The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Thursday, October 8, 2026

Starting point is 00:00:00 It's Thursday, October 8, 2006. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. As is so often the case, once the story begins to unfold, it continues to unfold. Once an investigation begins, it often brings in information you didn't even know to expect. One of the items of information that has come to us after the intervention on the fly Dubai flight in which it now turns out the co-pilot, struck the pilot in hopes of incapacitating the pilot, and then eventually flying this jet airliner with about 180 people on board into the airport at Tel Aviv, a major terror attack. But what we know now is that this fly Dubai co-pilot had intended to take this action in a flight back in July. But he didn't. The Wall Street

Starting point is 00:00:54 Journal says he didn't because he cared for someone who was on board, another member of the flight. team. That's just very interesting. We're looking at this, and by the way, here's some of the big questions that come to the fore. I think most people are already on these big questions. How did a man with this kind of troubled past end up being hired by a major airline? How is it, furthermore, that the state of Israel allowed the flight to take off when they do have rules that there can be no flight crew like this. There can be no pilot in particular in a commercial airliner that would land there in Israel, who is from a country that doesn't have diplomatic relations with Israel. And Oman does not. And so you look at this, you recognize the Omani authorities knew he was a problem.

Starting point is 00:01:37 They had already taken action. He had already been sent to some educational programs. He had already been released by the Omani airline. And then you also have the reality that when you are looking at the fact that this man is flying, he had posted all kinds of things that were was just a flashing red lights of warning about the fact that he had been militarized and radicalized. And then you look at the most vaunted security system in the world, which is generally what's conceded to be the state of Israel. And obviously, you have multiple failures here. Now, there was heroism at the end, the heroism of the pilot who was able to get the cockpit door open, the heroism of passengers who were able to take action. And so this really is a huge

Starting point is 00:02:21 moral drama, a huge human drama. And the reason we come back to it is because, when there are significant twists in the tale, so to speak, like this, when there are significant revelations, it tells you once again that human beings not only have the capacity to do great evil. Human beings have not only the capacity to do great good. Human beings have the capacity to fail to connect the dots. And that's a big issue. It turns up in almost every major terror account. It turns up in big spy stories, as we have seen, with the arrest of the former head of the German spy agency. There were dots there to be seen. For that matter, the dots kind of demanded somebody needs to connect these dots. And yet in so many cases,

Starting point is 00:03:06 they were not connected. The man was hired by fly Dubai, even as there were significant concerns already. Israel has this incredible security system and Israel already had the right policies in place. It would appear that everything was supposed to work right until, of course, the moment when it turned out it didn't. But once again, I think it's important for Christians to understand that it is a part of our fallen and finite human nature that we are capable of missing the obvious. Once the obvious is made clear, we understand we should have seen that. Authorities in Israel should have seen this. Authorities in Oman should have seen this. The airline that hired him fly Dubai should have seen this. And now we're looking at a situation that by any estimation was a very near thing.

Starting point is 00:03:54 Airline authorities say that by the time that those who were rescuing the situation were able to get in the cockpit, including at least one pilot who happened to be on board, it turns out that there were only a matter of seconds in which a recovery was possible. That doesn't mean, by the way, that the co-pilot would have been successful in flying the plane into the airport there in Tel Aviv. No, more likely, the Seguivkid, dive, the airplane was experienced. would have just turned out to be a fatal plunge there into the desert. Once again, we're just so thankful that didn't happen. You look at the people who landed in Tel Aviv. They were on that second flight that was sent to get them from where the plane had conducted an emergency landing. You see them getting off. You see the families and you see people singing. It's such great relief that

Starting point is 00:04:40 this disaster was averted. But you know, the closer we see it, the closer run thing it turns out to be. And once again, it is a sobering reminder, not of our ability to connect the dots, that's important too, but of our ability to miss the obvious and not connect dots that we're right there ready to be connected. Another principle here, just in terms of Christian worldview analysis, is that by the time you understand this, and by the time something like this happens, and then you come up with new policies, someone's going to be coming up with a yet now unimagined and perhaps right now an imaginable plan for evil. That's just the way it works, and it's Christians who better understand the fact.

Starting point is 00:05:25 All right. Now, while we're talking about evil headlines, here's a big one. It's coming from the Guardian in Great Britain, but it's about Australia. Listen to this, quote, abortion pill access jumps almost 50% after Australia eases restrictions for pharmacies. Okay, this is not just a big story about abortion and the abortion pill in Australia. It's a big story about how moral change happens. And I want us to note two big things in this article. One of the big things is that in this article, abortion is redefined as medical care. And that is one of the main ambitions and now one of the main strategies you see in the battle for life. There are those who are pushing abortion rights and abortion access and

Starting point is 00:06:04 abortion right up until the moment of birth. And they are saying it should be defined simply as a matter of a woman's health care, period. Only the recognition of one human being involved, the woman, and the only issue is her perception of her own health care. So it doesn't even have to be some kind of bona fide medical crisis. If she says it's a medical crisis, it is a medical crisis. So that shows up here. And it shows up when one person celebrating this wider access to the abortion pill regiment in Australia says, quote, it means getting care quicker.

Starting point is 00:06:34 Okay, just hear that. It means getting care quicker. Now, what it really means is killing babies sooner. But you know, if you can redefine that as getting care quicker, quicker, you can turn an evil into something that is, well, dressed up as something good. Okay, the second thing we need to see here is that when the logic of the abortion pill takes hold, then the expansion of that logic is virtually inevitable. And so if you decide, we're just going to define this as medical care, and we're going to reduce abortion now to a regimen of pills,

Starting point is 00:07:05 two pills in most cases, or two medications in most cases, but the pills can be taken. And there need be no medical visit, no doctor supervision or anything. The pills in the United States can be sent even in the mail. But now in Australia, the widening of all this comes down to the medical practitioners who are now, and you'll notice the guardian is just enthusiastically happy about this, who are now able to be the agents for distributing the drug. Listen to this. Quote, prior to the changes, GPs as general practitioner physicians,

Starting point is 00:07:33 needed additional training and registration to prescribe it. The requirement for pharmacists to be registered to dispense the drug, drug was also scrapped and administrative hurdles were relaxed. So now we're told that the drug is going to be even more available and the use of it's gone up. We are told in Australia after this policy changed by 50 percent. Okay. So we're talking about a very significant increase in abortions. We are told that this came only after physicians no longer needed to have any kind of special training in order to dispense the drug. And then pharmacists also didn't have to be registered even. So once that's done away with, then all of a sudden, guess what? More pills are distributed, but that's not

Starting point is 00:08:13 where it ends. Listen to this. Quote, appropriately trained nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives also became eligible prescribers. Okay, in the United States, that would be a big hurdle. You're talking about the authority to prescribe drugs, but I will just warn you that this kind of logic will not stay in Australia. It will cross the Pacific. The kind of logic is going to show up when we are told that in order to expand women's health care. You know, that's the giant moral change that they are stressing here. The redefinition of abortion is medical care. That's just a huge win for the abortion rights movement. And then if you can say in order to expand that medical care, you need to expand the people who can be the agents of distributing and authorizing the drug.

Starting point is 00:08:57 Well, there you have it. And you can see in Australia the fact that the numbers don't lie. We're told this. Forty-nine percent more pharmacies after the change are now stocking the quote, there were 2,228 pharmacy stocking it before the policy change, rising to 4,107 by mid-20205. The number of postcodes equivalent to zip codes in the U.S. With a pharmacy stocking the medication rose from 915 to 1292 or nearly half of all Australian postcodes, like zip codes. Regional coverage increased on 23% to 35% of those codes, while the proportion of stocking pharmacies in remote areas, nearly doubled rising from 12.5% to 222%. So you see the insidious way the culture of death progresses. I just want to make sure we see it. It progresses in multiple ways, but two of the strategies are

Starting point is 00:09:50 redefining abortion as a woman's health care and then redefining who can even distribute the abortion pills because after all, why would we treat that as a morally significant challenge? Okay, while we're talking about related issues, no doubt many of you have seen the headlines coming from Russia about the fact that a woman has died of the pneumonic plague, and she has worked for one of those institutes in the former Soviet Union, now Russia, that is known to be experimenting with biological agents like this form of the plague. Now, when you look at the history of various cycles of the plague in human history that have been so devastating, most of that, at least in its most virulent form, is in bubonic plague. So that's another part of the body.

Starting point is 00:10:36 body in which the plague cells begin rapidly to multiply. In pneumonic plague, that multiplication takes place within the lungs. Now, you have the Russian saying, nothing big is going on here. This isn't a bio weapon that's in development. We're just conducting medical research and by some freak accident that this happened. But I want you to notice that people aren't taking Russia at its word. And so the United States State Department, it's used, state department kind of language, but it has raised a significant alarm. European countries clearly. I mean, they're closer to this. The proximity of this bio lab to European nations is a lot closer than to the United States. And so some of them are actually putting a lot of pressure on as well. Here's the big thing behind all of this. And we'll talk more about this as we look at the future of warfare on future editions of the briefing. But it is known that even as bioweapons are understood to be some of the most evil weapons imaginable, there are countries like Russia who say, you know, we're conducting experiments in this area, but they're purely. defensive. And you look at this and you go, no, that really doesn't make any sense. A purely defensive

Starting point is 00:11:43 approach would not lead to much of the experimentation that is either known or suspected to be taking place in some of these laboratories. And unfortunately, we're not just talking about Russia. This is documented in Russia. We don't know how many times something like this has happened in a bio lab that we don't know exists in a country that it doesn't have the kind of access that even Russia has at this point. It's another warning of how technology, Even the practice of medicine can turn from a source of good and a force for good to a force for evil and a source of evildoing. By the way, even some of the language that's used in this case is hardly as reassuring as is intended. In a Russian statement, they said that the, quote, sanitary and epidemiological situation was stable.

Starting point is 00:12:30 How good does stable make you feel? By the way, stable doesn't necessarily mean things are okay. This means things are stable. In another statement that was released just yesterday, the Russian authorities said that there was no emergency situation at the lab. The World Health Organization and other international organizations are pressing for more information. It's just another reminder of the fact that we're looking at evil showing up in so many different ways. A biolab that is dealing with this kind of plague agent, if that doesn't make you concerned, I don't know what would. All right, this week marks the opening of the new Supreme Court term,

Starting point is 00:13:11 and the court begins right away with oral arguments. And this week, oral arguments were held in a case that has to do ostensibly with environmental law and environmental damages, but also has to do with the basic shape of our Constitution and the relationship between the national government and state and local governments, the system constitutionally we refer to as federalism. Okay, so this is a complicated case, to be honest. It involves two major petroleum manufacturers, ExxonMobil, and Suncor Energy. They are being sued by the city and the area of Boulder, Colorado, for damages because they are being blamed for contributions to climate change with deleterious impact upon Boulder and, of course, other areas. Now, you might say, well, that sounds like what courts are for. You sue and you're able to make. your case, either before a jury or before a judge, you eventually have some adjudication of the matter,

Starting point is 00:14:11 and of course it can be appealed, and it can go on. And it, at least at first, seems to make sense. But then you understand there's a big argument against this case even being constitutional. Now, that doesn't mean these companies are just in the clear. It doesn't mean that the city or the area of Boulder, Colorado, doesn't have a legitimate concern. The issue here is climate change, so a lot of that is going to be debatable. The big issue is constitutional. And one of the reminders here of just how big this issue is is the fact that you don't have many cases make it to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court is the ultimate court of appeal. And it decides which cases it takes.

Starting point is 00:14:50 And it has decided to take this case because it is a basic issue of federalism that is at stake. And you say, where does that come up? Well, it comes up with this. When you look at the regulation of the petroleum industry, the larger oil industry, Most of the important strictures, policies, procedures, regulations, rules, even laws, they're promulgated at the national level. So they're on the authority of the United States government and they apply to all 50 states and to U.S. territories. It is one basic set of rules. And this came out of the 1960s and 70s.

Starting point is 00:15:26 In particular, it came out of the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, but also an entire, you could just say an entire branch or multiple branches of the administrative state as well as legislation directly related to these issues. So if there were to be a successful lawsuit against, say, petroleum companies, where would that case be heard? And the most natural, the most obvious answer is that the right place to have this kind of case is going to be in a federal court in which case the substance of the case and the implications of the case are going to be mutually applied to all 50 states and U.S. territories. But here I think the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal offers a real insight. If Boulder, Colorado is able to take this kind of suit against these petroleum companies and go

Starting point is 00:16:16 for big damages, then we really have a return to a situation before federalism. So as the editors of the Wall Street Journal said, it's like a return, a step back from the constitution of the United States and a step toward the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, the very first kind of constitutional agreement that brought the 13 colonies together into one thing, it didn't go nearly far enough. And there simply wasn't enough federal level involvement, in which case you had 13 different colonies that were basically still conducting, well, even when it came to foreign policy, there was the threat there'd be 13 different foreign policies for the young nation that claim the identity.

Starting point is 00:16:56 the United States of America. That's why the desperate need for a constitution came. And so in the generation right after the revolution, there was a turn towards the ratification of what became the U.S. Constitution and the clear delegation of so much of the government to the states, but some issues retained to the federal government, such as, by the way, foreign policy and matters of the military. All right, now here's something kind of interesting. When you look at the issue of federalism, and that means so many of the issues should be left at the states. Over the course of the last several decades, it has been constitutional conservatives who have generally been making that argument. So you have the federalist society. It's committed to

Starting point is 00:17:38 federalism. And by the way, it's a very conservative group. And so no real surprise there. But now you have liberals joining in the same kind of argument, trying to use the same kind of argument. The difference is when you look at this kind of issue, this is something that properly belongs to the federal government. You can't have 50 different sets of rules when it comes to these issues. We don't have 50 separate economies. This really is an issue that is going to be settled one way or another at the level of the federal government. All right, so put it another way. If Boulder, Colorado is able to move ahead with this kind of suit, and it appears at least some of the liberal justices were willing to concede that argument, if they're able to do this, then guess what?

Starting point is 00:18:19 we're going to have national mayhem. And that is because if Boulder can do it, then Miami can do it. If Miami can do it, then Tuscaloosa can do it. If Tuscaloosa, you understand the problem. And then if the cities can do it, the states can do it. And then even collectives of states might be able to do it. And that would lead to a situation in which there would be absolute legal mayhem. And let me just say that some on the environmental left, I think, would be happy with that.

Starting point is 00:18:45 I can assure you you would not be happy with that. So once again, it comes down to constitutionalism for which I'm just very, very thankful. I'm thankful we have a constitution. And it comes down to how the constitution is going to be read and applied. And of course, there's so much debate about that. But it also comes down to questions as to what is the proper jurisdiction for this thing. And when it comes to this kind of lawsuit, it certainly doesn't appear that it's up to the city of Boulder, Colorado, to take this action on its own. if it's right for Boulder, then frankly it's right for your town if they can claim to make a case.

Starting point is 00:19:23 And it basically will mean, well, the legal system is going to be turned into an engine pretty much for this. One other interesting footnote about this case. There are nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. There are by most count six conservative justices and there are three more liberal justices. But when it comes to this case, it could come down to a four-four tie. and that is because Associate Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from this case, not because he has a direct interest in either of these two companies, but because he has had investments in energy companies.

Starting point is 00:19:55 And so to avoid any context of impropriety, he has recused himself from the case. So that means, whereas there were nine justices hearing this case, now there will be eight, and you can do the math. That could lead to a decision that is a non-decision, four and four, which means even if this case proceeds exactly to plan, it could be that by the time this Supreme Court term comes to an end, we have pretty much a non-answer to this question. All right, turning to another big issue very much in the headlines. How many Americans are really open to, say, socialism as an economic theory, as some kind of economic plan? The answer is we really don't know.

Starting point is 00:20:37 What we do know is that something surprising has happened over the course of the last several years, even most particularly the last several months. You are looking at the election of Zeram Mandani as the mayor of New York City, openly identified with the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America. We've seen other DSA-affiliated or adjacent candidates who have been elected or are gaining ground

Starting point is 00:21:01 or gain their party's nomination. We're looking at it happening not only on the two coasts by the time you look at, say, California, on the one hand, with Oregon and Washington, and then look at New England and some of them were liberal mid-Atlantic states. You know, you look at that and you say, well, it's not just there. Now it's a Senate candidate in Michigan.

Starting point is 00:21:19 You just go down the list. This is an expanding question. It is interesting to know that the Gallup organization, about 16 years ago, began polling on the question. And here's one of the reports. We're told that at this point, about 43% of adult respondents to the Gallup firm's question expressed what was defined as a positive view of socialism.

Starting point is 00:21:43 Okay. So 43% according to at least the Gallup organization is a very credible organization. You look at adults ask the question, do you favor socialism or do you have a positive view of socialism? We are told that 43% of adults said yes. Okay. I want to raise two questions. The two questions are not the same.

Starting point is 00:22:03 The first question is, do they have a clue what socialism is? and the second question is, when they say socialism, what do they even mean? And so I think it is interesting. A part of this is just what we need to recognize as Christians sometimes is cultural chatter. And so you just listen to the chatter. You listen to the major news channels. You listen to what's going on in social media. You listen to, you know, YouTube videos or whatever you pay attention to. There's just a lot of cultural chatter. And some of that chatter is now, of course, about socialism. And you know, there are a lot of Americans who are just interested in anything different than what they know. And so there's the idea of novelty. There's also kind of a cool, chic image to socialism,

Starting point is 00:22:47 which, by the way, pertains only until you look under the hood, so to speak, and see what it actually is and what it actually does. But you look at 43 percent, we're told, in this Gallup survey, 43 percent of adults who said they had a somewhat or generally positive view of socialism. it does show how much work we have to do in educating Americans about the issues that are at stake. And for one thing, even understanding what socialism is, you understand that when Americans are asked this kind of question, an incredible percentage of Americans just kind of pull something out of the air in offering the answer. I think most of us know this. This is why right after you have the statistics given from a survey, people come back and say, this is supposed to be a representative sample, but we don't know. You look at this. You also recognize that,

Starting point is 00:23:33 when you're talking about socialism, you could be talking about a range of things. And so just in terms of intellectual honesty, you could be talking about more liberal policies that would involve more state control. At least some people would say that's moving in a more socialist direction. It's actually moving towards what in Germany or in much of Europe would be known as something like social democracy, that is to say, it is liberal. It is a move to the left, but it's still within the context of electoral democracy. And it doesn't mean pure social democracy. And it doesn't mean pure socialism. It does mean more government control of and involvement in the economy. Then you have President Trump, who doesn't want to call it socialism, but calls it communism.

Starting point is 00:24:13 And we understand the vocabulary difference there. But the reality is that communism is a form of government of which socialism is the central economic policy. And so the president is not entirely wrong. It's not fair, however, to say that everyone who endorses some form of socialism actually endorses communism, but you know what? I'll simply say, I think the vast danger here is that there are Americans who say they agree with socialism and they don't actually have much of a clue about what socialism is. And I think one of the greatest dangers to the United States is that you could have something show up. And especially to younger voters and to many others, it can appear as something cool until you understand the problem with socialism is that it doesn't work. I think a very interesting

Starting point is 00:24:58 comment was made by Michael New, a professor of social research at the Catholic University of of America reporting and responding to this poll in an article published at the Washington Times. He said, quote, socialism is on the rise because a growing number of Americans are struggling financially and have no experience of the world before the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. He said, and I quote, many Americans have no memory of the Cold War or of the poor economic conditions of socialist Eastern European countries. He said a growing number of politicians who self-identify as democratic socialists have given socialism legitimacy and credibility among Democrats and left-leaning independence.

Starting point is 00:25:37 I just want to say, I think Professor New is exactly right. There are a lot of people talking about socialism, and for that matter saying it sounds cool to me, it sounds interesting to me. They have no experience with the massive, colossal, deadly failures of socialism in the 20th century. Those of us who do remember those failures do understand what is at stake. But you know that reminds me of another basic principle we need to keep in mind. when it comes to economic proposals like this, we need to just think about the fact that the key question is not, is this cool, but does this work?

Starting point is 00:26:10 When you ask that second question, the answer about socialism comes real fast, and it's clear. Thanks for listening to the briefing. At Boyce College, we believe that Christian life is about absolute faithfulness in the church, in the workplace, the family, in the world. That's why we prepare students to know the truth, to follow Christ with conviction, and to be ready for whatever the Lord calls them to do. I want to invite students to experience Boyce College preview this coming October 15 through 16, so it's coming fast. I just want to give you a last opportunity. It's going to be held October the 15th to the 16th here in Louisville, Kentucky on this campus.

Starting point is 00:26:44 If you're a high school student or a parent, you're praying about college. This is the best way to see what sets Boyce College apart. You'll experience firsthand how Boyce prepares students to think clearly, to grow in godliness, and to live faithfully wherever God calls them. Your visit includes two nights of complimentary lodging in meals, and the registration fee is waived when you use the promo code, the briefing. Come see how Boyce College prepares students for a lifetime of faithfulness. Register at Boisecollege.com forward slash preview.

Starting point is 00:27:12 I'll hope to see you there. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to X.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsketeenary. Go to svts. For information on Boyce College, just go to Boiscollege.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the brief. You know,

The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Thursday, October 8, 2026

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.