Unpacking the Iran Conflict and Its Impact on America

Because of listeners like you, pre-born has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies,

your $28 to sponsor one ultrasound doubled a baby's chance at life.

Your tax deductible gift saves lives. Please join us in this mission.

To donate, go to preborn.com forward slash AFR.

I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical world view.

The U.S. Constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights

that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government.

I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised

up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.

This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Good morning. It is Tuesday, March 10th and as the conflict in Iran continues, oil prices

are swinging wildly according to the AP and threatens transport routes and production across

the Middle East. And so the widening Iran conflict has upended oil production and shipping across

the Middle East, straining energy supplies worldwide. Those disruptions caused oil to spike

Monday only for it to swiftly fall back after President Donald Trump suggested that the

conflict or the war as they're characterizing it would be near an end.

And so what does this mean overall for oil prices? Will we see prices affect us at the gas

pump? Well, let's welcome in Tho Bishop who is the comms director for the Mises Institute and

so where are we at with with oil? I think that's that's a good question. Uncertainty is the name

of the game and I don't think anyone knows at this point how long this war is going to last

and ultimately that's where everything comes down to. I mean, we saw in the course of 24 hours

the administration bring up the drafts being on the table to the president saying that he thinks

the war might be mostly over. And so it says conflict swinging from, you know, exactly where this

conflict, what were the expectations needed for the conflict to end? What does an off ramp look

like is Iran interested in off rampant its own retaliation, right? So until there's 80 sort of

clear someone's of a result in this conflict, then where the oil market can go with such a

major vein, such a major highway of treatment. And the straight there is a demon's guess to this

point. Yeah, and you know, it is fascinating how unclear the White House is being about exactly

what is going on. I mean, usually President Trump is pretty precise even if he articulates

it in his kind of his own way. But, you know, to your point at the draft, I mean, the press secretary

said, you know, President Trump always keeps all options on the table. And, you know, he himself said,

I believe it was during a press pull in Air Force One, that, you know, this would have to be

something that would be an extraordinary circumstance for him to invoke that. But even just the possible

hint and suggestion is kind of in a sense playing into the left and trying to characterize this

as more of an ongoing war instead of a strategic operation that will end in just a few weeks. I mean,

do we anticipate this kind of going the way of the Ukraine war where, you know, everyone thought

that would be over in a matter of weeks. And now, you know, here we are years and years into it.

And it seems like there's just no end for coming.

Well, that's the scariest thing right now is that, you know, I think it's clear going into it,

there was, you know, the general objections, objectives in place. But it's one thing to

launch to to to blow things up and to destroy the infrastructure of a of a country and going

up from military installations and other. It's another thing to win the peace and to bring stability.

And when particularly you have an actor like Iran that has, you know, such extensive missile

capabilities that have a significant drone fleet. When we have so many allies in the area,

not simply Israel, but the Gulf States. When we have significant resources such as oil,

such as a straight-of-commute, and such the amount of commerce and global traffic that

comes into that and the ability to inflict pain relatively cheaply, should you be in a situation

where, you know, it's kind of a wounded animal effect. I mean, it is something that, you know,

it's, it's, it's completely different than all the other, you know, in-outs operations

from the administration and, you know, Venezuela, Iran, the past, et cetera, et cetera.

And so I think that this is uncharted territory for what we've seen from the Trump doctrine of

foreign policy. And with that, there's an open-ended possibilities of where things last. I think

there's a lot of trust from Trump adults from the President's voters that this is something

in and out that, you know, I think there's, there's the, the, the interest, the support for a prolonged

conflict, even amongst the President's deep supporters. I think it starts running out very

quickly. If we start talking about months rather than weeks and, you know, having for a bit of

years, the domestic cost, including on the energy front, and the way that it's eroding the,

the message of affordability and economic gains and things like that, right? You know, this is a,

a, a very complicated and, and costly conflict, not simply, you know, going to the gas pump right

now, but there's significant pull the whole cost. So speak nothing of, you know, the fact that

we've already lost with, you know, I reported seven American service members. So yeah, this is

the, and then I get within all of this is the global economy that, you know,

it's not the sort of environment that you want to be disrupting going into midterms,

so to put it crassly. Yeah, that's a really interesting point. And I'm speaking with Tho Bishap,

who's the content director for the Mises Institute. And, you know, this kind of a market instability

that Trump is willing to navigate right ahead of the midterms is a little bit counterintuitive to

what's kind of always been the Trump doctrine. And yet he clearly very strongly believes in the

strategic objectives that he's outlined and, you know, the ongoing win. However, he might characterize

that. And so, you know, when it comes to things like market instability, like potentially gas prices,

oil prices and all of that, how, how, assuming that this, this continues over the next, you know,

save in several months, how much of this do you, do you attribute to actual supply disruption

versus, you know, like a geopolitical risk premium price into market specifically for oil. And

then the economy just being an instability of not knowing exactly when this conflict went.

I think it's impossible to cool apart those three factors there, but all of them, I think,

go hand in hand. And that's the difficulty of the entire situation. I know the administration has

made attempts to try to offset the loss of insurance markets for shipping, using, you know,

basically using the federal government's effects stock, which I think is an interesting proposal

within this, either this sort of unique situation, that not have immediate pay-offs, right,

you're getting captains, you're actually driving large vessels through. I have a, with the threat

of an attack there is a little bit different than just simply making sure that, you know,

their insurance is taken care of on that situation. And we're talking about, you know,

economic decisions of massive investments, certainty in, you know, the course of weeks,

months, years is a major factor for how capital amelicated. And that's the other dynamic to it,

is that we are the disruptions in this region. And particularly if there is no clear,

you know, if, if, say, a post-conflict or rack, a post, or a post-war ran,

it's even more radical, more unhinged than it was prior to this conflict. I know that's

can difficult for people to even comprehend, given the way that, you know, Kamenny and, and

this, yeah, that was perception of a ran, but if, you know, you have a hardliner, even crazier

sun taking over, right, then that elevates risk in the region generally, even if you had a end

of direct military hostilities. It, that would certainly impact prices in terms of the threat,

the immediate pluses of fleets, but, you know, there's still, you know, the risk of general

regional, regional uncertainty. So, you know, this is one of, yet another major stress to the

global economy. And it's, you know, hopefully, hopefully, you know, there is a path to

stability. There is, there is an opportunity for a deal on the table to only reopen up

commerce in the region, but to bring stability in Iran, even if it's with the sort of leader that

we typically would not like. Syria, for example, you've got a former ISIS leader that, you know,

is a country that's been willing to play ball on geopolitical issues. There are paths out there

that can resemble stability that could have lasting positive impacts in the region, and

particularly Donald Trump's legacy, which I think probably plays a major role in his ambitions

here, but in the short term, the range of outcomes, right, it can go anywhere from

seven more weeks of, you know, increased prices of the pump to something much, much, much longer

and much more devastating, you know, both to the global economy and to, you know, average Americans.

Yeah, and, you know, it's interesting how all of this is being played out this close to the midterms.

And so, assuming that this conflict does continue over the next couple of months instead of

being resolved more quickly, where do you think the, the sort of fault line lies in terms of the

public perception and the voters perception of the impact of this conflict on the economy

for purposes of the midterms? I mean, at what point do people, is it kind of too late to say,

okay, well, you know, whatever the economy is doing, anything that is potentially negative is

now attributable to Iran and therefore President Trump that may have a negative impact.

If, if, if, for as mentioned months and not, not weeks, then I think it's going to be a disaster

in the midterms personally, not only because of the economic cost, the, the, the relative lack of

general bringing Americans on board this campaign, right, selling the campaign,

um, and then also a massive, massive generational gap when it comes to this, this comes like,

and really, you know, any sort of appetite for military of interest and overseas in general,

um, you know, the, the, the rate of this war is perceived by independence, by younger voters,

by that large part of the 2024 coalition, deeply, deeply in the red. And, and that's just

right now, I think some of that, if, if we have it into the conflict by Friday, for example,

just to pull a date out there and into something lasting, right, it's not, okay, we're pulling out,

and then all of a sudden we've got more tax going in there and we're going to, we, we have to kind of

play a, the, the peacekeeping role or, or have some sort of follow-up action. Um, you know, if,

if you have some immediate lasting, you know, then, then maybe the, you know, the, the, the, the,

opponents of the conflict, kind of forget about it, you know, the anxiety around what could be

prices of the pump go back up, you know, maybe the political cost ignoring the, you know,

any, any arguments about the, the geopolitical benefits or the legacy benefits or the way history

sees it, right, just the immediate political consequences, you know, maybe it range, maybe it's,

it becomes a less of an impact or maybe a slight positive, you know, if, if, you know, in the short

term. And this thing starts going on and on and on, um, then I think this is going to be a,

a major political consequence, um, because going to the appetite is just not there and it's not

simply going to be measured in terms of a disinterest in, you know, military adventureism overseas,

but a real impact into how this is going to affect people's wallets, because,

you know, the longer it goes up, risk goes up, the public goes up. And so this is a very,

a dangerous situation politically, um, you know, on top of everything that, uh,

looking the conflict itself. Yeah. And, um, and one last question for you, though, Bishop,

um, and I really appreciate your time this morning breaking this down, you know, in the 2022

midterms inflation mattered. And we heard about, um, you know, Biden-flation and all of this,

through the 2024 presidential election, but we're not talking about that nearly as much as we

are oil prices and other things related to Iran. And so, uh, how much do you think that inflation

may, uh, play into the voters mindset, uh, come November? Well, I think that's, that's the interesting

part in all of this is that, you know, one of the most positive, uh, things that the administration

have had, um, has been oil prices. And the effect that oil prices has such a dramatic impact

on, you know, so many other goods because of transportation costs, these are a variety of reasons

there. Um, you know, the, the extent to which Trump administration policies were able to

significantly decrease oil prices, which helped offset in some ways from the cost of tariffs,

things like that. And so you had, um, you know, a, a, a meaningful, uh, reduction in the, you know,

and the rate of price inflation. Um, this, that is why, like, this particular thing is so

dangerous is because, you know, this is hitting at, perhaps the, the strongest aspect of the American

economy. I mean, we sell issues of spending. We still have, you know, an even job performances.

We still have issues with, with, uh, housing affordability and the like, um, but it gains on

deregulation and energy prices, um, that has been the best part of the Trump economy. So this

guy was right into that, um, and, and, uh, so that's, that's, again, why this is especially

particularly big deal, um, for, for the economy, both the, uh, for consumers and for political fallout.

Yeah. Well, we got to take a break here, but, um, really fascinating stuff, and it's going to be

interesting, uh, throwbishop to see how all of this, uh, plays out the closer we get to

November and where the economy is actually situated. Uh, that, of course, is going to be a key

voting issue like it always is, um, but hopefully Americans will, uh, turn their attention more

toward, um, the, the values voting of understanding who exactly, uh, will protect, um, the American way

of life, our law, our culture, all of that, um, you know, over handing over power to, um, you

know, the extreme leftist regime. So a lot to be praying for and focused on, uh, heading in to

November. And so you can always follow throwbishop on x and we will be right back with more here on

it, Jenna Ellis in the morning.

We're living in a time when truth is under attack. Lies are easy to tell, easy to spread,

and easy to believe, but truth, truth is costly. And nowhere is the cost greater than for mothers

in crisis. When a woman is told abortion is her only option, silence and lies surround her.

But when she walks into a pre-born network clinic, she's met with compassion, support,

and the truth about the growing life inside her. That moment of truth happens through a free

ultrasound. And it's a game changer. When a mother sees her baby and hears that heartbeat,

it literally doubles the chance she will choose life. Pre-born network clinics are on the front

lines, meeting women in their darkest hour, loving them, helping them choose life and sharing

the truth. Friend, this is not the time to be silent. It is the time for courage, for truth,

and for life. Just $28 provides one ultrasound and the opportunity for a mother to see her baby

to help her choose truth and choose life. Please donate today, call pound 250 and say baby.

That's pound 250 baby or give online at preborn.com forward slash AFR. That's preborn.com forward slash AFR.

Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

Welcome back well amid the conflict in the Middle East. Tensions are rising here on the home front

with several reports of domestic terrorism. And this report that a southwest flight diverts

to an Atlanta airport and an arm tactical unit detains a man in a frightening security scare

that's coming from Fox News. Southwest passengers held their hands up as armed officers boarded

a plane on Friday following a reported security threat. And then on Sunday, the Kansas City

International Airport Terminal reopened hours after it was evacuated while authorities looked

into a potential threat that coming from AP. The airport spokeswoman said in an email that shortly

after 2 p.m. the terminal was reopened. The evacuation began after a threat that surfaced

around 11 15 a.m. flights that landed after the evacuation were held on the taxi way during the

shutdown, which the spokesperson said lasted over or about two hours. So in a social media post Sunday

afternoon, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the incident was clear and normal operations

are resuming. FBI Director Cash Patel said on social media Sunday afternoon that the FBI

reviewed the threat and determined it to not be credible. So that's at least somewhat relieving.

But what's going on here really in terms of the domestic front? Let's welcome in Ray Alexander,

who is a retired naval officer. And Ray, it seems like in the midst of this Middle East conflict,

it's just providing opportunities for perhaps terror cells or others who don't have the best

interest of the US and American citizens at heart to show themselves. And these incidents seem to

be on the increase. That's true. On the positive side, most of them, an overwhelming majority of

them, appear to be or have proven to be false. False bomb claims, false bomb threats,

other kinds of false physical threats. So on the positive side, almost none of them have proven to

be an actual threat. There was that New York, that incident in New York City in response to a protest

where a couple of hand-held, what appeared to be IEDs were thrown in a crowd and then at the police,

that there was a fire bombing of a synagogue in Beverly Hills recently on March 2nd.

There have been some real threats, but most of them have been proven to be false.

Well, and so that is encouraging that most of them have proven to be false and the ones that were

credible have at least been successfully neutralized. But what does this mean in terms of

ongoing security concerns, particularly I think for airlines? Because in stories like this,

where you have especially the video footage that goes viral and these kinds of really scary incidents

quite frankly, it makes people nervous about air travel and other concerns about going to

largely populated events and some of these things. How should people analyze the current tensions

in terms of their decision-making? You're correct. It requires very little to affect

an operation of disruption in psychological warfare. On the American people, we live in a free

society and so it's difficult for the American government and police forces to suppress

these kinds of efforts, these kinds of attacks without significantly degrading our American liberties.

And that is part of the double-edged sort of living in a free country is that our liberties

do allow the freedoms that also make it possible for people, the various forces and just

malign actors to these are established or affect these disruption in psychological operations.

Unfortunately, it's so easy to call in a bomb threat and then you cause a disruption of air

travel and say the Kansas City International Airport for hours. Low investment, low risk,

but over the course of thousands of calls has a natural disruptive effect on the American

life, everyday life for American citizens. How to respond, understand, just generally big picture,

understand that the world is a dangerous place and that we are attempting our best to address one

major U.S. enemy in Iran and that will have cascading effects. Fortunately, we are addressing

that, addressing Iran before it becomes a much larger and more violent, regional and global

confrontation, but it does have effects on everyday lives and many, most people will experience this

as inconvenience and anxiety very few because we are addressing it in the way we are proactively.

It will be far fewer people that will experience actual violence as a result.

Yeah, and that's encouraging and we're talking in the last segment about some of the

economic concerns and some of these reactions and I think while people are very concerned

about the economy, when it comes to risk of personal safety, that becomes sort of paramount and

especially in a post-9-11 security culture, particularly with airlines and some of these other

security operations. I mean, they've intentionally lowered the threshold for diverting, flights

are involving law enforcement when there is a potential threat or uncertainty involving an

unruly passenger and does that kind of risk of over-response here, especially in this environment

that now we're navigating in the midst of the Iran conflict. Does this tend to lead to more

false flags that are maybe quickly neutralized, but is actually a good thing of an over-response

rather than kind of a more cavalier attitude towards security? Yeah, I'm all for reducing the

inconveniences of DHS security checks at airports and making it quicker to access and

easier to move. However, that being said, I think actually some of our some of our increase

awareness now right now during this Iranian conflict is beneficial and should provide folks

greater sense of comfort, although I have to say that when a conflict is over, we should go

back to scaling back those disruptive DHS inspections at airports and in other types of

bureaucratic kind of inspections that have proven over time to be essentially not very useful

in preventing accidents or in preventing attacks. So to summarize, I agree that DHS does more

than I think it should generally speaking under normal conditions. However, now it is a useful

tool to help prevent real attacks. Yeah, and you know, and I'm thinking of things like we

finally can keep our shoes on at the airport, you know, DHS finally, you know, change that,

and I'm just waiting in the midst of all of this for that role to be rescinded and to kind of go

back to, you know, some of these post-9-11, but I think you raise a really valid point,

a right Alexander, that, you know, while some perhaps heightened temporary security measures

need to be or should be in place, temporary is kind of the key word, and it seems like whenever

we change security protocols or we do this even for, you know, a temporary reason,

then those often become prominent without kind of any logic or reason behind it, and so it becomes

so cumbersome all kind of in the name of security. And we've seen a lot of privacy and, you know,

some of this kind of, you know, big brother sort of government intrusion be the price that we've

paid for more of an illusion of security in kind of a post-9-11 culture, and so, you know, how should

we consider, you know, balancing that, because obviously the American people want to remain safe,

I mean, that's clearly a priority, but we also don't want to give over too much to the government

in exchange for privacy and security. Yeah, I think there's room, I think there's room for

disruptive policies, practices, and procedures in security to disrupt planning for nefarious actors.

So in the military, we call them random anti-terrorism measures or RAM, and basically you rely on the

fact that real nefarious actors and malign actors will observe, they will gather information and

intelligence, and then they'll build their tactics and plan their attacks, and you disrupt that

planning cycle by instituting sort of random protective measures. I can't go into great detail

on some of the some of the measures that we do, but for example, you might have an airport say,

and this is just an example that I might institute. Let's say we go back to, we peel back some

of our security measures at airports after this conflict is over, but every once in a while,

at say, given airport, you institute a random control in some way, maybe pull more people out of

the line, maybe you ask them a few additional questions or different questions, there are very

subtle ways in which security forces can can disrupt planning cycles from align actors that does

not have a massive impact on the public. Of course, you'd have to communicate the intent,

and you can do so openly while still maintaining the effectiveness of your random anti-terrorism

measures, but by communicating it, you could potentially maybe soften the blow if you happen to be

caught up in that additional questioning or increased security measures, understanding that,

generally speaking, everything is going to flow more smoothly for the American public.

So overall, you know, with, and then that totally makes sense, do you think that the American

public should, you know, think about, okay, maybe we're at, you know, at heightened security status

right now, but overall should we just consider this kind of business as usual and be okay with,

you know, flying and just kind of carrying on about our day as normal?

I do think that there is an increased risk. I think that we'd be foolish, you know,

not to acknowledge that there's increased risk right now. You know, over the last 10 years or so

with increased unmitigated access through our borders specifically in the last, you know,

during the Biden-Harris administration, it is very difficult. We basically have limited

information on a number of people that have flowed across the border. I know the Trump administration

has been doing their best to catch up on that. There are, we have to assume that there are

Milan actors in the United States who may, who may, you know, attempt a violent attack. So

things like being out in public, if you're out, say for a, for the July party, if this thing goes

that long, or if you're out for some, some kind of public gathering, just be aware of what's going

around you, try to have an escape route plan, kind of standard stuff that military is trained on,

just be aware of your surroundings and have a plan for escape, you know, have a way to get out,

especially when you're lined up along roads because a very obvious method of attack is

vehicle ramings, step behind ballerge, trees, you know, light posts, things that would disrupt a

vehicle, things like that, take practical measures, but don't, but still go to the parade, you know.

Yeah, and still, you know, still live your life. I mean, because that's part of, you know, the rise

of the social media kind of viral video is the unfortunate, perhaps unintended, maybe intended,

the consequence is that, you know, any incident then suddenly has viral attention and people

respond often, you know, out of fear of something like that happening again. And so, you know,

there's a balance, I think, Ray Alexander, between being, you know, cautious and prudent, but also not

being so concerned that you end up not being able to go about your daily life and your,

your daily business, especially when it comes to air travel.

Yeah, I agree. I agree.

Yeah, so, so in just the last couple of minutes that we have with you, you know, you'd mention that,

you know, this is, this conflict in Iran is happening now so that we don't have a bigger

enemy down the road. And so, you know, in your opinion, you know, is this a, is this going to be

more of a short term conflict? I mean, I know these are just projections, but, you know,

do you think that the administration is handling it well?

Yes, I think, I think the administration

has not only put into its national defense strategy, the expressed lack of interest in

democracy building, interventionism, undefined wars,

you know, nation building, this in the actual national defense strategy. And I believe they've

put that into effect. I think Midnight Hammer was a good example. I think that the removal of

the Venezuelan dictator is a good example. Now, we will affect change in foreign countries to

our positive in our national interests. And they may have cascading local effects that we have

to deal with later. Or, you know, but the immediate removal of the threat is the key. And I think

this administration understands have learned the lessons of the past two, two and a half decades

of nation building attempts in our, in our post-Code War hubris, that, that intervention,

military interventionism overseas. Sometimes, sometimes you need it. And we, and we got to leave it

there, Ray Alexander, but really appreciate your commentary this morning. And we will be right

back with more in a talk to you, Todd Starns, about some more interesting headlines that you're going

to want to hear about. Stay tuned.

The AFR app is a powerful tool, but it does have limitations. You can't use it to change the oil

in your vehicle or get rid of carpet stains. It won't walk the dog, won't pick up the dry cleaning,

or take the kids to practice. But while you're doing those things, you can listen to your favorite AFR

content through the app on your phone, smart device, or Roku. Just go to your app store or visit afr.net.

Listen to AFR wherever you go with the AFR app.

Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

Welcome back. And in more controversy and problems for the US amid all of the ongoing conflict

in Iran, ToddStarns.com provided an update that a suspect in the New York City weekend

terrorist attack near Gracie Mansion allegedly planned an assault, quote, bigger than the Boston

Marathon bombing. Federal prosecutors said in a criminal complaint Monday. And so Todd Starns

joins me now. And you know, this is really concerning on a number of levels. And we've been talking

throughout the show this morning about how not only the right is fractured over the escalations

in Iran, whether to support President Trump or not, but it seems like there are active terror

cells in the United States and then just also some other individuals who clearly do not have an

allegiance to the United States that are using this conflict as an opportunity to really take out

aggression and terror across the United States. So what do you make of this particular attack overall?

Well, yeah, they're not allegations. They actually said this on police body cam footage that was

then transcribed into the official police report. So these are the actual words of the Islamic

jihadist. What I find really fascinating here is the these individuals 18 and 19 years old

from Pennsylvania. They came from very, you know, well-off families. We understand one of the

one of the young men lived in a home with his parents valued up more than $2 million. The other

lived in a home valued up more than $600,000. And it certainly appears as though they they had

something much larger planned. We understand that police in the Philadelphia area had rated a

warehouse or rather a storage facility where they found they found something. I witness this is

they're not saying what it is, but I witness has heard loud bangs and pops as they were as they

were possibly deep using or dismantling, you know, possibly more more of these explosive devices.

But Jenna, I think it is it's a it's a warning and it should be a wake-up call that yes,

there are people in this country. Many of them, Islamists who want to harm Christians and Jews

yesterday. On my newsmax TV show, we interviewed a New York City Councilman, Joanne Ariola,

and she said flat out that Christians and Jews are simply not safe at this time in New York City.

That is really scary. And of course, you have a mayor who is a communist and who someone who

clearly is not for American values in terms of his own personal life. And how much do you think

that Mamdani's leadership has played into this? So, you know, for example, if we had a different

perhaps Republican mayor of a New York City, then Jews and Christians might be safer.

Well, even Andrew Cuomo, who was the scandal-plagged former governor of New York who ran

against Mamdani and lost, even he said that he was disgusted by the mayor's reaction response.

The mayor's initial statement, by the way, attacked the victims, the would-be victims,

calling them white supremacists, when in fact these were victims who were peacefully protesting.

You may not like their message, and the message was that New York City is being overrun by

the Islamist, and it is time to do something. So, you may disagree with that message, but it is still

protected free speech, and the mayor completely dismissed these concerns early on and was forced

to backtrack. But even still, you refuse us to call out Islamic terrorism. And if you remember

a couple of weeks ago, General, and there was a big snowstorm, and New York City police officers

were injured when they were pelted by chunks of ice and snowballs, and the mayor simply dismissed it,

refused to allow charges to be filed against those who attacked the police officers.

Yeah, and this is just escalating at a really alarming rate, and it seems like, at least on

the conservative side, recognizing the threat that Islam poses to American values. I mean, this

is actually nothing new. I think that this is just something that has gotten into the media a little

bit more because of the conflict in Iran, of course, but because we're actively seeing some of

this world-view play out. And these two initial Muslim men that we were talking about, I mean,

they're only 18 and 19. I mean, these are really young individuals who are now committing

these acts of terrorism. This isn't just people who have been here a really long time,

and it's really concerning to see this. And yet there's a perception among some on the right

and increasingly on the left that we just have to be completely tolerant as a society

of anyone who wants to be here, any world-view. If we say anything against Muslims, then, you know,

the First Amendment protects them, and anything about Islam will then you're an Islamafob. And

that's obviously a mischaracterization and misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually

protects. But I don't know if you saw this Todd. Yesterday, Representative Andy Ogles from

Tennessee posted, Muslims don't belong in American society. pluralism is a lie. And of course,

that went viral. It got community-noted because people are, you know, calling him out for undermining

the First Amendment, and it was kind of became a big controversy. But obviously, he was trying to be

bombastic there, but the point remains that, you know, Islam and Western values and Sharia law

and US constitutional law are fundamentally in conflict. And that is okay for Americans to

consider and perhaps reconsider, especially who we let into this country and who isn't is not

following our laws. You know, it's a fair point. And I did hear what the Congressman had to say.

And I think that there is a concern about the numbers of Muslims that have been allowed

into the country. I do believe that we are watching in real time the colonization of America.

When you see the proliferation rather of mosques that are being built across the nation,

you know, many several years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious

Liberty Commission came under fire from Southern Baptist because they actually defended the

building of a mosque. And I believe in the New Jersey area somewhere up in the Northeast.

And it became, there was a court battle. And the Southern Baptist came alongside the Muslims

and said, yes, they should be allowed to build their mosque. Again, this is a very troubling thing

because as you pointed out, the teachings of Islam, which is really more of a theocracy,

they do not mesh with the founding documents. So there is already a conflict there. And as we

have seen in places like Patterson, New Jersey and Dearborn, Michigan, when push comes to shove,

Islam and Sharia takes precedent. And the concern I would have is, okay, what happens

when the Islam has become the majority force in this country. And you know, when you look at the

data out there, it will not be terribly long before that happens. Yeah. And we don't want to go

the way of Europe and basically have a takeover and an invasion from within. I mean, this is exactly

what the founders warned by domestic enemies. And you know, this is, this is where they were talking

about, you know, if there was any, if there's any concern about hostile takeover, it would come

likely from within. Yes. And again, the challenge here is this is totally self-inflicted.

The fact is the previous administration allowed millions and millions of Islamists to come into

this country. So the question now is, okay, what happens? And I, it's just really shocking to me

that we've allowed this to go on so far, you know, so long without taking any sort of action,

or without really considering the ramifications, I know Senator Tommy Tuberville from Alabama

has been, and also Congressman Chip Roy out of Texas, both men have been incredibly vocal,

expressing great concerns they have about the lives of Islam here in America. I actually

write about this in my new book. It'll be out in May called the Golden Age, how Trump saved America.

And the concern is we celebrate all the great things that have happened. But in the distance

looming are these dark, bellowing clouds, which would be the rise of Islam in America.

Yeah, and it's really incredible, Todd Sterns. I think that we've allowed it to go this far

under the name of religious pluralism and in the name of tolerance and somehow Christians.

And I think a lot of the leftist Christians, like I'm thinking of, you know, the David

French sort of brand of, you know, modern, woke evangelical, who are looking at religious

freedom from this lens that pluralism is actually a good and healthy thing. And it used to be

that having, you know, discriminating taste was actually a good thing. That was a virtue.

And now suddenly, if you say that there's any standard at all, then somehow you're discriminating

against a certain segment of religion or a population. And yet, here we are in 2026 having

this conversation, reading headlines about these types of terrorist attacks and, you know,

all of these other things that we now have to be concerned about on the home front, simply because,

perhaps, conservatives and Republicans were too hesitant to actually stand up for American virtue

and biblical values back, you know, 20 and 30 years ago. So the question for today, I think,

is, you know, have we lost the plot so far that now there has been too much of an infiltration,

or since we're at least not as far gone as Europe, is there still hope that if Congress writes

this ship that, you know, there are nasty portations, we do at least have a reclaiming of American

law and virtue. There's still hope, perhaps, that we can write the ship before we go, the way of

an Islamic country. Well, I hope so. And that was the point of, you know, really sounding the

alarm bells in the book. I sat down for the Golden Age with our good friend, Dr. Michael Yusap.

And he has, he has really one of the nation's experts on issues regarding Islam and Christianity.

And, you know, he says that this is a clear and present danger to the republic. And it's something

that has to be addressed. And again, when you, when you take the oath, when you become an American

citizen, you, you vow, you swear to renounce your previous, your previous country and your

previous ways and you embrace the American way of life. And if, you know, people are in the country

and they cannot do that or they have not done that, I think we do need to take a very long hard

look at whether or not they should be allowed to remain here in the United States.

Yeah, absolutely. And I really hope that Congress is serious about this and that they don't take

all of this leftist rhetoric and, and the attacks that, of course, are forthcoming, regardless

of anything they do. I mean, the Democrats aren't going to like what the Republicans do and they

haven't for a while. And so it, it, it, it's shocking to me that Republicans still care about any of

these name calling or, you know, any of these false accusations. It's like, just go and do the

right thing, regardless of what the Democrats say. But this seems to be a matter of political will

for Republicans in Congress. And I have some hope that the newly founded, you know, Sharia law

caucus is going to be spearheading hopefully some legislation on this front, but really immigration

overhaul for our legal system needs to happen. And I, I just don't know if this current Congress

or whatever we have after the midterms is going to have that political will sufficiently Todd

Sarns to actually make any kind of meaningful reform. I have very little hope of that, of that

happening. And I was quite frustrated. The president yesterday, speaking to Congressional Republicans

in, in Florida and Miami. And it was almost as if the president had to beg his own party,

members of his own party, just to pace, just to pass the say back through the Senate. And yet,

the majority leader, John, they're simply refuses to do that. So clearly there are Republicans

in Congress who have their own agenda. It is not the president's agenda. And they know that

ultimately they do hold the upper hand because they have demonstrated the past. They're willing to

leave their majority if it means stopping President Trump's agenda. They did that in the,

the first, the first Trump term in office. And it certainly looks as though they're trying to do

that now. So I, I hope they get it together, Jenna, but I am not, I don't think that's going to happen.

Yeah, I unfortunately, I agree with you on that front. And it seems like Republicans are

so willing to be in the minority because they simply don't want to govern. I mean, they, they

prefer it seems like to be in the minority because then they can just go on, you know,

news programs like yours and mine and, and complain about the state of the world. But then when they

actually have power, they don't actually govern. And they don't get the job done that needs

doing because they have all kinds of other priorities instead of actually serving the American people

upholding the US Constitution and getting done what needs to get done. So we can pray on that

front, but Todd Starns really appreciate your commentary. As always, you can follow him on

x at Todd Starns. And of course, ToddStarns.com is his media. And as always, you can reach me and my

team, Jenna at AFR.net.

Preborn's whole mission is to rescue babies from abortion and lead their families to Christ.

Last year, preborn's network of clinics saw 8,900 mothers come to Christ. Please join us in

this life-saving mission. To donate, go to preborn.com forward slash AFR.