You may have never heard of this terror group, but we just started bombing them...and it could help Iran?

Below is a transcript of this segment:

Tonight go in-depth on something the media has once again failed to investigate, and that is this, the Khorasan Group. Who is this? Why did the president go after them?

We have an answer, and again, it is a theory, but remember, my theory was that you are being lied to in great detail on Benghazi. I think this is going to fall into the same thing. I have an answer that nobody else does. I want you to know again, it is a theory. I’m thinking out loud here, but let’s start with last week. The president last week announced airstrikes against a terrorist organization called the Khorasan Group. I reacted like most Americans—the who? The what? Who?

VIDEO

President Obama: Last night, we also took strikes to disrupt plotting against the United States and our allies by seasoned Al Qaeda operatives in Syria who are known as the Khorasan Group. Once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and try to do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people.

Okay, I want to talk you about the Khorasan Group here for just a second here. I had never heard of them, so tonight I want to answer this question: Why did we bomb them? Who are they? Who is being helped by us taking them out? Is anybody besides us? What can history teach us about Khorasan? And are there any connections to this, the president said he is organizing the Middle East, and then he also refuses to recognize what Isis is recognizing, and that is the Sykes-Picot Treaty?

Sykes-Picot Treaty is extraordinarily important. I know some of your friends might even say, “Oh, that’s ridiculous. Stop talking about Sykes-Picot.” They’re the same people who said Woodrow Wilson doesn’t matter. I’m telling you, Sykes-Picot is the key to understanding the Middle East.

Okay, so why did we do this? No U.S. official had ever publicly mentioned the Khorasan Group until the days leading up to the president’s big announcement of the airstrikes, but suddenly this mysterious group presents an imminent threat to the United States.

VIDEO

Lt. Gen. William C. Mayville Jr.: In terms of the Khorasan Group, which is a network of seasoned Al Qaeda veterans, these strikes were undertaken to disrupt imminent attack plotting against the United States and Western targets.

An imminent threat. Now, it’s really odd that this never-heard-of-before group suddenly poses an imminent threat so we have to go and bomb them that night. Homeland Security officials have been consistently adamant that even ISIS didn’t pose a threat to the homeland, so why does the Khorasan Group, an affiliate of Al Qaeda that he himself said Al Qaeda is over? It’s suddenly such a threat that it poses more of a threat to the homeland than ISIS.

The president addresses the nation, forcefully says we’re going to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS but not mentioning the even-more-dangerous terror group called Khorasan. Doesn’t make sense, does it? So what’s happening?

ABC’s Jon Karl was perplexed. He said, “Extraordinary—military strikes against a group no WH official had ever publicly mentioned by name.” And then it just goes away. In a piece for the National Review, our friend of the program, really smart guy, Andrew McCarthy, he goes on, and he’s talking in this. He asserts that there is really no good reason why we have never heard of them.

He says, “You haven’t heard of the Khorasan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorasan—the Iranian-Afghan border region—had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it…The ‘Khorasan Group’ is Al Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, ‘Jabhat al-Nusra.’”

Okay. Our friend of the program—I happen to disagree with him, I think, on this—Andrew McCarthy, contends that it is part of Obama’s strategy to make Americans see the jihad movement not as a powerful ideologically connected network that seeks to destroy the West but rather a small bunch of isolated groups of crazies. That makes sense if you understand this, if you listen to what the president always says—oh, it was just a lone wolf, just a lone wolf.

Remember, the radical Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. See deleting radical Islam from terror training manuals, Eric Holder refusing to say radical Islamic terrorists, even head of the CIA saying, you know, we’re not going against terror because terror is a tactic, all of that stuff, but it goes deeper than that.

Glenn Greenwald wrote…do we have it? Where is it? There it is. “The Fake Terror Threat Used to Justify Bombing Syria.” In the article, he shows that just days before the airstrikes, the administration leaks information on Khorasan to the press in an attempt to soften the ground. Well, the press laps it up. The Associated Press, CBS News, New York Times eagerly are taking this propaganda and spewing it out on the American public. So once the bombings began, the rest of the press, told of this brand-new dangerous threat to the homeland, they immediately go, and everything’s fine. Greenwald lists several, including NBC, CNN, and the Washington Post.

So now the administration had created the scenario that the bombings had to take place in order to save your life to the homeland, a group that nobody had ever heard of—convenient, but the introduction of Khorasan goes much, much deeper than that. The president didn’t need a big justification to go after ISIS. Why did he go after this guy? Because polls show two thirds of Americans support military action against these guys who are in Syria, right? So he doesn’t need to do that. So what gives?

Let’s look at history. Where is Khorasan? What is ISIS and ISIL? What are they fighting for? The Khorasan fighters, does that match what ISIS and ISIL? And what is Iran’s desire? Let me start here. In the aftermath of 9/11, intelligence gathering efforts on Al Qaeda were obviously ramped up. Not long after, we start to see a picture of a very shadowy organization, and it begins to emerge and what their goals and what their reasons are behind them.

And they are scattered all around. We think of Al Qaeda just over here in Afghanistan in the caves, but that’s not true. They were mobilizing to become a global movement, and they would scour the Middle East. And they were looking for where there were historic reasons to be—that’s really important—and where unrest and instability existed, and so they set up shop.

So they start with the Taliban over here. They also go all over, pop up all over the Middle East. The attacks are carried out in northern Africa. You start to see them in this area. You start to see them in Yemen. You start to see them in northern Saudi Arabia and also another one, a very small one over here. This is the Khorasan area. This is a really important area. So there’s Khorasan. Got it?

Historically speaking, it’s a province of Khorasan, and it is the birthplace of modern Persian culture. Khorasan was a province in the caliphate, another crazy word, that existed between 600 and 700 A.D. It’s important that you understand the caliphate. The caliphate that Khorasan belonged to looked like this. It went all across the Middle East, okay, into Tunisia. Now, does this map look familiar to a chalkboard that I might have drawn oh, in times past? That’s the original caliphate that Khorasan was a part of.

Now, there’s an old Islamic hadith—a hadith is a written tradition or a prophecy—and in the prophecy it says that an Islamic army will rise up from Khorasan, right here, and it will fight, and it will restore the entire caliphate map. Again, radical Islamic terrorists do not recognize the current lines, not even Iran’s. What are these lines? The map lines that you are seeing here that I am going to erase are the map lines that we talked about last week.

This is something that you must get your friends to understand. These map lines according to these people do not exist at all. Why? Because these map lines were originally drawn by the West. They were drawn by the French and the English, and those lines are called Sykes-Picot. So that is what this map looks like. There are no borders in this map. It’s one giant border.

And so when you see Al Qaeda, and they’re named different things, you know, Al Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and I don’t know all the names of them, but they’re in different regions. Why? Because they are working on this area of responsibility, this area of responsibility, this area of responsibility, and they bleed out, get stronger, and then tie it all together in the end.

So naturally because this is what they’re going for, and they are the “wrong kind” of Muslims for the Iranians, the Iranian government views Khorasan as a massive threat, because let me show you something else, Iran…Iran currently is here. This is Iran. But remember, Iranians, they believe in the 12th Imam. The 12th Imam is supposed to crawl out of a well, and he’s supposed to come. They’ve already got a road built, and he supposed to come from his little well—I’m wishing, I’m wishing—and then he crawls out, and he goes down this road, and he comes to a place here in Iraq.

And then what does he do? He takes and he makes a caliphate in the region as well, and their caliphate—well, I just made fun of the 12th Imam, and that’s what’s happening—their caliphate is something like this as well, but they have to kill all the wrong Muslims. The Sunnis have to kill the Shias, and the Shias have to kill the Sunnis. It depends which one gets the caliphate.

So now that we have this little background, let’s look at what the administration did suddenly to include Khorasan as a threat. What happened? What has the administration been trying to accomplish recently? Remember, the president said they are organizing the Middle East. John Kerry made it very clear and said you know what we have to do? We want to work with Iran. We want to get Iran together with us and help, and they didn’t rule out the possibility of joint military operations. Watch.

VIDEO

Sec. of State Kerry: Look, we’re open to discussions if there’s something constructive that can be contributed by Iran if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and the ability of the government to reform.

Okay, all right, so we want to work with Iran. What? They’re enemies. What are you talking about? Why would they do that? Well, a very good reason…why is Iran a proxy in Syria? Member, they have Hezbollah. Hezbollah is here in Syria. This is a proxy state. Assad is being propped up by Iran, because Iran, remember, wants to push this way. They’re going to push this way, and they’ll push through the area of Iraq into Syria, and Hezbollah is pushing down this way.

So when you have the Khorasan Group, remember, the Khorasan Group is here. Well, wait a minute, did we bomb them here? No. The Khorasan Group was relocated here because they’re against Iran. They’ve got to stop the proxy. They’ve got to stop Iran and Hezbollah over here. It’s a civil war. It’s a religious civil war, if you will. It’s the Sunnis and the Shias going after.

Now, it’s no secret, the administration desperately sought Iran’s partnership against ISIS. They refused. In fact, the head of Iran laughed from the hospital at the Secretary John Kerry and Obama. But wait a minute, we said we bombed these people. Why did we bomb these people? What happened? What else happened last week here in New York?

Iranian officials were here in New York for negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program. There is a deadline on that, November 24. Both the U.S. and the Iranian officials share optimism, and I know I do too, that a deal remains possible. Oh, it’s absolutely…sure, sure, uh huh. Talks were reportedly starting slow, with Iran wanting the Obama administration to show more flexibility.

By Friday, after five days of American bombing on this little-known terror cell called Khorasan, hope in a deal suddenly improved. Khorasan, by all accounts other than the administration’s sudden revelation, is no bigger of a threat to America than ISIS is. In fact, there are many, many threats in the Middle East that are bigger, several Al Qaeda cells worth striking ahead of Khorasan.

Khorasan may not be a threat to the U.S., but they are a very big deal to Iran. That’s what happened. The president extended the olive branch to Iran. We killed their enemy. Our enemy, we left them alone over here. We didn’t care about Al Qaeda, Khorasan-Al Qaeda. We didn’t care about them because this was our enemy, and so let them destabilize that. That’ll be good. We’ll just use that, and we’ll kill them later.

But now we need Iran, and so when they moved over here, we said they’re a big threat. No, they’re not. We’ve known about them for a long, long time. They’re no threat. This was a gift to the Iranians. He would never be able to say that we’re openly working with the Iranians—politically devastating here and abroad. Iran wouldn’t be able to say they’re working with America. That would invite an avalanche of terrorism in their own land, revenge for siding with the great Satan and betraying the Middle East.

Here’s the thing I want you to know, we are never, ever, ever going to win this war if we don’t understand a few things. One, the enemy of my enemy is not our friend. It doesn’t work that way. Is Iran good? Is Al Qaeda-Khorasan good? Was Mubarak good? Is Syria, what’s his name, Assad good? Was Muammar Gaddafi? None of them are good. Saudi Arabia, are they good? No.

Why would we side with Saudi Arabia who are oppressing women and homosexuals? To keep them at bay? These guys are oppressing women and homosexuals too. This is insanity. They are not our friends. None of them are our friends. There is one friend, and they are right here, and it’s the state of Israel. That’s the only friend, and we keep betraying those people. Why? Because we’re looking at this all upside down.

Iran, we said Iran was our enemy so we let Khorasan just leave it alone. Then ISIS became a bigger enemy, and so Iran, we need them as a friend, so let’s kill Iran’s enemy, Khorasan. What do you think’s going to happen? Do you think that works out for us? Does that make us look like we know what we’re doing, like we’re decent people, that we have any principles whatsoever? No.

Two, we’re repeating the same mistakes because we have short or no vision. By playing the old game, we’re only making it worse every time. Three, we have to reconcile the past. Sykes-Picot is the problem. They are trying to reboot the whole Middle East. It is slipping through our fingers because it was never right in the first place.

Why are we defending borders that we have no place even putting those borders in place? Let them kill each other. I know it sounds horrible, but this is insanity. If you can come up with a better strategy that recognizes that we have to reconcile the past, and it’s rooted in principles, and we can save people, I’m willing to hear. I’m absolutely willing to hear it. But Sykes-Picot is the root of the problem here. It’s not our wealth. It’s not our religion. It’s nothing.

They want their caliphate, period. And four, the intel that the president is getting is either foolish, it’s criminal, or it’s both. Yesterday, the president came out—I’m amazed by this—the president came out yesterday…this man can’t take responsibility for a damn thing. He came out yesterday and said hey, I just want you to know, it’s not really my fault. It was bad intelligence. Mr. President, I’m begging you, if you really believe that, if that’s true, then fire those people who have been so wrong in the past.

If somebody has given me this kind of information and has been this wrong for this long, I don’t even have to fire them; they tender their resignation because they’re humiliated. When are you going to start firing people and put people in that know what they’re talking about? Hell, the guy who has his own stupid cable TV show, he knows more than your advisors do. I’m available for consultation. I won’t charge you anything. More on this theory coming up in just a second.

The American people are waking up. They no longer see Washington as a place that protects liberty. They want to be part of the solution, but they don’t necessarily see a solution out there. The politicians in Washington are ignoring the voice of we the people. That’s why I encourage you to join FreedomWorks in the fight to take back our freedoms to hold onto them because we’re the ones that are going to do it. It’s not going to be some clown in Washington.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.