By Saturday, the gig was up. Israel was not going to stand by as Iran gained nuclear capacity. Neither was the United States. Both had given up on any chance of an agreement, and both were advised of several crucial developments—including the facts that Iran was about to gain advanced hypersonic missiles from China, was continuing its terrorism and subversion, and was continuing its nuclear program. Late on Friday, Israeli and American intelligence determined that top Iranian leaders, including the supreme leader, were gathering. As we know now, it would be their last earthly gathering.

The military strikes continue. Thus far, the first strikes already constitute the largest aerial attack ever launched by Israel. The United States is deeply committed. President Trump has called for the people of Iran to seize political control, but the future is by no means clear. Iran’s feared Revolutionary Guards remain strong, and no one yet knows how the events will unfold. President Trump has now effectively put his own political reputation on the line, and it is not clear how events will unfold.

This much is clear: Ayatollah Khamenei will not be a part of that future. Any way you look at it, that’s good news. These massive attacks have forced open a door for a new future in Iran. Let’s pray that the right leadership emerges to point the Iranian people through that door. As President Trump said on Saturday to the Iranian people: “This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on March 2, 2026.

The post “This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”: The massive U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran and the death of the supreme leader give the Iranian people a precious opportunity they had better not miss appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

I will leave more extended analysis to the commentariat, but I do want to underline one moment of great importance last night. President Trump pointed to a young woman in the audience with her mother. The president then explained that “Sage was 14 when school officials in Virginia sought to socially transition her to a new gender, treating her as a boy and hiding it from her parents.” The president then said, “Hard to believe, isn’t it?”

Well, as President Trump also explained, 15 years ago people would have thought someone talking this way was out of his mind, asking, “What’s wrong with him?” Sadly, all this does make sense in our confused age.

Sage Blair was encouraged to “socially transition” at school, identifying as a boy, explicitly without the knowledge of her parents. In her confusion, she eventually ran away from home, came under the care of the state, and was sent to an all-boys state school in Maryland.

As the president explained, “After she was found in a horrific situation in Maryland, a left-wing judge refused to return Sage to her parents because they did not immediately state that their daughter was their son.”

The story ends with Sage identifying again as a young woman and receiving “a full ride scholarship to Liberty University.” She stood with her mother and was warmly affirmed by the Republicans in the room, receiving a standing ovation. It was a very touching moment.

The president then said this: “But surely, we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will.” He went on to state, “We must ban it, and we must ban it immediately.”

But, looking at the audience, President Trump said that not one Democrat in the room stood up—something he was in a position to see. “Look, nobody stands up,” he said. “These people are crazy. I’m telling you they’re crazy.”

Well, they are crazy, and they are also dangerous. President Trump knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew exactly how the Democrats would respond. The simple truth is that the Democratic Party is under the control of the LGBTQ movement, and their activists are all for exactly what happened to Sage Blair and her parents. Indeed, they demand it.

It is moral insanity, but this is what the political left supports and demands. This is the prevailing consensus in many legal and academic circles. This direct subversion of sanity is combined with a subversion of the rights and authority of parents. It has happened all over the country, and it is happening still. The Democratic Party is sold out to the LGBTQ activists and the ideological left. One of the most threatening ideologies of the left is based in the claim that children and teenagers must be liberated from their parents and indoctrinated by the liberal establishment into the total redefinition of gender.

Christians must understand clearly what this represents. It is a direct rejection of Creation Order at two vital points—sexual identity and parental rights. The new gender ideologues demand a total rejection of the male-female “gender binary” and they also demand that parents be cut out of the entire situation—unless, of course, they “affirm” their son as a daughter or their daughter as a son.

This is the same president who, in his second inaugural address, stated: “As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

No other president of the United States had said any such thing, and made it stick. Until recently, no president would have seen the need to say any such thing. But the Obama and Biden administrations both pushed the transgender agenda and were completely captive to the ever-expanding LGBTQ activism.

President Trump pushed back on this moral revolution hard last night, and he did so with verve. He put himself and his administration on the line, and he didn’t have to do so. It was a moment of remarkable moral clarity, and, in my view, it was the most important moment of the entire night. For that I am thankful. Moral clarity doesn’t come cheap these days, but within just a very few minutes, the nation got a full dose last night. I sure hope America saw it clearly.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on February 25, 2026.

The post “These people are crazy”: In his State of the Union address, President Trump underlined what is at stake in the war against male and female—and against parents appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Parliament and government agencies were identified as the efficient part. Bagehot argued that if the British people ever saw Parliament at work, they would be appalled. A modern government must be efficient, Bagehot recognized, and the making of laws is not a tidy process. As a matter of fact, the entire enterprise of politics can be downright tawdry. In Britain, the monarch is the head of state, while the prime minister is the head of government. If you get a chance to watch the British parliament at work, you will see the contrast. I must admit that I enjoy sitting in the gallery at Westminster as prime ministers and others debate. Decades ago, I had the rich experience of watching Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at work during various parliamentary debates. Her wit and eloquence, matched with rare courage, made every argument an event. Mrs. Thatcher (later Lady Thatcher) also had a temper, and she gladly revealed it in hot debate. As her enemies discovered, she could be elegant, but she was devastatingly efficient.

Queen Elizabeth II, however was exceedingly dignified. She understood her role in the monarchy and her role in history. During her long reign, she embodied the nation and she felt it, lived it, and bore it all with nearly unbreakable serenity and grace. She was the essence of dignity, as was her father, King George VI, and his father, King George V. All three understood that the monarchy would be fatally wounded if the monarch lacked dignity and respect. The crisis of King Edward VIII’s immorality and abdication early in the 20th century was a major turning point for the British crown.

The current monarch, King Charles III, now makes a serious attempt to be dignified, but the royal scandals of his decades as Prince of Wales are impossible to forget. The breakdown of his marriage to Princess Diana and his long-term adulterous affair with Lady Camilla Parker-Bowles (including the release of grotesque pornographic exchanges) seriously undermined his dignity. Now, of course, Camilla is queen. The scandal, however, is always there.

Now, of course, the scandal surrounding the monarchy is hotter than ever, with the former Prince Andrew, Duke of York going down in a horrifying involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and a succession of women. By late last year the situation had reached the point that King Charles understood that Andrew, his brother, had to go. He was stripped of his princely title and his ducal status, becoming for the first time in his life, merely Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor. But, if the king thought the scandal would go away, it has only grown hotter with the release of new material. It’s not going to stop. Honestly, it’s now hard to imagine how the monarchy can allow Andrew to remain in the country. The king knows that dignity is running out fast, as is the patience of the public.

In Norway, the crown faces a series of challenges and scandals. The release of recent materials related to criminal pedophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals that Crown Princess Mette-Marit had a long friendship with Epstein, who was already known as a criminal sex offender. In an unrelated scandal, the princess’s own son (who is not the son of the crown prince) is now facing trial on multiple charges of criminal sexual activity. The crown princess was known to have had a succession of relationships with convicted criminals when she married the heir to the Norwegian throne.

Once again, a crisis of dignity, and the subversion of any sense of moral order. To put the matter bluntly, multiple monarchies now face a royal mess, which is rolling into a crisis. There is no reason to spend millions of dollars supporting an essentially dignified part of government that refuses to live dignified lives. Do the people want their national identity to be represented by this behavior? In the modern age, how can royals get away with scandal on this scale? The answer is simple—monarchy cannot survive if it is not dignified.

That brings us home to the United States, where President Donald Trump seems not to care that the presidency is, in our constitutional order, the union of the dignified and the efficient. The presidency, and individual presidents, cannot lead without moral authority and presidential dignity. We now know that a good many presidents committed scandalous and immoral acts, even in the White House. I will not attempt to offer a comprehensive list, but just think of the loss of dignity experienced by President Bill Clinton after his sexual escapades were exposed.

The appearance of disgusting images of former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama in a recent video posted on Truth Social is the latest evidence of a White House losing dignity fast. I am thankful for so much of what President Trump has done. Furthermore, I want to see him successful in reaching so many of his stated aims. Does he not understand that undermining his own dignity simultaneously undermines his personal political authority? Even the president’s most ardent supporters know that the racist images (drawing on Darwinian tropes) were a horrible mistake—no matter how they got posted.

President Trump needs to understand that efficiency in the White House cannot long survive the loss of dignity. Those of us who want the president to be successfully efficient, need to be the very people who call on President Trump to recover the dignified part of leadership—and fast.

Editor’s note: This column has been corrected to reflect that Crown Princess Mette-Marit is from Norway. This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on February 9, 2026.

The post Our tragic crisis of dignity: We had better recover dignity fast—starting in the White House appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

As the protesters shouted down the service, it became clear that the congregation was targeted because one of its elder/pastors is the acting field director for ICE in the region. One of the protesters declared that the pastor is “a wolf in sheep’s clothing, masquerading as a pastor.” That woman was identified by the local paper as “a local attorney, activist and reverend.”

Former CNN host Don Lemon was there with microphone and full video coverage, revealing once again the activist/journalist confusion that has been part of contemporary media and politics. Lemon defended the invasion of the church and acknowledged the trauma the invasion brought to congregants, especially the young, but went on to say “that’s what protesting is about.” Well, that’s certainly what Don Lemon and the leftist activists were about.

Christians need to recognize that this latest activist tactic is unprecedented in modern American history. Just think seriously about what happened, and imagine it happening in your church.

But, you say, we don’t have an acting field director of ICE in our congregation. There is no current culture war in the streets of our community. We are safe.

If you think that, you are wrong—sadly wrong and dangerously wrong. What happened in the Twin Cities may not be happening in your community, but there is no reason to believe it will not happen, right where you live and right where you worship.

A critical boundary has been crossed. The left has long prized its agenda of “transgression,” and now it has pressed transgression to church invasion. No one was physically hurt, and the congregation will continue its work and witness, but make no mistake: At moments like this, Christians have to understand that nothing has happened and, at the same time, that something seismic has happened.

In the long span of Christian history, this is not the equivalent of martyrdom. What that Minnesota congregation experienced was not suffering unto death. Christians have endured long centuries of Roman persecution and bloody persecutions since, including persecuted Christians in dangerous places even today. At times the faithful church has been forced underground and truly persecuted. What happened in St. Paul is not martyrdom.

And yet, the great danger for American evangelicals is that we will minimize among ourselves the reality of what happened. A signal has been sent. The left is now willing and some comments indicate even eager to invade and intimidate Christian congregations that violate their progressivist agenda. In an increasingly secular America, with cultural tensions running high, a church service is no longer off limits to political disturbance or demonstration. This time it was over immigration policy, but next time it could be over abortion or LGBTQ issues or just about anything else.

Church historians have long noted the transformation of liberal Protestantism into social activism. This just represents a continued trajectory. That activism has taken a dark turn. You would not think of Cities Church as a particularly political congregation. That no longer matters.

Understand that the protesters meant to intimidate this faithful congregation. There is no denying that this was a central aim of the invasion. It sent a signal, loud and clear, to all who have eyes to see. Look to a federal law enforcement agent as an elder and you had better look out for an invading mob. Your congregation gathered for biblical worship is not sacrosanct and is fair game for protest. Your congregational leadership is now a matter for public scrutiny from the political left.

This is new territory for American Christians. It is also new territory for the United States government and, in particular, for federal law enforcement. Thankfully, the Department of Justice has indicated that it plans to investigate the action against this church, which clearly violates federal law, specifically the 1994 FACE act.

Fear-mongering is not a faithful option, but denial is not an honest strategy. It is very distressing to see that some figures on the left have already declared that the action of the protesters was justified and understandable. In other words, look for more such actions. You have been warned.

Again, let’s take stock of what happened. An evangelical church, gathered for Christian worship, was subjected to what the media called an “ICE protest” that entered its space, shouted down its pastors, traumatized children, and demanded a change in church leadership. That happened in St. Paul, Minn., just last Sunday. Don’t allow yourself to think that it doesn’t matter to you and your church.

Editor’s note: WORLD has corrected this column to reflect that a protester called a pastor a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on January 20, 2026.

The post A church invaded: A darkening moment for American culture, and a wake-up call for the church appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

If you have been paying attention to our continuing cultural breakdown, perhaps you can imagine such astounding nonsense. But, thanks to a U.S. Senate hearing yesterday, you don’t even have to use your imagination. You can just watch the insanity unfold.

In a hearing held by the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on the safety of chemical abortion drugs, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., asked Dr. Nisha Verma, an obstetrician, a very simple question: “Can men get pregnant?” But, astoundingly, Dr. Verma would not answer the senator’s question. Sen. Hawley pressed again and again, asking the same straightforward question. Dr. Verma just stonewalled, and stonewalled, and stonewalled.

The exchange is riveting. No work of fiction could match the intensity of the insanity. “Can men get pregnant?,” Hawley asked repeatedly. Dr. Verma responded with a carefully planned obstructionism. “I’m not really sure what the goal of the question” is, she asserted. Sen. Hawley just stated: “The goal is just to establish a biological reality.”

The exchange unfolded over minutes, but the event signals nothing less than the fall of a great civilization. Dr. Verma is a physician, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist, and an adjunct associate professor at Emory University. She is also a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and a practicing physician. She is also an abortionist, working with Planned Parenthood, and she appeared before the Senate committee as a fellow of Physicians for Reproductive Health, which is straightforwardly pro-abortion.

Dr. Verma was determined not to answer Sen. Hawley’s question, which could easily have been answered by a first-grader. The exchange between the senator and the physician reveals the utter corruption of modern medicine that has been driven by two horrifying agendas—abortion rights and the LGBTQ revolution. In this single exchange, both of these agendas, mutually driven by the Culture of Death, combine into one agonizing lesson in modern insanity. An obstetrician-gynecologist, highly qualified and associated with a major medical school, refused to say whether men can get pregnant. None of this makes the slightest sense until you insert the issues of abortion and transgender ideologies.

The entire abortion rights movement wants to insist that an unborn baby isn’t a baby and the transgender revolution now wants to insist that a man can have a baby. When Dr. Verma referred to “the complex experiences of my patients” and patients “that don’t identify as women,” she was just parroting the transgender and non-binary line.

We do need to take notice of one interesting dimension to the physician’s gynecological and moral insanity: She did not have the courage to come out and answer Sen. Hawley’s question directly. If Dr. Verma is so committed to the new gender ideologies that she would make herself look like an absolute idiot before a national audience, why didn’t she just come out and answer Sen. Hawley directly by saying, “Yes, Senator, men can get pregnant.”

The answer is simple and important. The gender ideologies are absolute insanity, and even those who push them know it. Thus, the doctor made herself appear clueless about basic biology because she is committed to a radical worldview, driven by personal autonomy, individual liberation, and identity politics—and now by the cowardly corruption of the medical profession. But there is something far more basic than ideology, whatever its form, and that is reality—biological reality. A human baby is never going to pass through a male pelvis. Never. Not a chance. A man is never going to develop eggs and a woman is never going to develop sperm. Not a chance.

This hearing came just one day after the Supreme Court held oral arguments in two cases about transgender youth and athletics. In cases coming from Idaho and West Virginia, the court is now asked to determine if states have the right to prohibit boys from participating in girls’ athletic events and teams. So far, 27 states have adopted such legislation, protecting the integrity of athletic competitions and team sports for girls. Given the course of the proceedings on Tuesday, it seems likely that a majority of justices will uphold the right of states to adopt such measures. If the Supreme Court rules against the states, female-designated athletics and teams will just disappear.

Both sides recognize that a clear majority of Americans now sees the transgender ideology as nonsense—at least when it comes to putting boys on girls’ teams, sending them into girls’ locker rooms, and having them compete against girls in female-designated events.

The Senate hearing yesterday should serve as an alarm that we are now reaching terminal cultural insanity. We now have some of the nation’s smartest people saying some of the stupidest things ever spoken. We need leaders who will follow the example of Sen. Hawley and press the questions, unceasingly. We need to reveal the insanity for what it is—a determined effort to subvert creation order, biological fact, and moral sanity. We are a culture on the brink of disaster, and in just two days the issues have been made undeniably clear. If this kind of insanity goes on, America is doomed.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on February 15, 2026.

The post Can men get pregnant? Is our society going insane? In a Senate hearing yesterday, a display of leftist insanity revealed a culture on the brink of disaster appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

It’s far too early to see the post-Trump Republican figure who can redefine the party for generations, but on the Democratic side, betting types should put their money on Mayor Mamdani. Born outside the United States, Mamdani can’t be president, but the fact that he can’t aspire to the Oval Office doesn’t change the fact that Mamdani is now set to redefine the Democratic Party and the political left. Leftist voters see Mamdani as a savior figure, predestined to redefine the Democrats and to bring in a new age of collectivization, high taxes, ever-expanding government, a gargantuan welfare state, and, just to make the picture perfect, government-run grocery stores. What could go wrong?

Mamdani has made so many promises that even the left can’t keep them straight. There is universal free child care, free bus rides, increased rent controls, higher taxes on the wealthy, peace on earth, and good will among men (or, in Mandani’s fever dream, whatever gender you choose at the moment).

Of course, the last time Gotham tried this was with the election of John Lindsey, who served as NYC mayor from 1966 to 1973. Lindsey’s attempt to enact a leftist dream left the city in a financial disaster that was nearly its ruin. The central ideas of Mamdani’s political dream come right out of the Marxist nightmare. It’s not that they haven’t been tried, it’s that they have produced immeasurable human misery wherever they have been adopted.

In his inaugural address, Mamdani hit the themes openly and boldly, claiming the virtue of audacity. “We will govern without shame and insecurity, making no apology for what we believe,” he boasted. “I was elected as a Democratic Socialist and I will govern as a Democratic Socialist. I will not abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical.” Well, indeed he is radical. He got that much right.

Mandani openly promised collectivism. He came right out and said it: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” The warmth of collectivism? That phrase was intentional, honest, and spectacularly scary. Just ask the average Soviet citizen during the age of the USSR. All they collected was bone-crushing poverty and soul-crushing totalitarianism.

The inaugural ceremony was a parable (or parody?) of leftist dreams. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., offered the ceremonial oath of office and ranted as usual. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., also took part, and the picture was nearly complete. Together, AOC, Bernie, and Mayor Mamdani intend to redefine the Democratic Party in light of their own democratic socialism, and younger Democratic voters are lining up to join the revolution.

The ironies were thick, as were the symbolic acts. Mayor Mamdani took the oath of office with his hand on a Qur’an, and the event was declared to be a sign of burgeoning Muslim influence in mainstream culture. Of course, they would not want you to actually read the Qur’an, for that would pour cold water on Mamdani’s ardent social liberalism, right down to radical positions in devotion to the LGBTQ cause. A civilization truly founded on Qur’anic principles would be radically incompatible with Western civilization, but a Muslim who smilingly advocates leftist ideologies is too good to pass up. The new mayor has declared that he will not visit Israel. He is unlikely to visit most of the Muslim world as well, where Muslims who actually follow the Qur’an, to state the matter delicately, would be unlikely to welcome a mayor committed to transgender ideologies.

Mamdani is an anti-Semite even as he insists that he is not. His hatred of Israel as a Jewish state was clear long before he immediately signed executive orders, including one that withdrew a widely respected international definition of anti-Semitism. He was raised by leftist parents and grew up around Palestinian ideologues, and it shows.

At the national level, Republicans have to see Mamdani as an undeserved gift. His election, and the genuflection of national Democratic leaders to him, indicate that younger Democratic voters are done with the likes of old liberals like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and maybe even California Gov. Gavin Newsom. At the very least, their party is veering to the left and even Newsom is in danger of being left behind. The Democrats are running into a socialist dream, and that simply can’t go well. That doesn’t mean that Republicans won’t find a way to lose, but it does mean that “the warmth of collectivism” is an impending catastrophe at the national level.

But, for now, Democratic Party leaders are all smiles. Don’t be fooled. Those smiling Democrats have to know they have just been handed a grinning socialist disaster.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on January 6, 2026.

The post The Age of Mamdani: He’s young, charismatic, Muslim, a Democratic Socialist—and the future of the Democratic Party appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Of course, there are big questions to be faced. Nothing like this action goes without endless review, second-guessing, and political opposition. Removing Maduro from Venezuela was necessary, but his arrest, removal, prosecution, and (we hope) eventual conviction and sentencing will not be sufficient to resolve the issue. Venezuela, like much of Latin America, is a political and economic mess, to put it mildly.

Nicolas Maduro was a gangster disguised as a politician, and President Trump is right to call him a backer of world mayhem and a kingpin in the world’s narcotics trade. Maduro seized power in 2013, having been handpicked by Venezuela’s infamous leftist strongman Hugo Chavez, just before the dictator died of cancer. Even Chavez’s fellow leftists questioned the choice. Maduro was a former bus driver who entered politics and rose quickly through the ranks. He would later steal multiple elections, declare the equivalent of martial law, and go on to rule by decree. He followed in the leftist path set by Chavez, and cozied up to all the predictable centers of mayhem in the world, particularly China, Cuba, Russia, and Iran.

Meanwhile, the people of Venezuela went hungry and poor, even as the nation claims the largest oil supply on the planet. Like Chavez, Maduro was a virulent anti-American who sought to buy friends among the worst bad actors around the world, using oil as leverage. He was widely known to be guilty of supporting the narcotics traffic, engaging in mass murder, and stripping Venezuela of political legitimacy and national security.

Successive U.S. presidents had denied his legitimacy and openly accused him of leading a criminal organization. Groups like the Organization of American States knew full well that Maduro was a dictator, as did other international bodies. Back in 2017, while serving in his first term, President Trump threatened Maduro with removal and prosecution. In return, Maduro taunted America.

In one sense, action against Maduro was guaranteed when Donald Trump was elected to a second term in 2024. In another sense, Maduro’s fate was also sealed with the appointment of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., as U.S. Secretary of State. Secretary Rubio came to hatred of communism and corruption in Cuba the hard way—through his own family’s experience. Maduro was openly in cahoots with Cuba’s communist government and for a long time propped it up with Venezuela’s income from oil. Both Trump and Rubio wanted action against Maduro, and they were not subtle.

A U.S. Navy task force led by the USS Gerald R. Ford—the world’s largest aircraft carrier—was deployed just off Venezuela’s coast. Boats identified as involved in drug smuggling were blown out of the water and Trump openly demanded that Maduro leave Venezuela, suggesting that he find a comfortable retirement among the criminal class far, far away. Maduro responded by taunting the U.S. president, quoting rock lyrics. In that sense, President Trump had to act or look weak and foolish—and he no doubt found that option unappealing. The military action was incredibly successful, and not a single American life was lost. Within hours, the Maduros were in hand, under arrest, and headed for arraignment in New York. Trump tweeted the triumph Saturday morning at 4:23 a.m. Mission accomplished.

Of course, it’s not that easy. The hard part is what comes next. Removing Maduro was absolutely necessary and fully justified. While the rest of the world demanded year after year that Maduro resign, Trump effectively resigned him. Democrats in Congress and globalists at the United Nations will cry foul, but to no avail. Congress could act, but it won’t. The Constitution puts awesome responsibility in the hands of the president of the United States, and President Trump used that authority. In a world of dangerous split-second developments and endless congressional square-dancing, military action is sometimes necessary. It is always questioned, and should be, but the last time Congress officially declared war was in 1941. This is not what the founders intended, but they never knew of a ballistic missile or a host of other developments.

Trump has long condemned interventionists like both Presidents Bush and said that he would not lead America into endless global entanglements. After hitting targets within Iran, Syria, Iraq, and now Nigeria, it seems clear that while President Trump wants to avoid long military entanglements, he isn’t reluctant to order strategic military strikes. The big question is whether the two can remain divided and if the strikes will accomplish their purposes.

On the international scene, even some who like the fact that Maduro is out will decry the United States for acting unilaterally, and some will cite international law. The United Nations will huff and puff and blow its own horn, but to no effect. There is a live debate over the existence and content of something called “international law,” but the United States will never sacrifice its own security to satisfy the General Assembly of the United Nations. If the United Nations were effective, U.S. action would not have been necessary. The world is a mess, and the U.N. is incompetent to meet the challenge—and always will be.

Realists know that actions like this military strike and the removal of Nicolas Maduro are never fully satisfying, even as they are necessary. What matters now is what comes next. I was among the first American journalists to land in Panama in 1990 after the United States took similar action to remove and prosecute Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, and I was one of the first to interview the new president, Guillermo Endara. I know the score. The arrival in Venezuela of yet another Chavez or Maduro resolves nothing. But, if nothing else, Maduro’s fellow strongmen around the world are surely asking the question: “Who’s next?”

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on January 5, 2026.

The post The parable of Nicolas Maduro: You can run, but you can’t hide appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Australian authorities soon reported that the shooters were a Pakistani father and son and stated the obvious—that this was a targeted act of anti-Semitic hatred and mass murder. The Australian government later said that Islamic State flags had been found in the suspects’ car. Australia’s prime minster, Anthony Albanese, declared: “This is a targeted attack on Jewish Australians on the first day of Hanukkah, which should be a day of joy. An attack on Jewish Australians is an attack on every Australian.”

The prime minister said the right words of moral solidarity, but his comment did not make the true nature of the attack quite obvious. This was not just a targeted terrorist attack on Jewish Australians, though it surely was that. It was also a dagger thrust in the heart of Western civilization. Freedom of assembly means nothing if citizens are too afraid to assemble.

The pattern is all too clear. Just consider attacks on Christmas markets in Germany—with new arrests for conspiracy to commit further attacks announced just in recent days. The death toll mounts as the attacks in Western nations multiply. The murderous shooting on the campus of Brown University in the United States happened in a classroom where a Jewish scholar was professor. Coincidence?

There are two undeniable patterns here. The first is the pattern of anti-Semitic violence. The second is the larger pattern of terror tied to immigration and Islam.

Some people will recoil at the suggestion that immigration and Islamic terrorism have anything to do with these attacks, but the facts are plain to see. Western civilization now faces a direct threat to both liberty and civilizational survival, and denial is not a strategy. It is a form of self-induced delirium.

First, consider the crisis of immigration, and in some nations that means both legal and illegal immigration. At the beginning of this century, 23% of Australia’s population was immigrants. Last year, that count had risen to almost 32%—meaning that nearly one third of the nation’s current population consists of immigrants.

Nation by nation, the numbers (acknowledged and unacknowledged) are less important than the fact that millions upon millions of those who have arrived in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia have come from radically different cultures with different worldviews and conceptions of citizenship. Western nations understand citizenship to be a shared project marked by a commitment to the nation. It is now clear and undeniable that millions of recent immigrants have no intention of assimilating into their new host cultures.

This emerges in news stories, often with the truth about immigration denied or submerged. Just consider the news about millions of dollars of fraud through government programs in Minnesota, largely within the Somali immigrant community. The story is surely bigger than immigration, but immigration is clearly part of the story.

Any doubts about the fact that the West faces an existential crisis in the form of immigration should be dispelled by a quick look at the quarters of Paris now effectively taken over by Muslim immigrants of several generations. Look at what happened after former German chancellor Angela Merkel opened the nation to unprecedented immigration and largely opened its borders. Look at what is happening now in nations like Sweden or see how the political landscape has been changed in Britain.

Every nation owes it citizens a responsible immigration policy. And it is not racism to argue that any sane nation’s immigration policy is premised upon the newcomers’ commitment to join the national project, and not to subvert it. One way or another, every enduring nation adopts an immigration policy consistent with its values and its national interest. To fail at either task represents national disaster. An immigration policy right for America, for example, would uphold American values and require newcomers to join in support of the American project, the perpetuation and enrichment of the American future, consistent with American values and identity.

To be blunt, the only alternative to this is the dissolution of the nation, the subverting of our national interest, and the abdication of national responsibility. For too many years, America’s own uncontrolled borders have been, not only a way for rightful immigrants to join the American dream, but for felons and miscreants and worse (even international terror suspects) to enter the nation. The number of people illegally crossing the border has decreased, especially under the Trump administration, but our laws remain a mess. At present, our own broken immigration laws make a mockery of our national interest and our national responsibility.

Finally, we face the fact that the threat from Islam is real. The reality is that the vast majority of Muslims around the world, quite consistent with their own convictions, do not want to join the civilizational project of the West, including the national project of the United States. Just in case you wonder, they say this out loud. Islam does not sit easily where Islam does not dominate, and that fits the pattern of the Islamic worldview. Consider this: We are constantly told of liberal Islamic figures in the United States as indicative of Muslims becoming part of the American dream, and some do, of course. But just think of New York City’s incoming mayor, Zohran Mamdani. The mayor-elect can openly make his case in America’s largest city. It’s less likely that he could safely make the same case, presenting as a Muslim man but acknowledging his liberal views on LGBTQ issues, for example, on the street in Pakistan.

At the present, an honest national conversation about these things seems almost impossible. Meanwhile, the headlines mount and the tragedies continue. Our hearts go out to the people of Australia, and particularly to its Jewish community. This news story will soon disappear from the headlines. The problem, however, will not disappear on its own.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on December 16, 2025.

The post The clash of civilizations on Bondi Beach: We are at war, and it’s time we admit what’s at stake appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The debate that lingers has been largely driven by President Trump, who repeatedly called for the Republicans to end the filibuster once and for all. As the president sees things, the Senate’s filibuster rule is simply an obstacle that should be eliminated. I say it is an obstacle put there deliberately and I further argue that the removal of the filibuster is a decidedly unconservative proposal that would lead to disaster. That’s all.

Once upon a time, the Senate and the House both had filibuster rules that enabled members to delay legislation, sometimes leading to the defeat of that legislation. Though the word is strange, the principle is deeply conservative. In ancient Rome, Cato the Younger used his own version of the filibuster to prevent the passage of legislation. In the Senate of Rome, all legislation failed with the coming of darkness. Cato just talked until sundown and refused to yield. With darkness the legislation failed and senators went home to dinner. Cato went home satisfied that he had prevented disaster.

The House of Representatives ditched the filibuster early in its history, but the House was designed to be the chamber of energetic legislative action. The Senate, by contrast, was designed to be the brake on the hot passions of the House. In the Senate, every state stands equal and any senator can command the floor. The Senate was designed to slow things down. The filibuster is not mandated in the Constitution, but it has been an essential rule of the Senate. In older days, a “talking” filibuster was required. More recently, the filibuster works in the Senate by requiring 60 votes (a 3/5 majority) for any bill to advance to a vote. In most cases, no marathon-length speeches are necessary.

Let me be blunt. Conservatives depend on the filibuster and without it we would be living under very different circumstances. The conservative disposition calls for restraint when it comes to legislation. If the filibuster had not been in place, we would be facing disaster. To remove it would be to torpedo conservative aims and hand the Senate to the next Democratic majority, free to run roughshod toward progressivist goals.

Conservatives believe in the lessons of both history and mathematics, so let me give you a major dose of both. If legislation in the Senate can move forward with a simple majority, as in the House of Representatives, the Senate becomes little more than a second House with longer terms. The nightmare scenario is one in which there is no Senate filibuster and the Democrats control both chambers and the White House. The Democrats would win every vote, and nothing could stop a bare Democratic majority from passing whatever legislation it likes—and its increasingly radical base demands.

Now for the history part. Brace yourselves. I made a chart of every congress since Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. No less than 18 of those congresses, starting with the 73rd Congress in 1933, had Democrats in control of the House and the Senate and the White House. What about Republicans? Over the same period from 1933 until the present, Republicans had the clean sweep only four times. Want to get rid of the filibuster? Say hello to disaster.

Just take the issue of abortion. The Democrats have been kicking themselves ever since the Supreme Court reversed the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022. Their base demands to know why the Democrats did not pass comprehensive abortion rights legislation when they were in total control. The filibuster is a major answer to the question. That same leftist base demands that the Democrats pledge to eliminate the filibuster once the party is in the majority once again, and that with the filibuster gone, and with Democrats once again in control of the House and the White House as well, they would be free to pass radical abortion laws and run the tables, so to speak, with progressivist legislation. Just imagine the LGBTQ avalanche to come.

Think it can’t happen? Without the filibuster, Democrats can run Congress like the British Parliament, where a simple majority can basically run the tables. A Democratic president would be only too glad to sign the leftist legislation. Think that’s unlikely? Remember, the Democrats have controlled the House and the Senate and the White House for no less than 36 years since Franklin Roosevelt’s inauguration. Just imagine if they had held that control without the restraint of the filibuster in the Senate.

The filibuster can be frustrating. The recent Democratic filibuster was frustrating, and comes with consequences. But conservatives had better remember that, without the filibuster, we would be living in Nancy Pelosi’s America. When she was speaker of the House, she famously hated the filibuster rule in the Senate. But for the filibuster, the Democrats could have cleared the decks with their legislative priorities when Barack Obama and Joe Biden were in the White House. Let that little nightmare focus your attention.

William F. Buckley, Jr. once said that the conservative mission was “to stand athwart history yelling stop.” Killing the filibuster would mean conservative surrender. The filibuster is one essential way of yelling stop.

For a counterpoint by Hunter Baker, see “The filibuster is failing us.”

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on December 17, 2025.

The post Keep the filibuster rule Point: Eliminating the minority brake in the Senate is the last thing conservatives should want appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.