News

I think the most fitting response to this week’s election results is found in Jesus’s words in Matthew 28: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

What’s the connection to the election? First, let’s look at the election numbers.

In the 2018 midterms, white evangelicals made up 26% of the vote. On Tuesday, according to NBC, it was 17%. That’s a decline of nine percentage points.

I’m not a big fan of the elastic term “evangelical,” and tracking only white evangelicals leaves about 40% of my church out of the equation. White evangelicals are one slice of a racially diverse community of people who believe the Bible and allow it to inform their views on moral and spiritual issues that have been deemed political.

However, a decline in the share of voters could reflect lower turnout, a decline in the number of evangelicals relative to the population, or both. As for turnout, we won’t have a reliable number on what percentage of evangelicals actually voted. But some suggest it declined, and that’s a problem. When evangelicals sit out an election, they give up an opportunity to shape its outcome.

So how does all this connect to the words of Jesus?

First, Jesus tells us to make disciples. That should prompt us to ask how faithfully we’ve carried out the Great Commission. We need a renewed emphasis on sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, making disciples, and baptizing them. Start with someone you know. Share what Christ has done in your life and invite that person to read Scripture with you.

I’m sure some critics of the church would say, “Focus on evangelism and stay out of politics.” Well, consider the second part of what Jesus said, the Cultural Commission: “Teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” The truth of God and obedience to it is not just a private matter.

Followers of Jesus, equipped and encouraged by pastors, need to share their faith and live it out in a way that impacts the world around them, including government.

My response to the election? Go make disciples for Jesus and teach them to impact the country and the culture with biblical truth.

If you’re looking for a way to put that into practice in your community, visit frc.org/chapters to learn about our Pray Vote Stand chapters.

If you’re discouraged, remember how Jesus began and ended those words. He began by saying that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him. And He ended with a promise for us as we go. “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

‍

This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

The religious decline in America is over for now. After years of decreasing church attendance, a recent report shows steady turnout rates since 2020.

Thirty-four percent of adults in the U.S. said they attended religious services in person over the last month, according to a June 2026 Pew Research Center survey. Forty-five percent said they either attended religious services in person or watched them online or on TV during the last month. The data shows both statistics at their highest levels since 2020.

“The latest Pew Research Center findings are encouraging in so far as they suggest that the decades-long decline in religious identification and practice may be leveling off,” David Closson, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand.

“For years, Americans have been told that secularization is inevitable and the Christian influence in public life will continue to diminish. These findings complicate that narrative. However, we should still be careful not to confuse religious identification with genuine Christian discipleship. From a biblical perspective, the most important question is not simply how many Americans identify with a religion, but whether people are repenting of sin, trusting in Christ, and ordering their lives according to God’s word.”

The study also points to a resurgence of faith among young people. Pew reports that 41% of young adults between the ages of 18-22 say they go to services at a church, synagogue, mosque, or other house of worship at least once or twice a month. Data also shows reasonable levels of stability in the religiosity of the age group since 2014.

“The relatively high rates of religious attendance among the youngest adults are encouraging, even as the broader data reveals a more complicated picture. My hope is that we are witnessing the beginnings of a renewed openness to Christianity among Gen Z, which has grown up amid significant moral and cultural confusion,” Closson continued.

“But increased church attendance must be accompanied by sound biblical teaching and a willingness to embrace the authority of Scripture, especially when the Bible’s teachings conflict with prevailing cultural assumptions. A renewed commitment to biblical Christianity would have implications far beyond Sunday morning worship, including how Americans approach the moral questions confronting our nation.”

For the cohort of young adults born between 2000-2003, Pew reports a slightly higher religious attendance rate than in 2022. “The 2022 reading may reflect a pandemic-era low point in religious attendance among members of this group. All the other indicators show no notable change in either direction. Estimates vary from year to year, but the percentages of people who say they pray daily, that religion is very important to them and that they identify with a religion are all about the same today as in 2022,” the report explains.

Those born in the 1990s show similar statistics. People aged 27-36 are somewhat more likely to say religion is very important in their lives in 2026 than in 2020.

Closson underscored that these numbers don’t necessarily point toward growth or regression in faith, which should serve as a reminder to pastors who have accepted the role of shepherding God’s flock.

“Pastors and ministry leaders should be heartened that the decline of church attendance has evidently leveled off, but we cannot mistake a higher church attendance among young adults as an overall leveling off of the decline in church attendance as necessarily evidence that the church’s mission is being accomplished,” he shared. “Ultimately, fidelity to God’s word and theological conviction is what’s most important. Pastors should take renewed confidence in aspects of this report and recommit to ensuring that their teaching points people to God’s inerrant, infallible, and unchanging word.”

‍

This article was written by Quinn Delamater and origianlly published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Nearly 5,000 Christians were killed for their faith in 2025 — 72% of them in Nigeria. For decades, the African country has been marked by bloodshed, and its government is complicit.

Brad Brandon, founder and CEO of the relief-work nonprofit Across Nigeria, told The Washington Stand that the instability Nigeria experiences festers as a genocide is happening against its own people, and the Nigerian authorities turn a blind eye.

But when it comes to covering up the facts, the government moves efficiently and doesn’t spare any expense. Reports in early 2026, verified by the Justice Department’s records, showed the Nigerian government paid $9 million to the Washington D.C. public relations firm, the DCI Group. According to Brandon, the investment enabled lobbyists to persuade members of Congress not to shine a light on the Christian genocide happening overseas.

In addition to paid lobbyists, Brandon claims the Nigerian government pays off mainstream media outlets — both international and American — to give minimal to no coverage to the genocide Nigeria is enabling. The nonprofit leader continued that Across Nigeria is building a case to expose possible corruption.

“[It looks like] they’re funneling money to the subset groups that are attached to these media outlets, and so we’re trying to sift through which of these subset groups are attached to which legacy media outlets,” he said.

Brandon explained that the more Across Nigeria researched the Nigerian government’s investments, the more they found. “In 2024, there was $547 billion that was divested from Nigeria, so foreign investors took that money out of Nigeria because of the instability. So, the logical conclusion is that Nigeria is trying to whitewash. They’re trying to clean up their global image, whitewash this genocide, so that they can attract those foreign investors back into the country.”

While radical Islamic terrorist groups massacre believers, Nigerian officials are slow to act, said Brandon. He recalled a time when he and others from Across Nigeria visited a community of widows in Nigeria, before getting called away to aid an attacked neighboring community. Local security forces were immediately notified — but took almost three hours to arrive on the scene, despite being stationed 20 minutes away.

“When we got there, there were 10 that were massacred, and we ended up burying them in a mass grave,” Brandon shared. “There’s no reason that it should have taken them two to three hours. And then, shortly after that, the security forces left. And later that night, that same village was attacked again, and five people were killed.”

“That was an attack against Christians. …The instability caused by radical Islamic groups like ISWA [Islamic State West Africa] and Boko Haram has opened the door to lawlessness throughout northern Nigeria, which has given opportunity to banditry groups to feel like they can walk into a community, slaughter 60 people, kidnap people, steal whatever they need to steal, and walk away and get away with it. And they do every single day because there’s no security forces being brought in to stabilize the region.”

Brandon noted that while the Nigerian government denies the attacks target Christians, he is not convinced. “We see the amount of Christians who are being killed and how they’re inordinately being targeted,” he asserted. “I think there’s a case to be made that the Nigerian government is complicit in this. The Boko Haram and ISWA are very strong political, not only terrorist organizations, but political organizations. In northern Nigeria, most of the political power is held in the north, and the north is mostly Muslim. It’s about 90% Muslim in northern Nigeria.”

While Brandon says the Nigerian government likes to boast of its “inclusivity” where Christians and Muslims are concerned, the country’s constitution mentions of Islam and Sharia law more than 100 times but makes no mention of Christianity.

“So, it does favor Islam in a major way,” Brandon explained. “The attacks in the north have been allowed to go on, and the security forces and the Nigerian government have done nothing in 15 years to secure it.”

While lives are lost almost every day, Brandon is sure the hope of God’s Word can heal the Nigerian nation.

“We believe that the gospel is the solution to this problem,” Brandon declared. “Governments can help, organizations can help, but the ultimate solution is the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

‍

This article was written by Quinn Delamater and origianlly published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

A Pew Research Center survey released earlier this year found that 66% of Americans believe churches and other houses of worship should stay out of political matters rather than address day-to-day social and political questions. Does that mean a pastor should avoid any subject politicians happen to debate?

Consider abortion, marriage, human sexuality, immigration, and justice. These are not merely political issues that divide the parties. They are moral and spiritual issues which Scripture addresses. If pastors were to cut every biblical passage that becomes controversial in Washington, our Bibles would look like Swiss cheese.

Perhaps the deeper question is whether we understand how frequently God’s people were called to bring God’s truth to bear on matters of civil government.

In a 2019 Pew survey of biblical knowledge, 79% correctly identified Moses, 78% David, 69% Abraham, but only 28% Esther.

Pew didn’t ask what those four had in common. Besides being Hebrews, each had a consequential encounter with political power.

Moses stood before Pharaoh and demanded freedom for God’s people. David became Israel’s model king. Abraham dealt with kings and rulers. Esther risked her life by approaching the Persian king to save her people from destruction.

And the list hardly ends there.

Joseph rose to authority in Egypt. Nehemiah served a Persian king before becoming governor of Judah. Prophets such as Nathan, Elijah, and Jeremiah confronted rulers when their actions violated God’s commands.

Then there was Daniel.

Daniel served under pagan kings in Babylon and, later, under Persian rule. Yet his proximity to power never silenced his allegiance to God. When King Belshazzar offered him rewards, Daniel refused them and delivered a message the king did not want to hear: God had weighed his kingdom and found it wanting.

Daniel understood something the church must rediscover: God’s people cannot remain silent on matters God has clearly addressed simply because those matters have been declared political.

This pattern continues in the New Testament. John the Baptist confronted Herod over his marriage. Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen and testified before governors and a king. Their witness did not stop at the palace gates.

Certainly, ancient Israel and Rome were not modern America, and Scripture does not offer a party platform or a position on every legislative detail. But it does establish moral truths that apply to nations, to their rulers and citizens alike.

Jesus called His followers the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Neither image suggests withdrawal. Both describe engagement that makes a difference.

So the issue is not whether the church should become political. It is whether Christians will remain biblical when biblical truth has political consequences.

Our calling is neither to become the mouthpiece of a party nor to retreat into silence. It is to stand on God’s word, defend what is right, confront what is wrong, and speak with courage — even when the culture would rather we remain silent.

‍

This article was orginally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

With the November 3 elections approaching, debates over immigration enforcement, economic policy, religious convictions, and America's relationship with Israel are taking center stage in several high-profile races. In Texas and Michigan, Democratic Senate candidates James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed have become focal points of these disagreements, offering competing visions of government that raise broader questions about the country's political direction.

On The Daniel Cohen Show, Cohen used an unusual approach to examine those questions. Drawing inspiration from the classic film It's a Wonderful Life, he imagined a future in November 2027 in which Democrats controlled Congress and pursued their policy priorities.

The imagined future was not a prediction or an account of actual events. It was a rhetorical device designed to explore the possible consequences of proposals already being debated.

At the center of the discussion was a question extending beyond individual candidates: How might today's political decisions reshape the institutions, freedoms, and international commitments Americans have long taken for granted?

James Talarico's Economic Proposals and the Debate Over Christian Faith

In Texas, Talarico has attracted attention for combining progressive economic proposals with religious language. His approach emphasizes economic opportunity, government accountability, and a political vision that he presents as compatible with his Christian convictions.

During remarks featured on Cohen's program, Talarico called for an economy that produces fewer trillionaires and more millionaires. He also expressed support for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and restrictions on their political influence.

Those positions reflect a longstanding disagreement over the relationship between government intervention and economic prosperity.

Supporters of progressive taxation argue that it can help finance public services and address economic inequality. Critics contend that increasing the tax burden on successful businesses and investors can discourage entrepreneurship, reduce private investment, and ultimately limit job creation.

Cohen emphasized the role of business owners in generating employment, arguing that successful entrepreneurs create opportunities extending far beyond their personal wealth.

The disagreement also extends to the judiciary.

Talarico has expressed support for Supreme Court reforms, including binding ethics requirements and term limits for justices. He has also indicated openness to discussing an expansion of the Court.

Such proposals have prompted a national debate about judicial independence. Advocates maintain that reforms could improve accountability and public confidence. Opponents warn that changing the Court's composition for political reasons could undermine its role as an independent branch of government.

But perhaps the most distinctive element of Talarico's public profile is his use of religious language.

In remarks discussed on the program, he described God as love and suggested that Jesus would express particular concern for transgender children experiencing bullying.

For Christians who hold traditional interpretations of Scripture, those statements raise theological questions about the nature of God, biblical authority, and the relationship between compassion and moral teaching.

Cohen challenged Talarico's interpretation, arguing that Christian teaching cannot be separated from Scripture's broader claims about creation, human identity, and morality.

The dispute illustrates a growing divide over who gets to define Christian values in American public life and how those values should inform public policy.

Abdul El-Sayed Faces Questions Over Immigration, Iran, and Health Care

Michigan's Senate race presents another set of policy disagreements.

Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers have offered contrasting approaches to immigration enforcement, health care, and American foreign policy.

El-Sayed has criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggesting that the country could return to an immigration system resembling the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. He has also advocated clearer legal pathways for immigrants seeking to live and work in the United States.

Supporters of immigration reform argue that enforcement agencies need stronger oversight and that legal immigration channels should be more accessible. Critics worry that weakening federal enforcement could create additional challenges for border security and immigration law.

Cohen portrayed El-Sayed's proposals as part of a broader shift away from traditional immigration enforcement. His program also questioned whether the candidate had adequately addressed concerns about the Iranian regime.

One exchange featured an Iranian American Christian student whose family, according to his account, had suffered persecution under Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The student asked El-Sayed to condemn the Iranian government and its treatment of protesters.

Rather than delivering the direct condemnation the student requested in the excerpt presented, El-Sayed responded by discussing America's role in international affairs.

Cohen argued that the response deserved greater scrutiny, particularly given the United States' ongoing security concerns involving Iran.

However, disagreements over foreign policy or the adequacy of a candidate's response do not, by themselves, establish sympathy for terrorism or ties to extremist organizations.

Health care is another major issue in the Michigan contest.

El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, a proposal intended to establish a comprehensive government-financed health insurance system. Supporters argue that universal coverage could reduce household medical expenses and simplify administration. Opponents question the cost, tax implications, and potential restrictions on private insurance.

Cohen focused particularly on whether voters were receiving a clear explanation of the financial trade-offs.

The distinction between lower personal medical bills and higher taxes is central to the debate. A government-financed system could change how Americans pay for health care without necessarily eliminating the underlying cost of providing it.

For voters evaluating competing proposals, understanding those trade-offs is essential.

Israel Becomes a Defining Issue in Democratic Politics

Beyond domestic policy, Cohen devoted substantial attention to the growing disagreements over Israel within American politics.

His program highlighted a Colorado congressional contest involving progressive candidate Melat Kiros, whose criticism of Israel's military operations and American financial support reflects a broader debate among Democrats.

Kiros described Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide and argued that American taxpayers should not finance the conflict.

The genocide allegation is highly contested, and determining whether military conduct meets the legal definition requires examination of evidence and the applicable international legal standards. Israel disputes the allegation and maintains that its military operations have been directed against Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attacks.

The disagreement extends beyond terminology.

Some progressive politicians have called for restrictions on American military assistance to Israel, arguing that U.S. support should be conditioned on humanitarian protections and compliance with international law.

Others maintain that continued military cooperation is essential to Israel's security, particularly amid threats from Iran and Iranian-backed armed groups.

Cohen approached the issue from a biblical perspective, emphasizing the importance of America's relationship with Israel and citing Genesis 12:3 and Numbers 24:9.

His argument reflected a conviction shared by many Christians that God's promises concerning Israel remain relevant and that the Jewish state's security deserves particular attention.

Not all Christians interpret those passages identically, and there is considerable disagreement over how biblical promises should inform contemporary foreign policy.

Nevertheless, the theological dimension remains significant in American political discussions, especially among evangelical Christians.

The debate over Israel now encompasses more than foreign aid, touching fundamental disagreements about national security, biblical interpretation, and America's responsibilities abroad.

Cohen concluded his imagined journey into 2027 by returning to the choices confronting voters today. His fictional scenarios included expanded government programs, changes to immigration enforcement, judicial restructuring, and reduced American support for Israel.

Those outcomes are not inevitable consequences of any election. They represent one commentator's concerns about the direction of competing policy agendas.

Still, the underlying questions are real. Americans must evaluate what candidates propose, what those proposals would cost, how they would affect constitutional institutions, and whether their foreign policy commitments align with the country's long-term interests.

For Christians, the discussion also invites reflection on the proper relationship between biblical conviction and civic responsibility. Political engagement requires more than reacting to campaign rhetoric. It calls for examining competing claims, understanding the consequences of legislation, and distinguishing theological principles from partisan assumptions.

As election day approaches, voters have an opportunity to consider those questions carefully rather than relying on slogans or imagined futures.

For more reporting and commentary examining politics, faith, and America's relationship with Israel, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

A Virginia pastor is challenging the lawfulness of a proposed state constitutional amendment to codify same-sex marriage and spread gender ideology. The Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC) filed a lawsuit last week in Prince William County Circuit Court on behalf of Pastor Ben Purves of Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, Va.

The Amendment 2 initiative on the ballot in the Cavalier State this November would “(i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law” should the Supreme Court ever overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.

The amendment would repeal the provision of Article I, Section 15-A of the Virginia constitution defining marriage as a “union between one man and one woman,” and would instead say marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness,” explains the FFLC press release.

The legal group explained its reasoning for the lawsuit, stating, “This Complaint does not concern the wisdom or policy merits of the Proposed Amendment. It concerns whether the Proposed Amendment was brought forward to the November 2026 ballot through the process that the Constitution of Virginia requires. It was not. The Proposed Amendment reached the ballot through a process that departed from the mandatory requirements of Article XII, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia through Virginia Code § 30-13.”

It continues, “Virginia Code § 30-13 requires the Clerk of the House of Delegates to have published and distributed copies of a proposed amendment to the clerks of Virginia’s circuit courts, and requires each circuit court clerk to post a copy ‘at the front door of the courthouse’ and make a second copy ‘available for public inspection,’ no later than three months before the intervening general election of members of the House of Delegates. These steps exist to inform the voters before the pivotal House of Delegates election. They were not performed before the November 4, 2025 general election by the Clerk of the House of Delegates or the Circuit Court Clerk or any other Virginia circuit court.”

The complaint asserts that even if the amendment is favored by most voters, it should be considered invalid.

Purves, the plaintiff on the Complaint, told The Washington Stand that it is the responsibility of a pastor to proclaim biblical truth when it comes to every issue, even the polarizing ones.

“It’s my hope that pastors will become more bold in proclaiming the gospel and the truth of God’s word, and not letting it be restricted to the church building or to church members’ homes. We really need to amplify truth in the public square, and if we do not, we will find it increasingly anti-Christian,” Purves asserted.

“Pastors — the shepherds — are called to care for their sheep,” he added. “That means giving their sheep the food of God’s word, and not just some of it, but all of it. And so, when churches are setting aside parts of Scripture and not teaching those parts, and not willing to proclaim those parts of Scripture to the world, they are failing in their duty as shepherds. And when pastors do not stand to protect their flock from wolves that will prey on their church and on the vulnerable in their community, they are failing in their pastoral duty.”

Over 400 pastors have signed a letter Purves helped orchestrate asking Virginians to vote no on Amendment 2, as well as an additional amendment to codify abortion in the Constitution of Virginia. The Pastors of Virginia group is also asking Virginia voters to participate in a day or prayer and fasting for the state on November 3.

“We call upon every voter to oppose these amendments to protect pre-born children, to defend the institution of marriage, and to stand against the destruction of transgender ideology. God created mankind as male and female as a part of God’s good and perfect creation (Gen 1:27). God creates life in the womb, and every child is a blessing (Ps 127, 139). God created the institution of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman which is to be a portrait of Christ’s love for the church (Eph 5:32). Instead of defacing marriage, we must honor it (Heb 13:4),” the group stated.

Any pastor in the state who affirms the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation is eligible to sign the Open Letter from Virginia Pastors to the Commonwealth until voting closes after Election Day.

“To voters who are discouraged and maybe thinking of not voting — you should not lose heart,” Purves implored. “We’re called to be faithful, and we need to stand for truth, even when and if we are a minority. If we only stand for truth and we’re a majority, what does this say about us? So, it’s important for us to do the right thing and vote for the sake of truth.”

This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

The riots that were supposedly about French school funding have fanned out across Europe, briefly even surrounding the Colosseum in Rome on Saturday. While more than 1,300 were arrested on Emmanuel Macron’s fiery streets, Greece, Albania, Italy, Belgium, and Spain are racing to contain their own pro-Palestine agitators, dispelling any doubts about the real roots of this unrest. “You might think that Saturday’s chaos was orchestrated by the same students who started the protests,” The Free Press’s Nora Bussigny warns. “But you would be wrong.”

While the frustration over the French education system is real enough, the storyline has been a convenient one for anti-republic factions to hijack, Bussigny insists. After spending more than a year undercover in the country’s anti-Israel movement, she knows the players well. “The convergence of radical leftists with political Islamists, brought together by their shared opposition to Western values and institutions — has become increasingly difficult to ignore, rearing its head from England to Germany to college campuses across the U.S. In other words, what we are seeing in France is only a symptom of a much larger problem.”

By Friday, the city of Paris was bracing for a second wave of terror that had looted and burned its way through iconic landmarks and beautiful old cobblestone streets. Troops stood guard under the Arc de Triomphe, while shops boarded their windows and doors. One local contractor told the AP that people were frantically reaching out for help in protecting their businesses. “I got the call last night,” he said, nodding at the optician’s office where he was working. “The owner seemed desperate. He said I was saving his life.”

Turns out, local merchants weren’t overreacting. On Saturday alone, the country responded to over 75 fires and at least two dozen store break-ins and robberies. David Bahnsen, founder and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group, believes that “behind the unrest is a much deeper economic problem.” He pointed to France’s catastrophic financial situation, noting that “government spending accounts for more than half of France’s economic output, while the country’s national debt is approaching 120% of their gross domestic product.” The irony, the economist told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” is that despite shoveling billions of dollars into social programs, “many French citizens believe they’re getting less in return, and they don’t want government cuts.”

Unfortunately, that’s why socialist governments continue to be a failed experiment. They can’t afford what they promise to provide, and ultimately, the economy collapses under the weight of trying. France is an especially dramatic snapshot, Bahnsen notes, because the debts they’ve racked up can’t be paid, and the only solution — cutting back — is one the people won’t accept.

“That’s a huge problem. And that’s what most people focus on.” But it also crowds out the private sector and future growth, he notes. “Every dollar spent covering government programs is a dollar that can’t go into the productive side of the economy. France made a conscious decision to have a very large social safety net, very large social programs. … But the politicians were doing what the people asked for. [They] said, ‘Give us earlier retirement. Give us pensions you can’t afford.’ And then they complain that the chickens come home to roost.”

Now, outraged by inflation and the cost of living, the French resent the government they’ve chosen. And ironically, this is where the schools did not fail the country’s extreme elements. They may be short-staffed and underfunded, but they’ve still managed to turn out far-left ideologues with “an ultra-progressive ideology of extreme egalitarianism, anti-capitalism, and cultural hostility to France and its historical institutions and identity. That might almost be a blend of European socialism and American woke-ism,” NRO’s John Sullivan observes.

“There are no justifications for this upsurge of violent rebellion, of course — merely angry grievances by groups of discontented people, mainly young, many from immigrant backgrounds (even if born in France),” Sullivan notes, “all persuaded that they are either oppressed or uniquely sensitive to the plight of the oppressed.” Which, many argue, is how it was so easily commandeered by Gaza sympathizers and Muslim opportunists. “[T]he Palestinian banner has become the equivalent of the North Vietnamese flag in the 1970s,” Rich Lowry points out, “a symbol of resistance to the West, and in this case, fierce opposition to Zionism and so-called settler-colonialism.”

As angry as Macron was at President Trump’s suggestion that France’s open-borders policy was ruining the country, the American leader isn’t wrong. “I told Macron, when I first came in, I met him early. I said, ‘You are destroying France. You’re letting people come in that hate your country.’”

Vice President J.D. Vance agreed. “Western liberals imported the third world into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion. They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility,” he posted on X. “They were told it would lead to this and they didn’t listen. I pray that France, a beautiful country of amazing people, will stop this madness before more of its landmarks burn. And I hope Americans are paying attention. This is the future congressional Democrats seek for your country.”

Some French leaders are brave enough to stand against the tide threatening to drag the nation under. Mayor of Nice Éric Ciotti was blunt in his assessment that “Islamo-leftism threatens the Republic. The massive presence of Palestinian flags and community slogans is a terrible reality in these demonstrations, just like the presence of movements close to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

While the rest of the West watches, Americans have plenty of cause for self-reflection. The warning signs are here, as DSA candidates and radical Muslims unite to battle for a foothold in U.S. politics. And while there are similarities between France and America, Bahnsen was careful not to compare the two countries. “I don’t want to diminish the risk going on. And I also don’t want to overstate it. … [But] as a national reality, America has a long way to go until we actually embrace the socialist impulse. And that’s a good thing.” He paused before adding, “But the problem is it moves marginally. It moves incrementally. And that’s what I think we have to resist.”

As troubling as the spiritual markers have been in the U.S., Europe is decades ahead of us in secularism, the economist stresses. “It’s a perfect inverse correlation there: decline of faith has coincided with an embrace of more state. The government [becomes] a sort of Messiah. And of course, we see it here in the States as well — not quite to the same degree, but Europe has proven to be a long-term test case of how a society that abandons Christian principles embraces more statist principles. … It’s not good.”

‍

This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Former President Barack Obama is back on the campaign trail as Americans prepare to vote on November 3, bringing renewed attention to his administration's record on Iran, immigration enforcement, and national security. Meanwhile, political controversies involving Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and congressional candidate Brad Lander are fueling broader questions about government transparency, media accountability, and America's relationship with Israel.

With elections approaching in both the United States and Israel, the consequences of political leadership extend beyond domestic policy. Decisions made in Washington affect American families, international security, and the lives of people facing threats across the Middle East.

On The Daniel Cohen Show, available through Real Life Network, these developments raise a central question: Are political leaders and the media giving Americans the full picture, or are important facts being lost in partisan narratives?

Obama's Iran Deal Returns to the Spotlight

As Obama campaigns for Democratic candidates, his defense of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement has reignited debate over one of his presidency's most consequential foreign policy decisions.

The agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was designed to restrict Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Obama has defended the arrangement as an example of diplomacy preventing a nuclear-armed Iran without military intervention.

Critics, however, argue that the agreement failed to address the broader threat posed by the Iranian regime.

One enduring controversy involves a $1.7 billion settlement paid to Iran in 2016, including an initial $400 million payment delivered in foreign currency. The Obama administration described the settlement as the resolution of a longstanding dispute over military equipment purchased before Iran's 1979 revolution.

Critics questioned the timing of the payment, which coincided with the release of American detainees, and raised concerns that money reaching Tehran could strengthen a government accused of financing terrorist organizations.

The distinction matters. The settlement itself is documented, but claims that specific payments directly financed particular terrorist attacks require evidence beyond the fact that Iran received the funds.

Nevertheless, the underlying concern remains significant.

Iran has supported militant organizations throughout the Middle East, including Hezbollah and Hamas, while continuing to pose security challenges for Israel and American interests.

The nuclear agreement also contained provisions under which certain restrictions would expire over time, prompting critics to question whether it offered a lasting solution.

The debate over Iran is ultimately about whether diplomatic agreements can effectively restrain a hostile regime while protecting Israel and America's national security interests.

For Israelis who have experienced missile attacks and repeated security alerts, these questions are not theoretical.

They affect families who must prepare for emergencies, communities living under the threat of violence, and military personnel responsible for protecting civilians.

Obama's return to the political spotlight has also renewed scrutiny of other controversies from his presidency, including the administration's initial public explanations following the 2012 Benghazi attack and his promises about Americans retaining their health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act.

These episodes remain subjects of political debate, but they also underscore a broader principle: Public officials should be evaluated according to their records, not merely their ability to deliver persuasive speeches.

Immigration Enforcement, Ilhan Omar, and Media Accountability

Immigration enforcement has emerged as another major dividing line between the parties.

The Trump administration has emphasized deportations and border security as central components of its national security strategy. Supporters argue that enforcing immigration law is necessary to protect American communities and maintain confidence in the country's legal system.

Critics have raised concerns about due process, family separation, and the treatment of immigrants during enforcement operations.

The political debate becomes more complicated when considering the record of previous administrations.

During Obama's presidency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted removal operations involving individuals who had entered the country unlawfully. His administration faced criticism from immigrant advocacy organizations for the scale of deportations.

That history complicates claims that immigration enforcement itself is a uniquely recent development.

Policies, priorities, and enforcement methods can differ substantially between administrations, but the federal government's responsibility to administer immigration law has remained.

The discussion also extends to Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whose personal background and immigration history have been the subject of longstanding political allegations.

Recent claims discussed on the program concern her identity, family relationships, and purported federal investigative activity. Such allegations are serious, but the transcript does not independently establish their accuracy.

Claims involving searches, seized documents, or possible criminal violations require confirmation through reliable court records or official statements before being reported as fact.

Public officials should be accountable for their conduct, but allegations must be distinguished from proven wrongdoing.

The same standard applies to the media.

Journalists have a responsibility to investigate legitimate questions involving elected officials without assuming guilt or dismissing allegations solely because of political affiliation.

A trustworthy press should apply consistent standards of evidence and scrutiny, regardless of whether the subject is a Republican or a Democrat.

That principle extends beyond immigration.

Cohen also raised concerns about social media moderation after describing restrictions on his own accounts while reporting on Israel and Hezbollah.

The broader debate over online speech involves competing concerns about misinformation, platform policies, public safety, and freedom of expression.

Private platforms have their own moderation rules, while government restrictions on speech raise distinct constitutional questions.

For Americans, understanding those distinctions is essential to evaluating claims about censorship and protecting meaningful public debate.

Israel, Political Activism, and the Responsibility to Tell the Truth

The final major issue concerns Israel and the growing political tensions surrounding its military operations and security policies.

New York congressional candidate Brad Lander traveled to the West Bank, where he participated in an olive harvest and was detained by Israeli authorities.

Lander described the incident as an example of the restrictions faced by Palestinians and those supporting them.

Israeli officials, according to the program, offered a different explanation, saying the group entered a restricted security area without the necessary coordination.

These competing accounts illustrate how quickly events in Israel become part of American political campaigns.

For some activists, visits to the West Bank provide opportunities to draw attention to Palestinian experiences and Israeli policies. Critics question whether certain high-profile visits are designed primarily to generate political publicity.

Determining what happened requires examining the circumstances of the detention, the applicable restrictions, and the accounts of those involved.

But political disagreements over Israel should not overshadow the continuing threat of violence.

The program also addressed a shooting attack near Hebron and criticized news coverage that Cohen believed failed to adequately identify the perpetrators or recognize the Israeli soldiers affected.

Reporting on such incidents requires precision. The identities of victims, the circumstances of an attack, and the evidence identifying those responsible should be verified rather than assumed.

The larger concern is how media coverage can shape public understanding of a conflict in which the language used to describe violence often becomes controversial.

For families mourning loved ones, the consequences are immediate and personal.

Israel's soldiers and veterans also face lasting physical and psychological challenges, particularly after prolonged military operations.

Organizations such as Friends of the Israel Defense Forces provide support for soldiers, veterans, wounded personnel, and bereaved families, including assistance related to rehabilitation and mental health.

These needs highlight the human costs of conflict that can be overlooked when public attention centers entirely on political arguments.

For Christians, the debate over Israel also invites reflection on the responsibility to pursue truth and justice.

Proverbs 26:24-26 warns about deception concealed beneath persuasive words, reminding readers that outward appearances do not always reveal a person's true intentions.

The passage should not become a license to assume hidden motives without evidence. Instead, it encourages discernment and a serious commitment to honesty.

That commitment applies equally to politicians, journalists, activists, and voters.

Biblical discernment requires Christians to examine competing claims carefully, reject deception, and refuse to let political loyalty determine what they accept as true.

As Americans prepare for November 3, questions about Iran, immigration, free speech, and Israel remain central to the national conversation.

The challenge is not simply deciding which political leaders are most persuasive. It is determining which claims are supported by evidence, which policies deserve scrutiny, and which principles should guide decisions affecting the nation.

Christians have an opportunity to participate thoughtfully, pray for those in authority, and evaluate public affairs through the lens of Scripture without confusing partisan allegiance with biblical faithfulness.

For continuing coverage of national security, Israel, and the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

Real Life Network will also present America Speaks '26: Election Night Live on Tuesday, November 3, beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern / 5 p.m. Pacific, featuring election results, guests, and analysis from across the United States and Israel.

With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, Minnesota is drawing attention as a potentially consequential battleground in the fight for control of the United States Senate. Questions about government accountability, immigration, national security, and voter turnout are shaping the political debate as candidates make their final appeals.

Former Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes the state could deliver one of the election's biggest surprises. During a conversation on The Daniel Cohen Show, available on Real Life Network, Bachmann discussed Minnesota's political future, the growing appeal of socialism, America's relationship with Israel, and the responsibility of Christians to participate in elections.

The conversation highlighted a broader question facing American voters: How should concerns about government leadership, national security, and biblical convictions influence civic engagement?

Minnesota's Senate Race and the Debate Over Government Accountability

Minnesota has traditionally favored Democrats in statewide elections, but Bachmann believes growing dissatisfaction with state leadership could create an opportunity for Republicans in 2026.

The Senate contest between Republican Michele Tafoya and Democrat Peggy Flanagan has become a focal point of that discussion.

Bachmann pointed to allegations of widespread fraud involving publicly funded programs in Minnesota as a major source of voter frustration. High-profile investigations have raised serious questions about financial oversight, the administration of public assistance programs, and whether government officials responded adequately to warning signs.

These investigations have also become politically contentious, with Republicans questioning Democratic leadership and Democrats defending their records while addressing failures in oversight.

The existence of fraud cases does not establish wrongdoing by an entire immigrant community or prove that particular candidates participated in criminal activity. Determining responsibility requires evidence, investigations, and appropriate legal proceedings.

Nevertheless, the political consequences of government oversight failures can extend well beyond the individuals directly involved.

Voters want to know whether public resources are being used responsibly, whether elected officials are accountable, and whether state agencies can identify misconduct before it becomes widespread.

Government accountability depends on protecting taxpayer resources, investigating wrongdoing fairly, and holding responsible individuals accountable regardless of political affiliation.

Bachmann also expressed concern about election administration and mail-in voting. Although she raised questions about the possibility of improper ballot handling, the interview did not provide evidence establishing that such misconduct would occur.

Election integrity is a legitimate public concern, but allegations of fraud should be supported by verifiable facts rather than speculation.

For Minnesota voters, the Senate election ultimately presents competing visions of government leadership, public spending, economic policy, and national priorities.

Bachmann believes turnout will be decisive.

Even a competitive race can produce an unexpected outcome when participation differs from polling expectations. But polling uncertainty alone cannot establish which candidate will win.

The same principle applies nationwide as Americans prepare to elect representatives who will shape federal policy over the next two years.

National Security, Israel, and the Future of American Leadership

Beyond Minnesota's political landscape, the discussion turned to national security and the United States' relationship with Israel.

From immigration enforcement to international terrorism, security concerns have become prominent issues in the closing weeks of the midterm campaign.

Bachmann criticized Representative Ilhan Omar and raised allegations concerning her family history and immigration background. These are serious accusations that require independent verification and should not be presented as established facts without substantiating evidence.

The discussion also addressed the broader question of how immigration policy intersects with national security.

Effective immigration enforcement requires appropriate screening, lawful procedures, and the ability to identify genuine security threats. At the same time, individual wrongdoing should not be attributed to entire national, ethnic, or religious communities.

The conversation then shifted to the Middle East, where Bachmann emphasized the importance of the relationship between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

She described their political partnership as a significant opportunity to confront the Iranian regime and its support for militant organizations throughout the region.

Iran's relationship with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas has long complicated regional security and contributed to tensions involving Israel and its neighbors.

For the United States, decisions concerning Iran involve military readiness, diplomatic strategy, economic sanctions, intelligence cooperation, and the protection of American allies.

But Bachmann sees the relationship between America and Israel as more than a matter of international politics.

She believes Scripture establishes an enduring covenant between God and the Jewish people, one that remains relevant to how Christians understand Israel today.

This conviction shaped the interview's discussion of replacement theology, the belief, in some theological formulations, that the church has superseded Israel in God's covenantal purposes.

Bachmann rejected that interpretation, arguing that God's promises to Israel have not been revoked.

She pointed to biblical passages concerning God's covenant with Abraham and the prophetic significance of Israel, including Joel 3.

Within the Christian church, interpretations of these passages differ. Some traditions emphasize a continuing national role for Israel in biblical prophecy, while others understand the covenant promises through their fulfillment in Jesus Christ and His church.

These differences have significant implications for Christian eschatology and the interpretation of biblical prophecy.

The question of Israel's future is not merely political for many Christians; it is closely connected to how they understand God's covenant promises and the fulfillment of Scripture.

At the same time, biblical convictions and contemporary foreign policy require careful consideration. Supporting Israel's security does not mean every action of its government is beyond scrutiny.

Christians can affirm the importance of Israel, oppose antisemitism, and seek the protection of innocent people while thoughtfully evaluating the decisions of political leaders.

Why Christian Voter Turnout Matters in the 2026 Midterms

The conversation concluded with an appeal for Christians to recognize the significance of their participation in American civic life.

Bachmann expressed concern that many believers have become disengaged from politics, even as debates over education, religious freedom, economic systems, and national identity continue to shape the country.

She specifically criticized the growing appeal of socialism among younger Americans, arguing that public education has contributed to changing attitudes toward free-market economics.

The relationship between education and political ideology is complex, however, and broad claims about what schools teach require supporting evidence.

Nevertheless, the growing debate over socialism reflects genuine disagreements about the role of government, economic opportunity, taxation, and individual responsibility.

These disagreements deserve careful examination rather than automatic dismissal.

For Christians, political engagement also raises questions about how biblical principles should inform decisions at the ballot box.

Bachmann argued that voting is an opportunity Americans should not take for granted. She encouraged churches to help believers recognize the importance of participating in elections and evaluating candidates according to their convictions.

Scripture provides principles that can inform those decisions.

Micah 6:8 emphasizes justice, mercy, and humility. Proverbs 12:22 underscores the importance of truthfulness. First Timothy 2:1-2 instructs believers to pray for those in authority.

These passages do not supply a party platform, but they establish moral responsibilities that extend beyond election season.

Christians should consider whether candidates demonstrate integrity, how proposed policies affect their neighbors, and whether political leaders exercise authority responsibly.

Biblical faithfulness in public life requires more than casting a ballot; it calls for truthfulness, discernment, prayer, and a commitment to justice.

That responsibility also includes recognizing that Christians may disagree about the best policies for achieving legitimate moral goals.

A shared commitment to protecting human life, supporting families, and promoting religious freedom does not necessarily produce identical conclusions about every candidate or legislative proposal.

Political participation should therefore be informed by conviction without allowing partisan identity to replace allegiance to Christ.

With Election Day approaching, voter turnout remains one of the most important factors in determining the makeup of Congress.

Minnesota's Senate contest may attract national attention, but the larger election will influence decisions affecting the economy, national security, foreign policy, and the direction of federal government.

For Christians, the challenge is to participate thoughtfully while remembering that political outcomes are not the ultimate measure of God's faithfulness.

Elections matter. Leadership matters. The responsibility to pursue truth, seek justice, and love one's neighbor remains unchanged regardless of which party controls Washington.

For more election coverage, discussions about Israel, and biblical perspectives on the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

Over the last two decades, we’ve seen increasing rhetoric from the Left, media sources, and the up-and-coming generation claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. My challenge to that assumption is how and where do you find grounds to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion? Is it the history of the Ottoman conquest? The vicious attacks against Israel over the last 50 years? The 9/11 attacks?

When I look at all these examples, I see a religion that has paved the streets with blood, tears, sexual violence, and pain. I’ve heard too many stories that show the brutality of a religion that is being described as peaceful. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10). He told His disciples to go low and to be servant-hearted. Yes, He came with a sword in His mouth, and He flipped tables and offended the Pharisees. But everything He did, He did for the love of His people, to establish the Kingdom of God, to free the captive, and to fulfill Isaiah 61.

Islam, however, does not espouse this love of God, but rather a thirst for conquest. And the religion is spreading. The Pew Research Center states that Islam is the fastest-growing religion worldwide. This should cause great concern among Christians. This change is primarily because Christians are simply not getting married and having enough children to repopulate. But perhaps the biggest problem is that many Christians don’t understand why this is concerning.

Since its inception, Islam has not been as welcomed or embraced as it is now. Why should Islam’s quick ascent to popularity concern Christians? Islam’s tenets are in direct opposition to Christianity, and its eschatological doctrine (their beliefs on the end times) seeks the destruction of Israel and its people.

Islam prides itself on being a religion that provides you the biggest upgrade to heaven if you commit suicide and bring others with you, also known as mujahid. Granted, not all Muslims practice to this extent, but this is concerning at best and is in complete opposition to Christianity at worst. Were people killed during the Christian Crusades? Yes, but did Christians go around killing people hoping to gain a better afterlife with more virgins and more spoils of the flesh? Absolutely not.

A few passages in the Quran that demonstrate this lust for martyrdom are listed below:

• “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [exchanging them] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an...” (Surah Al-Tawbah 9:111).
• “Allah guarantees that He will admit the person who goes out to fight in His cause (and nothing compels him to go out except jihad in His cause and belief in His words) into Paradise, or He will return him as a winner to his home with rewards or booty” (Tasfir 4:84-4:87).

Perhaps one of the biggest concerns Christians should have with Islam is its eschatological view on Israel and Jesus. First, Muslims don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, or that He died on the cross. They say he will come back as Isa and descend to liberate the Islamic people from their oppression.[i] The Bible refutes that, warning against these false religions:

“Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. ... Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist — denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 18-19, 22-23).

What this scripture tells us is that any religion that challenges the deity of Christ is of the anti-Christ spirit. This anti-Christ spirit continues to fill and deceive this generation. Wrapped up in this doctrine is also the belief that a false messiah will arise out of Israel while their messiah arrives. This false messiah will be the sign that they are to wipe out the entire Jewish population. Their literature states:

“Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah said, “The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews, until a Jew will hide himself behind a stone or a tree, and the stone or the tree will say: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,’ but Al-Gharqad tree will not say so, for it is the tree of the Jews” Riyad as-Salihin 1820 (Book 18, Hadith 13).

Israel’s existence is preeminent in the Christian perspective of the end times and in Scripture. It’s not just a minor detail — it’s a necessary part of the fulfillment of thousands of years of prophecy. Our very own messiah arose out of Israel, so for Islamic literature to say that their anti-Christ will arise out of Israel is a direct contradiction of two very different religions. In fact, many pastors, writers, and scholars even argue that our anti-Christ is their messiah, and our messiah is their anti-Christ.

The great battle for earth started when Adam and Eve were in the garden, but it continues today and until Jesus returns. As we look at the cultural moment, we are in, we must pause and ask the Lord what His will would be for the church as we watch a false doctrine that seeks to destroy our homeland, our history, and our faith rise across the world. Islam is a religion that directly contradicts Christian values and seeks the destruction of Israel, a historically, politically, and spiritually vital nation. As Christians, we must take a stand, refusing to compromise or sit quietly while a religion that does not please the heart of God seeks to overrun our nation and the nations of the earth.

What can you do? First, educate yourself and share the gospel! Remember, they do not have a savior or helper to get them to the finish line. So, remind them that Jesus came to help and save them through His sacrifice! Second, go to your local city halls and meetings. Push back when legislation to build communities ruled by Sharia law is presented, as what recently occurred in Texas. Stand against the influence they have in our nation. This is a Western country — don’t be ashamed of that. Lastly, pray that the Holy Spirit would open their eyes to see the deception of Islam and that they would come to know the true Messiah.

“Therefore, do not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9).

‍

This article was written by Rebekah Harper and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

A settlement has been reached in the fight for religious liberty in the case of LifeWise Academy against the Everett Public School District in Washington state. In December 2025, the Christian nonprofit that seeks to evangelize to public school students through a release time program sued the school district after it established various oppressive limitations to its venture.

The settlement will require the Board Everett Public Schools Board of Directors to undergo religious liberty training, make changes to the district’s policies governing religious activities, issue a public written apology for its actions visible for six months, and pay $275,000 in attorney’s fees, according to an October 13 press release by First Liberty Institute.

Holly Randall, counsel at First Liberty Institute, the firm that defended LifeWise, detailed the ministry’s road to justice during a Friday appearance on “Washington Watch.”

“[The LifeWise] program allows students to attend Bible education classes on a voluntary basis during school hours, provided that they take place off school property. So, it all happens sort of pursuant to a Supreme Court decision from 1952. This is long been the law,” Randall said. “The program at Everett was operating successfully, but then the school started implementing different burdensome restrictions and sort of obstacles to its operation. So, they implemented a permission slip process that was incredibly burdensome for parents.”

Randall shared that the district also prohibited LifeWise from participating in community affairs with other organizations.

“And it required students to pack up their Bible and other religious literature they were given at LifeWise in sealed packages to take back to school, and they were unable to access them during class even if it was an appropriate free reading time. So, they were just adding challenges to the program that we saw as sort of unconstitutional obstacles that the school district was putting in LifeWise’s way,” Randall elaborated.

She further explained that just because a student is on public school property doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to religious liberties. “You don’t shed your constitutional rights when you enter the schoolhouse gate. That’s another long settled Supreme Court law. … The school was restricting the exercise of students and parents’ constitutional rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”

In April 2026, a federal judge in Washington issued a preliminary injunction against Everett schools, a ruling that was good news for LifeWise. “So, that’s how we’ve arrived at where we’re at now, which is the district acknowledging it’s probably wise to settle this and eliminate some of those burdens that are happening to the LifeWise program,” Randall clarified.

Randall went on to recall one of the most remarkable aspects of the case was the Everett school board’s unfriendliness towards LifeWise. “The judge’s order on the preliminary injunction was that the statements board members were making while at board meetings were expressing hostility toward LifeWise. And then they were taking actions that reflected that hostility.”

“The apology that the school district is being required to make, [and] the attorneys’ fees they’re being required to pay are really a reflection that school board members can’t just say whatever they want from the dais, express that hostility, take hostile actions, and get away with it. So, we’re hoping that this sends a message to board members across the country that they need to be careful when they’re speaking about religious organizations and treat them equally, not with hostility.”

Randall concluded by observing that the students who participate in LifeWise are the true heroes of the story.

“The students that attend that program are really the brave ones in this situation,” asserted Randall. “They are the type of students we want to be able to bring more Bible education to and expand their access. … The impact of a student in elementary, middle, or high school, hearing the word of God can only lead to life change and good.”

‍

This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Violent unrest in France, political divisions in Michigan, and deadly attacks against Christians in Nigeria are raising urgent questions about religious freedom, national security, and the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. Although these developments are unfolding in different parts of the world, they share a common concern: what happens when violence, extremism, and political instability threaten the institutions people depend on?

With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, Americans are also considering how immigration policy, public safety, religious liberty, and foreign affairs could shape the nation's future.

For Christians, these conversations involve more than political preferences. They raise questions about discernment, the protection of innocent life, and the responsibilities that accompany citizenship.

As these issues receive attention on The Daniel Cohen Show, available through Real Life Network, the biblical image of a watchman provides a framework for understanding the importance of recognizing danger and responding wisely.

France's Unrest and the Challenge of Protecting Religious Freedom

Recent reports and footage of unrest in France have brought renewed attention to the country's challenges involving public safety, immigration, social integration, and political extremism.

Images discussed during the unrest include damaged businesses, confrontations between demonstrators and police, and destruction of public property. Such scenes raise serious concerns about the government's ability to maintain order while protecting the rights of peaceful demonstrators and ordinary citizens.

France has experienced devastating Islamist terrorist attacks over the past decade.

In January 2015, gunmen attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. Later that year, coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris, including the massacre at the Bataclan concert hall, killed 130 people.

In July 2016, a terrorist drove a truck into crowds celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, killing 86 people. That same month, two attackers murdered Catholic priest Jacques Hamel during a church service in Normandy.

The murder of schoolteacher Samuel Paty in 2020 further exposed the dangers posed by violent extremism and threats against freedom of expression.

These attacks remain significant reminders of the consequences of radicalization and failures to prevent terrorism.

However, understanding contemporary unrest requires distinguishing between peaceful political demonstrations, criminal violence, and ideologically motivated terrorism. The presence of religious or political symbols at a protest does not establish that every participant supports violence.

Protecting a nation's security requires confronting violent extremism without abandoning the religious freedoms and individual rights that make a free society worth defending.

For France, these questions are particularly important because its population includes people from many religious and cultural backgrounds. Government leaders face the difficult responsibility of maintaining public order while preserving freedom of conscience and equal protection under the law.

The biblical principle of responsible leadership offers an important perspective.

Romans 13 describes civil authority as bearing responsibility for restraining wrongdoing. Government is not simply an administrative institution. Its decisions have consequences for the safety and well-being of the people entrusted to its care.

The failures of political leaders deserve scrutiny, especially when innocent people suffer. Yet that scrutiny must remain grounded in truth rather than treating entire religious communities as responsible for the actions of extremists.

Michigan's Senate Race and the National Security Debate

Across the Atlantic, similar concerns about national security, political leadership, and public trust are influencing the 2026 midterm elections.

Michigan's Senate contest between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has become a focal point for debates involving foreign policy, Israel, healthcare, and the direction of the federal government.

Rogers, a former congressman and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has emphasized his national security experience. El-Sayed, a physician and former public health official, has focused heavily on affordability, healthcare, and economic concerns.

The candidates represent different approaches to the responsibilities of government.

Their disagreements have also prompted scrutiny of their political statements and positions concerning the Middle East.

Questions have been raised about past Muslim Brotherhood associations attributed to members of El-Sayed's family. Such claims warrant careful examination, but a relative's political history does not independently establish a candidate's personal beliefs, affiliations, or wrongdoing.

Voters should distinguish documented evidence from allegations and evaluate candidates according to their own records, statements, and proposed policies.

That standard applies equally to every candidate, regardless of political party or religious identity.

Meanwhile, some longtime Democratic voters have publicly expressed support for Rogers. Former Pontiac City Council member Melanie Rutherford has described reconsidering her traditional party allegiance after examining the candidates and their priorities.

Other Michigan Democrats have raised concerns about healthcare proposals, particularly the implications of a Medicare for All system for existing private insurance arrangements.

These disagreements illustrate how political coalitions can change when voters place greater emphasis on individual policies than longstanding party loyalties.

They also demonstrate why national security cannot be separated entirely from domestic policy. Senators influence defense spending, intelligence oversight, immigration legislation, and the nation's relationships with allies.

The debate over Israel remains especially consequential.

Former President Barack Obama's criticism of Israeli policy and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense of the Jewish people's historical connection to Israel reflect deeply contested questions about territory, national identity, security, and peace.

Jewish historical and religious ties to the land extend back thousands of years. At the same time, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves competing national claims and a history of displacement, warfare, and unsuccessful diplomatic efforts.

Responsible analysis should recognize that complexity while unequivocally condemning terrorism and attacks against civilians.

Voters should demand clarity from candidates on national security, religious freedom, and foreign policy while refusing to substitute accusations or political slogans for verifiable evidence.

Proverbs 18:17 reminds readers that the first account of a dispute may appear convincing until another examines it. That principle is particularly valuable during election season, when political advertisements and selective reporting can obscure important context.

Persecuted Christians and the Biblical Call to Remain Watchful

While Americans debate their political future, Christians in other parts of the world face threats far more immediate than an election result.

Nigeria continues to experience devastating violence involving armed militant groups, communal conflicts, and attacks against vulnerable villages.

Reports highlighted by International Christian Concern describe deadly attacks on Christian communities in Plateau State, including the killing of a pastor and numerous other residents.

The human cost extends beyond casualty figures.

Families lose loved ones, churches lose their leaders, and entire communities confront the possibility of further violence. Survivors may be forced to leave their homes, abandon farmland, or live with the uncertainty of future attacks.

Some attacks have been attributed to armed Fulani militants, while the wider violence in Nigeria involves overlapping religious, ethnic, criminal, and land-related tensions. Not all Fulani people are militants, and the circumstances of individual attacks require careful investigation.

Nevertheless, violence directed against Christians because of their faith demands international attention.

The suffering of these communities should challenge believers elsewhere to consider how they respond to persecution.

Ezekiel 33 describes the responsibility of a watchman who sees danger approaching and sounds a warning. The passage emphasizes the seriousness of recognizing a threat and responding before lives are lost.

That biblical image speaks to the importance of vigilance, but it also requires wisdom.

Christians must be careful not to confuse fear with discernment or assume that every political controversy represents the same kind of danger.

Scripture calls believers to exercise sound judgment, seek justice, defend the vulnerable, and speak truthfully.

The biblical command to love one's neighbor does not disappear when that neighbor belongs to a different religious or political community.

Nor does love require ignoring genuine threats.

Christian discernment means recognizing real danger, defending innocent people, and responding with courage rather than allowing fear or hostility to determine our actions.

For Americans, the approaching midterms provide an opportunity to consider these responsibilities within a constitutional system that allows citizens to participate in selecting their leaders.

Political engagement can be one expression of responsible citizenship, but it must never become the measure of someone's faithfulness to Christ.

No candidate or political party can provide ultimate security. Governments remain accountable for their actions, and Christians remain accountable to God for how they conduct themselves.

That responsibility includes prayer for persecuted believers, concern for victims of terrorism, thoughtful examination of political claims, and a commitment to religious liberty for all people.

France's struggles with public order, Michigan's debates over national security, and Nigeria's ongoing violence against Christian communities are different situations requiring different responses. Yet each illustrates why truth, responsible leadership, and the protection of human life matter.

The challenge is not merely to recognize warning signs. It is to respond with wisdom, justice, and faithfulness.

For more reporting and biblical perspectives on international developments, religious freedom, and the 2026 midterm elections, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

With Election Day approaching on November 3, Americans are facing decisions that extend far beyond which political party controls Congress. Immigration enforcement, national security, religious freedom, education, and the cost of living are all shaping the national conversation. Yet the growing focus on polling numbers and campaign predictions can distract from the policies that will ultimately affect American families.

Recent early-voting trends and voter-registration changes have raised questions about conventional expectations for the midterm elections. But political momentum is difficult to measure, and no polling advantage guarantees an election result.

The significance of the 2026 midterms lies not simply in which party gains seats, but in the policies that elected officials will have the authority to advance or challenge.

For continued coverage of the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

Early Voting, Political Momentum, and the Limits of Polling

Political commentators frequently turn to historical patterns when predicting congressional elections. Traditionally, the president's party has faced challenges during midterm elections, often losing seats as voters express dissatisfaction with the administration.

But historical trends do not determine individual elections.

Early-voting activity in states such as Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania has become a focus of political analysis. Changes in registration figures, ballot returns, and participation across different counties may offer clues about voter engagement.

Michigan presents an especially interesting example because the state does not register voters by political party. Analysts therefore examine geographic voting patterns, previous election results, and other indicators to estimate which groups are participating.

Those estimates have limitations. A county's historical voting preferences do not establish how every resident voted, and a higher share of early ballots does not necessarily translate into additional votes for a particular candidate.

National polling presents similar challenges.

CNN political analyst Harry Enten has discussed historical instances in which congressional polling underestimated Republican support. Such patterns are worth examining, but they cannot establish that the same errors will occur in 2026.

Campaigns must also account for changes in voter behavior. Americans increasingly have different options for casting ballots, including early in-person voting and voting by mail, depending on their state.

A shift in when voters cast their ballots does not always mean a shift in whom they support.

Rather than treating every new poll or early-voting report as a prediction, voters should recognize the distinction between participation data and actual election results.

The more important question is what candidates intend to do if elected.

Immigration, Religious Liberty, and the Responsibility of Public Officials

Some of the most consequential debates in the 2026 elections concern the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration laws, protect national security, and preserve constitutional freedoms.

Congress has substantial influence over immigration policy through legislation, federal appropriations, and oversight of executive agencies. Decisions about border security, deportation priorities, asylum procedures, and pathways to legal status can affect communities throughout the country.

Candidates offer different approaches to those responsibilities.

Some emphasize stronger enforcement and expanded removal of individuals who violate immigration laws. Others support broader legalization measures, changes to enforcement practices, or additional protections for undocumented immigrants.

These differences deserve careful examination because campaign slogans rarely explain how a proposal would operate in practice.

National security questions have also entered several prominent Senate campaigns.

In Michigan, the contest involving Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has generated debate over foreign policy, Israel, terrorism, and the responsibilities of elected officials.

Questions concerning a candidate's statements, political associations, and policy positions are legitimate subjects of public scrutiny. However, allegations involving family members or past organizational relationships must be distinguished from evidence of personal wrongdoing.

That distinction is particularly important when discussions involve religion.

A candidate's Muslim or Christian identity does not establish that person's national security positions, political loyalties, or commitment to constitutional government. Those judgments require examination of actual statements, decisions, and evidence.

Political accountability depends on documented facts and consistent standards, not assumptions about someone's faith, family, or political affiliation.

Religious liberty and questions surrounding human identity are also shaping state and local races.

A high school cross-country controversy in Washington has renewed debate over transgender participation in girls' athletics. Supporters of sex-based athletic categories emphasize competitive fairness and opportunities for female athletes. Supporters of inclusive participation policies emphasize access and protection from discrimination.

The disagreement raises broader questions about school governance, parental involvement, student rights, and the authority of state athletic associations.

These decisions are often made outside Washington, reminding voters that local and state elections can be just as consequential as congressional contests.

For Christians, evaluating these issues requires more than adopting the language of a political party.

Scripture establishes principles of truthfulness, justice, respect for human dignity, and responsible stewardship. Applying those principles to public policy requires examining what a proposed law actually does and whom it affects.

Energy Costs, Government Spending, and Biblical Stewardship

For millions of Americans, political debates eventually return to the household budget.

Fuel prices, groceries, rent, utilities, and transportation expenses directly influence financial stability. These concerns are particularly significant for families living on fixed incomes and workers whose livelihoods depend on transportation.

California's fuel prices have become a recurring example in debates about energy policy.

State taxes, environmental regulations, refinery capacity, distribution requirements, and broader oil-market conditions all contribute to the prices consumers pay. Political leaders disagree about how much emphasis should be placed on domestic production, environmental protection, infrastructure, and tax relief.

Those competing approaches involve real tradeoffs.

Policies designed to reduce emissions or encourage alternative energy sources may impose costs on certain industries and consumers. Measures intended to expand conventional fuel production may raise different environmental and economic concerns.

The appropriate response is to evaluate the evidence behind each proposal rather than assume that a single political decision explains every change in fuel prices.

Energy policy also intersects with national security.

Reliable fuel supplies support commercial transportation, military readiness, agriculture, and emergency services. Disruptions to domestic refining or international energy markets can create consequences far beyond the gas pump.

Congress influences these questions through taxation, spending, regulation, and oversight. State governments also exercise significant authority, particularly over transportation, environmental standards, and energy infrastructure.

That makes understanding the responsibilities of each elected office essential.

Biblical stewardship offers a helpful framework for considering these decisions.

Deuteronomy 30:19 records Moses calling Israel to choose life and blessing. That passage addressed Israel's covenant responsibilities and should not be treated as a direct endorsement of a modern political party. Nevertheless, Scripture consistently teaches that choices have consequences and that people bear responsibility for how they exercise authority.

Public officials are entrusted with decisions that affect families, communities, and future generations. Voters likewise have an opportunity to examine those decisions carefully.

Responsible civic participation begins with understanding the issues, testing political claims against the evidence, and recognizing the long-term consequences of public policy.

The 2026 midterms will determine who holds important positions of authority in Congress and in state and local governments. Those officials will make decisions involving national security, immigration, energy, education, and public spending.

Polls will continue to change. Campaigns will continue making competing claims. But the responsibilities of citizenship remain.

Christians can approach those responsibilities with prayer, discernment, and a commitment to truth, recognizing that political allegiance must never replace biblical conviction.

Follow the issues shaping the 2026 midterm elections, including national security, public policy, and the intersection of faith and culture, through The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.

News broke Tuesday that China’s communist regime is supplying critical parts for powerful precision-guided ballistic missiles to Houthi militants in Yemen amid the terrorist organization’s expanding attacks on Saudi Arabia and U.S. forces.

The Wall Street Journal reported that parts shipped in from China have allowed the terrorist group to build a version of the Kheibar Shekan Iranian precision-guided missile, which has a reported range of approximately 1,200 miles — allowing it to strike Israel and anywhere in Saudi Arabia. Noted for being highly mobile and relatively inexpensive at $1 million per unit (when compared to the cost of Patriot or THAAD missiles needed to neutralize it, which can range from $4 to $15 million per unit), the Kheibar Shekan is capable of evading air defenses and can deliver a bigger payload than cruise missiles and drones.

For its part, China claims that it is abiding by the U.N.’s ban on arms sales to the Houthis because the missile parts have civilian (or “dual-use”) purposes. But analysis of some of the parts shows they were “specifically designed for missile use.”

It’s not just ballistic missile parts that are being supplied by Beijing. Data gathered from U.N. reports and arms experts has revealed that “Chinese companies are now the biggest source of seized goods bound for the Houthis,” including drone parts. Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel, the Houthis have launched hundreds of drone attacks targeting U.S. forces, Israel, commercial ships, and surrounding Middle East countries.

While previously relying on Tehran and the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah to provide them with weapons, the WSJ report notes that the Houthis have now become more autonomous, thanks in large part to Beijing’s parts pipeline as well as other factors. “They have developed domestic manufacturing capabilities with artificial intelligence for drone and missile softwares, diversified their supply chains, accumulated operational experience, and established relationships with regional smugglers and international procurement networks,” stated Mohammed al-Basha, the founder of a Washington-based risk-advisory firm.

After initially focusing on assaulting U.S. forces as well as commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, the Houthis have now expanded their hostilities against neighboring countries, striking the headquarters of Saudi Arabia’s state-owned energy giant Saudi Aramco on Tuesday, just days after they attacked the country’s King Khalid International Airport, killing at least 13 people (including an American citizen) and wounding over 300.

The violence highlights the increasingly direct role that Xi Jinping’s regime is playing in the expanding Middle Eastern crisis. Last month, reports surfaced revealing that satellite imagery and intelligence provided by Chinese companies have allowed Tehran to carry out precision strikes on U.S. forces, which have led to the deaths of several American servicemembers.

Experts like Gordon Chang, an author and distinguished senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, are not surprised by the reports of China’s clandestine weapons exports. “We have known for years that China was supplying weapons to Iran and its three main terrorist proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis — so it should come as no surprise that China is supplying critical components for ballistic missiles to the Houthis,” he told The Washington Stand.

Chang further noted that “China has also been supplying, among other things, targeting data to Iran, which that regime has used to kill at least nine American service members in the Gulf, on March 1 and July 17.”

“What is surprising is that the Trump administration is not imposing costs on China for helping to kill Americans,” Chang emphasized. “We need to hold China accountable, but we also need to hold Washington accountable too. China will not stop until we impose costs. Washington has the power to impose those costs, and Americans will continue dying until we show Beijing that we are no longer going to tolerate the killing of Americans.”

‍

This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Nework.

The approaching midterm elections are raising questions that go far beyond the economy. While inflation, healthcare, and the cost of living remain important, Americans are also confronting deeper disagreements about the value of human life, the meaning of justice, and the government's responsibility to protect its citizens.

These debates touch some of the most fundamental convictions in American public life. From the treatment of infants born alive after attempted abortions to the punishment of convicted terrorists and the growing threats posed by Iran, the questions are ultimately about what society considers worthy of protection.

For ongoing coverage of these issues through a biblical worldview, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

The Sanctity of Life and the Meaning of Justice

In 2023, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed legislation modifying the state's requirements concerning infants born alive following attempted abortions.

Previously, Minnesota law required medical personnel to take reasonable measures to preserve the life and health of an infant born alive. The revised language requires appropriate care for an infant born alive, without retaining the earlier explicit requirement to preserve life and health.

Supporters of the change argue that it allows physicians to provide appropriate medical care, including comfort care when an infant cannot survive. Critics contend that removing the explicit preservation requirement weakens protections for vulnerable newborns.

The distinction raises a profound moral question: What obligations does society have toward a child who has already been born?

For Christians, the answer begins with the biblical understanding of human dignity.

Genesis 2:7 describes God breathing life into Adam, who became a living being. Genesis 1:27 establishes that humanity is created in God's image. Human worth, therefore, is not determined by age, health, independence, or the ability to contribute to society.

The biblical case for protecting human life rests on the conviction that dignity is inherent, not something granted by government or earned through usefulness.

The same understanding of human dignity also informs difficult questions about criminal justice.

The case of Nidal Hasan, the former Army major convicted of murdering 13 people at Fort Hood in November 2009, illustrates the seriousness of those questions.

Hasan's attack wounded dozens of additional victims and devastated military families. His conviction and death sentence reflect the gravity of the crimes committed.

Debates over the death penalty, including the method of execution and whether executions should be publicly displayed, nevertheless reveal competing understandings of justice.

Some argue that the severity of certain crimes warrants the ultimate punishment. Others question whether particular execution methods or public spectacles are compatible with human dignity.

These disagreements deserve careful consideration without minimizing the suffering of victims.

Romans 13 describes civil authority as bearing responsibility for restraining wrongdoing. At the same time, Scripture consistently presents human life as possessing value before God.

Justice must therefore be more than an expression of anger. It must reflect moral seriousness, accountability, and appropriate respect for human dignity.

Political Accountability Requires More Than Religious Language

Religious identity has become an increasingly visible feature of American political campaigns.

Candidates regularly reference Scripture, Christian values, and personal faith while presenting their positions on abortion, immigration, healthcare, and social policy.

But claiming a religious identity does not automatically resolve questions about what a candidate believes or how those convictions influence public decisions.

Texas Senate candidate James Talarico has attracted attention for statements concerning the nature of God, abortion, and gender. His theological language and policy positions have generated disagreement among Christians over how biblical teaching should inform public life.

Those disagreements cannot be resolved simply by accepting or rejecting a candidate's religious label.

The relevant questions concern the substance of the claims themselves. What does Scripture teach? How is a particular passage being interpreted? Are the conclusions consistent with historic Christian doctrine?

Jesus warned in Matthew 7:15–20 about false prophets and emphasized the importance of recognizing people by their fruit.

That passage is not permission to speculate about someone's private spiritual condition. It does, however, establish the importance of examining teaching and conduct rather than relying entirely on outward appearances.

Christian discernment requires evaluating public statements and actions against Scripture, rather than treating religious language as sufficient evidence of biblical faithfulness.

Similar standards of accountability apply to questions of national security.

Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has faced scrutiny over his positions on Israel, Iran, immigration, and American foreign policy.

His statements about military assistance to Israel and the treatment of terrorist organizations have become subjects of political controversy. His critics argue that his responses have lacked necessary clarity, while his broader position emphasizes consistency in foreign policy and opposition to unconditional military support.

The appropriate standard is to examine his actual statements, policy proposals, and public record.

Questions about political associations or organizations connected to family members must also distinguish documented facts from allegations of personal wrongdoing.

That distinction matters because accountability depends upon evidence.

A political candidate can legitimately be challenged about immigration enforcement, campaign contributions, national security policy, or foreign alliances without relying on unsubstantiated accusations.

The same principle should apply regardless of political affiliation.

Iran, Terrorism, and the Responsibility to Protect Civilians

While domestic political debates dominate election coverage, threats from overseas continue to affect American security.

Iran's relationships with regional armed groups, including Hezbollah and the Houthis, remain significant concerns for the United States and its Middle Eastern partners.

The Houthis have demonstrated their ability to threaten commercial shipping and regional infrastructure through missile and drone attacks. Their activities raise questions about the security of international transportation routes and the potential consequences of escalating regional conflict.

An attack against civilian aviation infrastructure, regardless of the perpetrator, demonstrates why such threats demand serious attention.

Airports are not simply strategic facilities. They are gathering places for families, workers, travelers, and children whose safety depends upon effective security measures.

The same concerns apply to attempted attacks against commercial aircraft.

An alleged attempted hijacking involving a flight bound for Israel has renewed questions about airline security, radicalization, and the ability of investigators to recognize warning signs before violence occurs.

Claims about an attacker's motivations, foreign connections, or possible accomplices require confirmation through official investigations. But the underlying security concern is clear.

Protecting civilian transportation requires intelligence cooperation, thorough investigations, and appropriate safeguards against credible threats.

Confronting terrorism requires moral clarity about violence against civilians and factual precision about who is responsible for carrying it out.

That distinction is especially important when discussing Iran.

The Iranian government has supported organizations responsible for attacks against civilians and American interests. Its activities deserve scrutiny, particularly when regional conflicts threaten to draw the United States into additional military commitments.

Yet attributing every action of an Iranian-aligned group directly to Tehran requires evidence about the specific operation. Distinguishing support, influence, and operational control is essential to responsible analysis.

Foreign policy decisions also carry consequences for American families.

Military intervention, economic sanctions, intelligence operations, and defensive partnerships each involve risks and responsibilities. Congressional leaders help shape those decisions through legislation, appropriations, and oversight.

The approaching elections therefore involve more than competing campaign messages.

They concern the responsibilities entrusted to public officials and the standards by which their decisions should be evaluated.

For Christians, those standards begin with a consistent understanding of truth, justice, and human dignity. Protecting the innocent, holding wrongdoers accountable, and refusing to excuse violence should not depend upon political convenience.

The sanctity of life matters before birth, after birth, and throughout every stage of human existence. Justice matters for victims and defendants alike. National security matters because governments bear a responsibility to protect the people entrusted to their care.

Those principles deserve serious consideration regardless of which political party holds power.

‍

Continue exploring the intersection of biblical truth, American politics, Israel, and national security through The Daniel Cohen Show, available free on Real Life Network.

If voters are trying to imagine what the nation would look like under the socialist policies of a Democratic majority in Congress, look no farther than California.

Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and the Democratic supermajority in both chambers of the state legislature offer an extensive list of policies flowing from the same socialist and Marxist ideology being championed by the ascendant wing of the Democratic Party.

The latest example is AB 1803, signed by Governor Newsom last week. Authored by Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal (D), the law requires employers with five or more employees to add training on hate speech to the growing list of California’s harassment-training laws.

Lowenthal said, “California must make meaningful progress to train Californians on the danger of hate speech not only in the workplaces, but in society as a whole.”

The law describes speech covered by the training as speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against people based on protected characteristics.

And what are those protected characteristics? They include religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and reproductive health decision-making — which includes abortion.

There are others, but those are enough to raise serious questions for Christians and religious organizations.

First, there is no clear legal definition of hate speech. Whatever the intent, the effect is to give the term enormous elasticity. Who decides when a deeply held religious conviction crosses the line from disagreement into “humiliation” or “vilification” and is then defined as hate speech?

Second, California law does not make sufficiently clear how this new mandate applies to churches and religious ministries. That ambiguity itself should concern anyone who values religious freedom, because the protected categories include subjects on which biblical Christianity makes unmistakable moral and theological claims.

Jesus said in Matthew 19 that the Creator “made them male and female,” and then described marriage in terms of a man and a woman. Does teaching those words humiliate someone who rejects the biblical understanding of sex and marriage?

What about Jesus’s words in John 14: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”? Christianity is inherently exclusive in its truth claims. Could that someday be deemed vilifying toward another religion?

This is why California’s law should concern the church and everyone else, for that matter. When state officials declare the state needs to train society on what is appropriate speech, all of society is in trouble. Frankly, the state of California should not be instructing the church — the church should be instructing the government on what is right and wrong.

For Christians, this is an Acts 4 moment. When Peter and John were ordered not to speak or teach in Jesus’s name, they answered: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.”

California is not merely a laboratory for the Left; it is a warning to the rest of America. The question for voters is whether California’s experiment stops at the state line, or comes to Washington. And the question for the church is even more fundamental: when government demands that we compromise biblical truth, will we have the courage of Peter and John to stand firm and speak it?

‍

This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

The economy matters. Groceries, gas prices, housing costs, and the pressure on American families deserve serious attention. But national security belongs in that conversation, too. The decisions made in Washington affect more than household budgets. They shape the country's ability to confront terrorism, protect religious communities, secure its borders, and respond to threats abroad.

Those connections deserve closer examination. Through The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network, the intersection of faith, national security, Israel, and American politics remains central to understanding the headlines.

The approaching November 3 midterms raise questions that go well beyond which party controls Congress. Who sets national security priorities? How should America respond to Iran and its terrorist proxies? What responsibilities do elected officials have when antisemitism and political violence reach American communities?

National security is not an abstract debate reserved for Washington. Its consequences can reach neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and ordinary families.

Iran, Israel, and the Responsibility to Confront Terrorism

Iran remains central to the discussion about American national security and the Middle East. Its support for armed groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, has made its regional influence a continuing concern for the United States and Israel.

Yet political disagreements over Iran and Israel often become tangled in arguments about military assistance, international law, and America's responsibilities overseas.

Michigan's Senate contest illustrates those competing priorities.

Abdul El-Sayed has argued against unconditional American military assistance to foreign governments, including Israel. In interviews, his position has emphasized applying international law consistently and restricting weapons transfers to governments accused of violating it.

That approach raises legitimate questions about American foreign policy. Military assistance is not an unlimited obligation, and elected officials have a responsibility to scrutinize how taxpayer money is spent.

But the discussion cannot stop there.

Israel faces rocket and missile threats from hostile armed groups and regional adversaries. Defensive systems such as Iron Dome exist to intercept incoming projectiles and protect civilian populations. Any proposal to restrict military assistance therefore deserves careful examination of its potential consequences for defensive capabilities as well as offensive operations.

There is also an important distinction between criticizing a government's military decisions and excusing terrorism directed against its citizens.

The March attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, brought that distinction much closer to home. A vehicle carrying incendiary materials was driven into a synagogue complex that also serves children and families. The incident prompted renewed concerns about antisemitic violence and the reach of conflicts originating thousands of miles away.

Political leaders can disagree about Israel's government, military operations, and American foreign assistance. Those disagreements do not diminish the obligation to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians and religious institutions.

No disagreement over foreign policy can justify threatening Jewish families or treating American religious communities as extensions of a foreign government.

The same principle must apply to every community. A synagogue, church, mosque, or school should never become a target because of anger over events elsewhere.

Why National Security Belongs in Congressional Debates

The connection between national security and congressional elections is more substantial than campaign rhetoric might suggest.

Congress controls federal appropriations, establishes statutory authorities, conducts oversight, and plays a central role in shaping the agencies responsible for national defense and domestic security. The Senate also exercises its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations requiring confirmation.

Those responsibilities make congressional debates over homeland security, intelligence gathering, immigration enforcement, and counterterrorism consequential.

An alleged ISIS-inspired plot involving the Mall of America in Minnesota offers an example of the threats federal investigators seek to identify before violence occurs.

According to the account presented by federal authorities, an 18-year-old suspect had communicated about supporting ISIS and allegedly considered carrying out an attack in the United States after plans to travel overseas did not materialize. The allegations require the usual distinction between prosecutors' claims and facts established in court.

But the broader issue remains significant: preventing terrorism requires investigative resources, intelligence cooperation, appropriate legal authorities, and effective oversight.

Protecting the public also requires precision.

Terrorist organizations are responsible for their own violence. Their actions must not become an excuse to assign collective guilt to immigrants, Muslims, or particular ethnic communities. Effective counterterrorism depends upon identifying actual threats rather than confusing religious identity or national origin with criminal conduct.

That is why national security policy requires more than slogans about being tough or compassionate.

The public deserves to understand how candidates would approach terrorism investigations, border security, intelligence oversight, civil liberties, and the constitutional limits of government authority.

Those questions belong alongside debates about inflation, healthcare, education, and taxation.

Antisemitism, Political Rhetoric, and the Limits of Party Loyalty

Three years after the Hamas-led October 7 attack, the anniversary remains a painful occasion for Jewish communities around the world.

Approximately 1,200 people were killed in the attack, and 251 were taken hostage. The consequences have extended far beyond Israel, including heightened security concerns and incidents of antisemitism in the United States.

New York City's response to the anniversary illustrates how difficult the public conversation has become.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani's remarks acknowledging the suffering caused by October 7 while criticizing Israel's subsequent military actions became a point of contention among activists with sharply different expectations.

The controversy reflects a larger problem in contemporary politics: expressions of sympathy, criticism, and disagreement are increasingly measured against demands for complete ideological agreement.

Recognizing the suffering of Israeli victims does not require ignoring Palestinian civilian suffering. Likewise, expressing concern for Palestinians does not require minimizing the October 7 atrocities or excusing antisemitism.

Both truths can be maintained without contradiction.

Political movements become less capable of honest debate when every disagreement is treated as betrayal. Acknowledging suffering should not depend upon whether the victims belong to a preferred political or religious community.

For Christians, Scripture establishes a higher standard than political loyalty. Human beings bear God's image, and the obligation to speak truthfully does not disappear when truth becomes inconvenient to a favored party or cause.

Proverbs 18:17 reminds readers that the first account of a dispute may sound persuasive until it is examined. That principle applies to viral videos, campaign statements, accusations of extremism, and claims about political opponents.

Christian discernment requires consistency: condemn terrorism without qualification, reject antisemitism without hesitation, and examine political claims without surrendering judgment to party loyalty.

The approaching midterms will generate enormous attention around polling, turnout, and campaign strategies. Those subjects are part of the political process, but they should not obscure the governing responsibilities attached to the offices being contested.

A Senate vote can affect national security appointments. A congressional appropriation can determine resources available to federal agencies. Legislative oversight can expose failures or strengthen accountability.

Understanding those responsibilities provides a more useful framework than treating every political development as a contest between personalities.

The same seriousness belongs in discussions about Israel, Iran, and religious freedom. American foreign policy involves real tradeoffs, and domestic security decisions can affect both public safety and constitutional liberties.

No political party possesses a monopoly on wisdom, and no candidate should be exempt from difficult questions.

The standard should remain consistent: evidence before accusations, clarity before slogans, and responsibility before political convenience.

‍

Follow the intersection of biblical truth, Israel, national security, and American current events through The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network

After months of flooding the zone with glum predictions for Republicans, there’s been a quiet but meaningful shift in major media headlines. Left-leaning outlets desperate to make the GOP’s demise a self-fulfilling prophecy seem to be subtly hedging their bets against another polling embarrassment. In the last handful of days, even the big dogs — The New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek — are conceding that maybe the election forecasts aren’t as lopsided as they’ve been leading voters to believe.

Suddenly, readers are clicking on stories that paint a very different picture of the apocalyptic landscape for Republicans they’d come to expect. Articles like “Democratic Optimism in Six Senate Races May Be a Mirage,” “3 Bright Spots for the G.O.P.,” and “How Much Can Republicans Outrun Trump’s Approval?” are popping up in the same pages that have urged Americans to don galoshes for the Blue Tsunami. And while there certainly are very troubling signs for Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) party, one lesson everyone should have learned by now is that polls are an incredibly flawed measure of public opinion.

In the modern age, Republicans have consistently outperformed the industry’s numbers in presidential and midterm elections. Pollsters have frantically tried to solve this puzzle, especially after a string of national humiliations. After a lot of head-scratching, two theories for this unpredictability revolve around the GOP. “First, Republicans are becoming more distrustful of institutions and society, and that may be extending to how they feel about pollsters. Second, suburban Republican college graduates are more likely to fear professional sanction for their views and are therefore self-censoring more, including in surveys,” FiveThirtyEight’s Emily Ekins suggests. Most experts estimate that conservatives underpoll somewhere between 3-5% — a massive swing for anyone trying to prophecy close races.

Over the last handful of days, the media seems to be making an intentional effort to temper their excitement, noting that as optimistic as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) may be, “history offers a warning to Democrats, as polls in recent elections underestimated Republicans in key states. Control of the Senate could come down to just a handful of races where polls show razor-thin margins.” In places like Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas, Newsweek warns, Democrats appear to have a polling edge. “But Republicans have outperformed polling averages in many of those same states over the past few elections. Polling errors are not necessarily repeated from cycle to cycle. But a similar pro-Republican polling error this cycle would not bode well for Democrats’ chances of flipping the Senate.”

Watch live coverage of election night on Real Life Network.

Frankly, it’s “impossible to know for sure” what the polling error could look like this year, Syracuse Political Science Professor Grant Davis Reeher acknowledged. “There are some pretty big known unknowns in this election, which could throw off polls,” he said. “A primary one is turnout. Polls must make educated guesses about who is most likely to vote. It’s a little trickier in midterms.”

National Review’s Jim Geraghty, who hasn’t exactly been a glass-is-half-full prognosticator, offered what he called “the cheeriest midterm take for Republicans you’re going to find,” urging readers to second-guess the excitement surrounding Democrats in cherry-red Kansas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Florida. Despite the media’s insistence that GOP candidates are in trouble, the polling doesn’t necessarily bear that out. “There’s good reason to not believe the hype; we’ve seen this sort of narrative before.”

He ticks off the numbers for each key race, along with historical trends, dismantling the idea that conservatives are in trouble. “The lesson of this is not that all the polls are always wrong, or that every prediction of an upset Democratic win is always wrong,” Geraghty cautions. “But there’s an extremely familiar narrative of ‘this Democrat really has a shot in a deep red state!’ that rarely pans out; when it does, it’s usually because of a spectacularly flawed Republican candidate.” Americans should be wary of a blue wave, he writes, if only because “certain left-of-center media voices always tell them there will be a blue wave every November.”

An unlikely source echoes NR’s guardedness: The New York Times. Despite what pundits say, “there is also quite a bit of good news for Republicans,” Ruth Igielnik wrote late last month. For starters, “Republican Senate candidates are running ahead of the party. … Each of [them] is outrunning President Trump’s popularity in their states, sometimes by double digits. … And in each of the races, Republican candidates are winning some voters who otherwise say they want Democrats to control the Senate. Taken together, these are signs that in these competitive, Democratic-leaning states, Republicans have nominated strong candidates who appeal beyond their base.”

Then, of course, there’s the Left’s ugly infighting. “As Democrats are divided,” the Times points out, “Republicans are united. … We asked Democrats across the country if they felt the party was united or divided. About half said the party was united, and half said divided. Those numbers are nearly identical to a survey we ran in 2016. Republicans, on the other hand, are feeling very unified. In our most recent national survey, 70 percent of Republicans said they felt the party was united. That is a dramatic departure from 10 years ago. In 2016, more than 80 percent of Republicans said they thought the party was divided.”

Over at The Washington Post, Scott Clement reiterates that a “poll of two key House districts shows good signs for Democrats, but no tsunami.”

As for the bluster that even Hispanics are abandoning the GOP, Rasmussen Reports soundly beats back that narrative. In results released Monday, Hispanic voters favor Republicans by a 50 to 42% margin over Democrats. “The poll also indicates a tightening battle for control of Congress, as the Democrats’ lead over Republicans decreased for the second week in a row, according to the company. Overall, voters said if the election was held today 47 percent of likely voters would vote for the Democrat candidate, while 44 percent would vote for the Republican. Four percent of voters said another party’s candidate and just 4 percent were undecided.” In other words, Republicans have slashed the Democrats’ lead in half since just mid-September, “particularly with independent voters.”

But as encouraging as those signs are, leadership is clear-eyed about the hill they have to climb this November. “Now listen, this is going to be a very close election,” Speaker Johnson underscored Tuesday. His Senate counterpart, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), has been cautiously optimistic about his side of the Capitol. “I think we can keep the majority,” he told Politico this week. “I think all of these races are margin of error, at least the ones that we have to win. And historically, at least if you look at polls, we tend to outperform them.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) made that same point in a conversation with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” When Cook Political Report, a widely respected organization, moved more seats to the toss-up or Democratic-leaning column, the House’s second-in-command wasn’t worried. In his mind, there’s more to the story. “You know, the polling really is interesting when you dig into it. You’re seeing an undersampling of Republicans, and we’re digging into some of these. Let’s be clear too. There are a lot of close races, not just Republican races.” He pointed to a few states like New Hampshire where GOP candidates are making a dent in Democratic areas too. “There [are] about 35 seats across the country that are truly swing districts,” Scalise observed. “Twenty of them are held by Republicans that are close right now, but 15 are held by Democrats that are also close, that we have a real chance to flip. And so, turnout is going to be a big factor. Who really does show up?”

The GOP has another secret weapon this election — in large part thanks to President Trump and Speaker Johnson — and that’s campaign cash. As Perkins highlighted, conservatives “have a strong edge on the fundraising to get their message through in these final days.” Scalise nodded. “We really do. You know, it’s rare that we outraise Democrats in a lot of these seats. We have now. And again, I think people are seeing what’s at stake, and they’re donating money.”

The media, he thinks, “[is] counting on Republicans, especially traditional conservative voters, to just stay home. And I don’t think that’s going to happen, because I think more and more people are seeing this sharp contrast [between the two parties].” With the rise of the Democratic Socialists, Scalise warns, “This isn’t like two candidates [who] are similar. This is common sense versus crazy. And some of these candidates … [don’t just want] to defund the police — they want to disarm the police. They actually advocate for taking guns away from police officers. You were a police officer. Could you imagine approaching a criminal who’s got a gun and saying, ‘Hey, let’s have a conversation and try to talk this out?’ He shoots you, and it’s over. This is insanity. And that’s beyond crazy. But if people stay home ... [these radicals win]. And that’s why people can’t stay home.”

At the end of the day, Scalise insisted, Democrats are trotting out polls “to make it look like they’re doing better than they are, because they want to depress conservative voters. Because if conservative voters stay home, guess what? Socialists will actually win. They can’t win if you show up and vote on November 3rd.”

That’s right, Perkins stressed. “The only poll that really counts is Election Day when people turn out and vote.”

‍

Watch live coverage of election night on Real Life Network.

‍

This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

A newly enacted law in California that requires virtually all employers to give employees “anti-hate speech” training is raising red flags, as experts say that the mandate could force churches to provide training that conflicts with sincerely held biblical beliefs regarding sexuality, gender, and marriage.

Late last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law AB 1803, a measure that requires all employers with five or more workers, including all churches and other nonprofit religious organizations, to provide employees with “anti-hate speech” instruction. But as observers like the California Family Council (CFC) are pointing out, the legislation does not define “hate speech,” instead handing the job to the state’s Civil Rights Department. The bill mandates that the training must confront workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against individuals based on what the state has already deemed a protected characteristic, which includes sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

The CFC goes on to observe that the statute, which will go into effect on January 1, 2028, never mentions churches or religious nonprofits and their First Amendment rights to hold sincerely held religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. It also “fails to separate protected expression from unlawful conduct,” noting that the Supreme Court held in 2017 that “the First Amendment has no hate speech exception.”

Greg Burt, who serves as vice president of CFC, further pointed out the problems with AB 1803’s vague language regarding key terms that it says constitute “hate.”

“What does it mean to vilify? What speech actually humiliates?” he wondered during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “[M]any times legislators consider many Christian beliefs when they’re expressed — especially regarding sexuality or gender — they accuse us of hating people. That’s [the] farthest thing from my mind. But we are simply advocating for our view that sex is determined by biology, and God created us both male and female. Well, to many people that is humiliating and that incites hatred. And so that’s the problem with this legislation.”

Burt went on to clarify that AB 1803 is being folded into a previously enacted statute that mandates sexual harassment training, which already specifies that using accurate biological pronouns constitutes “harassment.” “[Businesses are] already required to go through sexual harassment training, and we found out several years ago they redefined what sexual harassment means to include gender identity,” he explained. “… [The] California Civil Rights Department says misgendering is harassment, and so this training is on top of that already egregious training.”

As for how employers can fulfill the required training, Burt noted that hiring outside trainers is allowed, but the state-provided training that includes pro-LGBT messaging is free. “Right now, the state puts together a free curriculum — that’s how they do it with sexual harassment training, but you’re not required to use that training. You can come up with your own. But we don’t know exactly what ‘anti-hate’ is going to include, right? [Their] definition of speech that ‘humiliates’ — what does that mean? It really depends on the person who’s receiving the language.”

Burt further urged churches and other religious organizations in the Golden State to push back vigorously against the mandate. “What I think the state is doing is it’s trying to intimidate churches into following through with this,” he lamented. “They should not be receiving any kind of ideological training from the state on any moral issue. That’s why what churches need to be doing is asking for religious accommodations. The federal law and the state law already require businesses to accommodate people’s faith if they’re being required to do something that violates their faith. … [T]his is one of those points in history here in California where civil disobedience is going to be necessary.”

Burt concluded by emphasizing that state officials in California are counting on churches to kowtow to their demands instead of standing up for the constitutional freedoms, which has already proven to be a winning strategy.

“I’m sure they’re already thrilled that they get to retrain the entire population to believe what they believe regarding gender identity,” he reflected. “And so once we get accustomed to this and say, ‘Well, this is just what California requires, I guess we have to do it.’ No, you don’t. Folks, you’ve got to resist, and that includes individual employees. That’s what we are encouraging people to do. And we are having success. We have some attorneys we’re working with, and when people have been asking for religious accommodations, they have been accommodated.”

‍

This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Social science data continues to emerge showing that America’s young people are increasingly non-religious, isolated, and unhappy. But the data also shows that young people who are religious are thriving, with higher levels of happiness, more friends, are more likely to be married, and better educational outcomes than their non-religious peers.

Research released by the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) notes that since 2000, reports of unhappiness among young people aged 20 to 35 has more than doubled, surging from 11% to 23%. This has coincided with an era where young people are isolating at unprecedented levels as they immerse themselves in screens, pornography, social media, video games, and AI chatbots. “Socializing among young men and women is down more than 50%, from 12 hours to 5 hours per week,” IFS observes. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a precipitous decline in relationships and dating, with two thirds of young people not in serious relationships and teen dating down 50%.

As unhappiness and loneliness has risen among young people, so too has secularism. In March, Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center reported that only 1% of Gen Z (ages 18 to 22) and 4% of adults in general has a biblical worldview (defined as “individuals whose beliefs and behaviors are consistently aligned with biblical principles”). The figure is down significantly since 1994, when 12% of adults reported a biblical worldview.

But married and religious young people seem to be largely escaping the unhappiness trap, with 50% saying they are “very happy” compared to just 16% of their secular, unmarried peers. As IFS points out, “faith and family remain two of the strongest bulwarks against loneliness and despair.”

For young men in particular, religion appears to be the hinge that catapults them into a future of contentment and success. Data shows that religious men are more likely to desire and attain marriage than those who are non-religious. They are also almost twice as likely to report feeling “very happy” and to say that life feels “purposeful/meaningful” than secular men. Religious men also report less mental health issues, anxiety, and depression. They also have bachelor’s degrees at far higher rates than non-religious men (46% vs. 16%) and report finishing trade school/apprenticeships at 29% (vs. 14% of secular men).

Where a happier minority of young people find meaning and purpose in religion, a far larger percentage appear to hold politics and government as their primary focal point, especially with the rising popularity of socialism.

“[M]y generation has grown up in a very hyper political age,” Counteract USA Founder and CEO Abigail DeJarnatt contended during “Washington Watch” Friday. “… [Many believe that] government can be the arbiter of morality. That’s what happens when Marxism infuses into our society. And that’s just what we’ve grown up with. So when you’re online and you’re on TikTok [watching] recipe videos, there’s also political ideologies that are being pushed on and talked about amongst Gen Z. So it’s not surprising at all that this is where we’re at, and I think we’ll just continue to see a lot more of it among young people.”

DeJarnatt further explained how her ministry is attempting to engage Gen Z with truth. “The primary thing that we’re focusing on with Gen Z Christians is teaching them a framework of biblical critical thinking,” she explained. “Because the reality is, a lot of Gen Z’s world is unfolding online. A lot of the conversations, online friendships, relationships. … What we’re trying to teach Gen Z to do is look at what they’re seeing online and ask, ‘Is it true? Is it not?’ … We’re trying to tell Gen Z [to] ask questions as fast as we’re scrolling online. Slow down. … And as Christians, we have to weigh that against the Bible itself.”

DeJarnatt went on to argue that a sense of self entitlement undergirded by Marxism has heavily influenced young people to abandon a solid biblical ethic. “[T]his Marxism that’s invaded our culture, just the hyper individualism in Gen Z,” she emphasized. “[Much of] Gen Z is [saying], ‘We aren’t happy with either political party.’ I think we have this idea that we can have it all. [It’s the] same framework of pick and choose our own ideology to the Bible. … [W]e think, ‘I like this, I don’t like this. I’m going to choose this. I’m not going to choose this.’”

DeJarnatt concluded by urging young believers to move beyond their comfort zones in order to spread the gospel to an isolated and unhappy wider culture.

“We see so many young Christians who are taught all these amazing things and their amazing churches that are Bible-based,” she noted. “They’re in Bible-based families that are going back to Scripture, but we need to teach Gen Z to take all the things that they know and actually apply them to the key conversations happening around us, having the conversations, just getting Gen Z to talk to each other … articulating those beliefs so that they actually become effective in wielding the sword of the spirit in the spiritual battle that’s raging all around us. They have the tools. They just need to know how to use them well.”

‍

This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Some disasters arrive without warning. Others are preceded by signs that, in hindsight, seem impossible to miss.

The attempted attack aboard a FlyDubai flight bound for Tel Aviv belongs in the second category. A co-pilot attacked the captain with a cockpit crash axe as the aircraft descended rapidly toward the region. The wounded captain managed to unlock the cockpit door, passengers and crew subdued the attacker, and off-duty pilots ultimately helped bring the aircraft safely to the ground.

It was an extraordinary rescue. It was also an extraordinary security failure.

The investigation has revealed concerns about the alleged attacker that existed before he entered that cockpit. Those revelations should prompt serious questions about aviation security, information sharing, radicalization, and what happens when institutions fail to act on warnings already in front of them. The transcript places that failure within a broader theme: the responsibility of a watchman is not merely to recognize danger after it arrives, but to pay attention while something can still be done.  

For more biblical perspective on the news shaping Israel, America, and the world, Real Life Network brings together current events and the good news of the gospel.

A warning is only valuable when someone is willing to act on it.

The Warning Signs Before FlyDubai Flight 1073

The attack aboard FlyDubai Flight 1073 on September 30 immediately raised questions about how the alleged attacker was allowed into the cockpit.

Authorities identified the co-pilot as Hamam al-Hammami, an Omani national. According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal and Associated Press, Oman Air had previously removed him from flying duties because of concerns about extremist views. FlyDubai later hired him after conducting standard background checks, but apparently did not receive or uncover that history.

That was not the only breakdown.

Oman does not have diplomatic relations with Israel, and questions have emerged over how an Omani pilot was cleared to operate a Tel Aviv-bound flight. Israel has acknowledged gaps in its vetting procedures and is reviewing the screening of foreign flight crews. Investigators have also examined al-Hammami’s employment and educational history as authorities in several countries try to determine what was known about him before the attack.

The most remarkable part of the story is what happened after the attack began.

Captain Smit Machchhar described being struck repeatedly from behind. Despite severe injuries and impaired vision, he managed to reach and unlock the cockpit door. That action allowed others to intervene before the aircraft could be destroyed. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later praised Machchhar as a hero and invited him and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to participate in Israel’s Independence Day celebrations.

The precise motive and whether anyone else assisted al-Hammami remain subjects of investigation. Early reporting indicates investigators have not established ties to a terrorist organization and are examining the possibility that he acted alone.

Those distinctions matter. Serious journalism cannot transform suspicion into fact simply because it makes a compelling story.

But uncertainty about every detail does not erase the security failures already apparent.

The lesson is not that every possible threat can be prevented. It is that institutions cannot afford to ignore credible warning signs and then act surprised when those warnings become a crisis.

Europe Was Warned About Radicalization

The concern extends beyond one airline.

In 2017, United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed delivered a warning to Western leaders about radicalization in Europe. Speaking in English, he predicted that Europe would eventually produce more extremists and terrorists because of indecision, political correctness, and a mistaken belief that Western governments understood extremism in the Middle East better than governments confronting it directly.

Nearly a decade later, the warning is worth revisiting, but it also requires an important distinction.

Islamist extremism cannot be treated as synonymous with Islam or with Muslims generally. Millions of Muslims reject terrorism and radical ideology. Governments have a responsibility to distinguish between peaceful religious practice and individuals or organizations advocating violence.

But refusing to make sweeping judgments does not require refusing to make judgments at all.

The challenge for free societies is to protect religious liberty while confronting genuine extremism. Those commitments are not contradictory. A government can defend the right of Muslims to worship peacefully while aggressively investigating terrorist networks. It can protect immigrants from unjust discrimination while enforcing immigration and criminal laws. It can welcome peaceful citizens while recognizing that ideological radicalization is real.

Pretending those distinctions cannot be made leaves societies vulnerable from both directions.

The FlyDubai investigation illustrates the stakes. An individual reportedly flagged for extremist views eventually obtained access to the controls of a commercial aircraft headed toward Israel. Whatever additional facts investigators uncover, that sequence deserves scrutiny.

It should also remind Christians that discernment is not fear.

Fear assumes the worst about everyone. Discernment examines evidence, distinguishes truth from speculation, and responds appropriately when genuine danger appears.

A Watchman Has to See Clearly

Ezekiel 33 gives the image of a watchman standing guard. When the watchman sees danger approaching, his responsibility is to sound the alarm.

That image is powerful precisely because the watchman must do two things correctly.

He must remain awake, and he must see clearly.

A watchman who sleeps through an approaching threat has failed. But so has a watchman who constantly sounds false alarms until nobody believes him anymore. Christian vigilance therefore requires both courage and truth.

That principle reaches beyond terrorism.

Researchers are currently conducting new tests on the Durupınar formation in eastern Turkey, a boat-shaped geological formation that some believe could contain remains associated with Noah’s Ark. Recent work has included ground-penetrating radar, soil sampling, digital modeling, and core drilling. Researchers involved with the project have reported subsurface anomalies, including linear and angular features.

The location is intriguing because it lies in the broader Mount Ararat region associated with the Genesis account. The formation’s dimensions and reported subsurface features have fueled decades of interest.

But the evidence has not established that the formation is Noah’s Ark.

The research team itself has acknowledged that radar anomalies do not prove an archaeological origin, and laboratory analysis of recent samples remains underway. Some researchers believe the formation is artificial; other geologists have long argued that it is natural. More testing is necessary.

Christians should be comfortable saying that.

Biblical faith does not depend upon exaggerating archaeological discoveries before the evidence arrives. If compelling evidence eventually emerges, examine it. If the formation turns out to be geological, Genesis does not suddenly disappear.

The Dead Sea Scrolls offer a helpful contrast. Their discovery provided actual ancient manuscripts that scholars could compare with later biblical texts. The Great Isaiah Scroll, dating roughly a millennium earlier than previously available complete Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah, demonstrated remarkable continuity while also containing textual variants.

The Christian does not need sensationalism when truth is already compelling.

Biblical discernment means refusing to ignore evidence that is uncomfortable and refusing to exaggerate evidence that is convenient.

That may be one of the most important habits Christians can develop in an age of breaking news, viral videos, political advertising, polling, social media, and constant claims of unprecedented discoveries.

The FlyDubai attack deserves investigation without conspiracy theories. Radicalization deserves attention without treating an entire religion or population as guilty. Archaeological discoveries deserve excitement without announcing conclusions before the evidence supports them. Political claims deserve examination regardless of which party benefits from them.

The watchman does not determine what is true.

The watchman pays attention to what is actually there.

Captain Machchhar reportedly had only moments to act. Severely wounded, he reached the cockpit door and opened it, giving everyone else aboard the aircraft a chance to survive.

Most people will never encounter anything remotely comparable. But everyone faces smaller moments when recognizing reality matters: deciding what information to trust, what warnings deserve attention, what claims require more evidence, and what principles should remain firm when cultural pressure makes them inconvenient.

‍

Stay informed with The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network, where faith, current events, Israel, and the stories shaping the world come together.

Like a lot of girls her age, Rosalie Markezich knew the standard talking point about mifepristone. Don’t worry, the online sites say. It’s just like taking a Tylenol. “Well, I’ve taken a lot of Tylenol in my lifetime,” she tells people now, and “it has never killed my child. It has never ruined my life, and it has never made me bleed for over a week.”

Unlike most moms, Rosalie never got the chance to hear that lie from her doctor, because she didn’t ask for a prescription in the first place. Her boyfriend ordered the pills in her name, and without any sort of ID or verification, the drugs magically showed up at her house. “I told him, ‘No thank you. I do not want you to do that, and I do not want them.’ Well, [he] found the website. He filled it out all with my personal information that I did not give him to use … [and] $150 later, he successfully ordered abortion pills through the mail from a [California] doctor named Remy Coeytaux, shipped directly to my doorstep.”

When he forced her to swallow them, her plan was to go inside and throw them up. But it was too late. “That night, I laid on a blood-soaked towel by myself, choking on my own breath. I remember my body rejecting it, rejecting its own breath — the one thing that it needs. I was praying to God, ‘Please take me too.’” Now, filled with grief and anger at how the government has robbed her of everything the Left insists this debate is about — choice, privacy, and safety — she’s fighting back.

“The FDA was wrong,” Rosalie said emotionally at the Pray Vote Stand Summit. “They allowed these drugs. They allowed them to go through the mail. They knew the warnings. They knew what could happen. And yet they are still sending them through the mail after seeing firsthand what it has done to women and children.”

We’re talking about a drug, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) reiterated, “that is facilitating domestic abuse and even murder.” And yet, four years ago, he shook his head, pro-lifers were at this same event celebrating the overwhelming victory of Dobbs, a success story a half-century of prayers and activism in the making. “But I don’t think any of us that were on that stage left the stage believing that we would have more abortions today than we had at that time.” All because of mifepristone — and the presidents since 2022 who have turned a blind eye to the violent consequences.

“It’s why, frankly, [we] are still amazed at this administration — which talks about being the most pro-life administration — simply burying their head in the sand on what we know is going on around us.” With a single signature, President Trump could turn this whole situation around, Marshall insists. “The data is there. … They have the capacity to be able to do it. The question is whether or not they have the political will.” And so far, they have not.

Instead, they’ve created a black market for abortion drugs that not only puts women who voluntarily take the pill in life-threatening situations, but sets fire to every pro-life state law in America. Right now, it doesn’t matter whether you live in Louisiana or New York, abortionists are illegally flooding every zip code of the country with mifepristone — and getting away with it.

If the Trump administration had the nerve to enforce the federal laws already on the books, Rosalie would be the happy mom of a two-year-old right now. Under the Comstock Act, the Justice Department should be cracking down on anyone shipping abortion pills through the mail — let alone to pro-life states whose voters have already made their voices heard on the issue. But instead, for reasons no one who witnessed the first Trump term can understand, Republican attorneys general like Louisiana’s Liz Murrill (R) are having to fight their way to the Supreme Court just for the right to have their laws respected.

Murrill, who’s already battling the FDA over its ridiculously lax standards on the drug, is expanding the war to states that are knowingly protecting the criminals sending pills into pro-life states. Together with Marshall and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R), the trio is suing New York, California, and Massachusetts to try to dismantle the “shield laws” in blue states that refuse to punish anyone mailing mifepristone.

“They shield the doctor, they shield the pharmacist, they shield anybody who is involved with what I call the pill pipeline, sending those pills into our state,” Murrill told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “And they are doing it for a political purpose. They are doing it because they disapprove of the laws that our state has passed. And so they want to flood our state with those pills illegally.”

To get away with it, the prescribers leave no trace on the bottles. “They sanitize it. And so, you will never you may never know who actually prescribed those pills. … [They’re] filling the prescription bottle and sending it into our state with no name on it, no pharmacy on it, no recipient name.”

Murrill explained that her team actually tested the current market, having agents order drugs online. Asked if there’s any kind of consultation with a medical person, she replied no. “There’s none. They’re not even verifying who’s even buying them. … They mail them to anybody who basically fills out a form on the internet. So it’s extraordinarily irresponsible.” Not to mention, she added, that “they are directly trying to nullify our laws.”

And regardless of whether the women are coerced or ordering these of their own will, the AG sadly acknowledged that the number of emergency room visits is skyrocketing — mainly because no one is adhering to the FDA’s 10-week limit for the drug. “Is any other drug treated like this?” Perkins wanted to know. “None,” Murrill replied. “None,” she repeated. “That’s why I say over and over again … this is not health care. There is nothing about this that is health care. I mean, there is no situation in the medical field where they would do this with drugs or patients.”

That’s why red-state AGs sued the FDA in the first place, because it’s so shocking and unconscionable that a pill sending 10% of women to the ER doesn’t even require a doctor’s visit or approval. “Those rules are not in place anymore. And so, you know, it really poses a significant risk to women all over the country.”

Imagine, she emphasized, if blue states “mailed us cocaine or they mailed us fentanyl.” There would be legal consequences. Or, Perkins suggested, “What if … Louisiana said, ‘You know, we’re not going to work with California and New York on anything related to the Second Amendment. I don’t care what your laws say. We’re not going to support you in that.’” It’s like saying, “I’m going to mail guns to anybody who wants them,” Murrill agreed. “… They have laws that restrict gun ownership and possession in ways that we don’t. … [What if] I decided to violate those laws? And they wouldn’t be able to enforce them if we had a shield law similar to that. But we haven’t done that.”

At the end of the day, this is not a minor issue, the FRC president argued. Not for the baby, not for the mother, not for the constitutional process, and certainly not for state sovereignty. “You know,” Marshall underscored, “we can solve [this] problem right now. We have the ability to do it with the administration that’s in place. And it’s why not only is our prayer so important, but also our ability to stand together is so critical. Because the reality is it’s not about Republican or Democrat. It’s about protecting women’s health and preserving life. That’s our issue. That’s important — and on it, we’re right.”

‍

This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this visit Real Life Network.

A case centered on the Title IX rights of women to have male-free sports has been thrown out by a Biden-appointed judge, leaving Riley Gaines and the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) determined to appeal.

Gaines and over a dozen female former college athletes filed the lawsuit funded and supported by ICONS in March 2024, claiming that the NCAA broke Title IX safeguards by allowing men to participate in women’s sports and infiltrate locker room spaces.

Gaines said in a statement on Tuesday, “This momentary setback will not deter me or other women athletes in the least. Rest assured, we will be appealing this decision. We are on the side of truth. I am confident Americans will rally to our side to fight the NCAA. Working together, we will defeat the NCAA’s continuing efforts to trample women’s rights in sports.”

U.S. District Judge Tiffany R. Johnson of the Northern District of Georgia on Monday dismissed the case, ruling that the NCAA does not have to abide by Title IX standards since it does not directly receive federal funding, which is a “prerequisite for liability under Title IX,” Fox News reported.

Johnson wrote, “Here, there is no evidence that the NCAA ever received, or could have received, federal funds. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims cannot proceed.”

“Judge Johnson accepted the NCAA’s argument that the NCAA is not subject to Title IX and dismissed the case Gaines v. NCAA, brought by women college athletes seeking to hold the NCAA responsible for granting men access to women’s sports and private locker rooms,” ICONS said in a statement. “This decision removes all protections for women in NCAA collegiate competition across the country and underscores the vulnerability of women’s sports until court victories are secured.”

ICONS Co-Founder Kim Jones, a former NCAA All-American tennis player, insisted that Johnson was wrong in her ruling. “We believe the district judge erred and that the Court of Appeals will find that the NCAA, which is the controlling body of college sports for more than 1,100 member schools, almost all of which are federally funded, is subject to Title IX. We will not give up our fight for women and girls’ rights in sports.”

CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Penny Nance remarked that she is appalled by Johnson’s decision, and that it is “inexcusable for a judge to rule that the NCAA is above the law, and that a man’s identity takes priority over women’s rights.”

She continued, “This ruling effectively upholds the NCAA’s repulsive policy enabling sexual harassment and discrimination against female athletes. We are disgusted that the NCAA is lobbying for federal protections but refuses to protect female athletes. We will not back down from this fight in support of female athletes.”

The case comes at a time when far-left political candidates refuse to define what a woman is and affirm biological reality. A poll by Concerned Women for America found that “69% of Americans believe it is very or somewhat important in deciding who to vote for in this election that candidates oppose forcing female athletes to participate in sports and share locker rooms with biological boys/men identifying as girls/women.”

Nance continued, “Whether or not the NCAA takes federal funding, it directly benefits from the participation of its 1,100-plus member institutions, all of which are required to comply with Title IX. If the NCAA doesn’t comply with Title IX, no university should be allowed to be a member of the NCAA.”

“U.S. Senate passage of the Protect College Sports Act, along with this new ruling, exposes the glaring disconnect with federal civil rights law that Congress must address,” she added. “The NCAA continues to violate the rights of female athletes, but it should not be allowed to do so.”

The plaintiffs must file their notice of appeal in the next 30 days to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

‍

This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

The distance between an international crisis and an ordinary American family is often much shorter than it appears. A suspicious van outside a military installation in England, instability in the Middle East, arguments over immigration, or debates about assisted dying in Canada can seem like stories happening somewhere else. Eventually, however, questions about security, borders, human dignity, and government authority become local.

That is why Real Life Network brings together biblical truth, current events, and the larger forces shaping families and communities. The headlines may come from different countries, but the underlying questions frequently arrive at the same place: What is government responsible to protect, what happens when institutions lose the public’s trust, and what principles should guide Christians when political arguments become increasingly polarized?

The answers require something more substantial than party loyalty. They require discernment.

What happens across an ocean does not necessarily remain across an ocean when the issues involve national security, human dignity, and the responsibilities of government.

Security Requires Facts, Not Assumptions

The recent incident near RAF Fairford in England demonstrates why both vigilance and restraint matter.

Five British men in their 20s were arrested near the airbase after authorities received reports of suspicious vehicles. RAF Fairford is used by the U.S. Air Force and has played a role in American military operations involving Iran. Police initially arrested the men on suspicion of explosives offenses and later on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act.

The incident triggered a significant response. Homes were evacuated, military and forensic specialists examined the vehicles, and counterterrorism authorities began investigating whether the activity could have involved people acting on behalf of a foreign state. A local farmer helped raise the alarm after encountering masked men and suspicious vans near the base.

But subsequent facts complicate the initial picture. Police reported finding petrol but no improvised explosive devices. The five men were released on police bail under restrictions while the investigation continued. Authorities have not established Iranian involvement, and Iran has denied any connection.

That distinction matters.

It is reasonable to ask difficult questions about security surrounding a strategically important military installation. It is also important not to turn an ongoing investigation into a settled conclusion before investigators have established what happened.

This is where discernment becomes essential. National security demands vigilance, but vigilance is not the same thing as speculation.

The same principle should govern debates over immigration and border security. Nations have legitimate responsibilities to control their borders, enforce their laws, determine who enters, and protect their citizens. At the same time, economic claims about immigration, crime, employment, healthcare, or government spending deserve to be evaluated on evidence rather than assumed because they fit a political narrative.

Strong borders and strong institutions depend on the same thing: rules that are clearly defined, consistently enforced, and grounded in facts.

Foreign Policy Eventually Becomes Personal

The connection becomes even clearer when Iran enters the discussion.

For Americans, Iran can become an abstract foreign-policy subject involving nuclear enrichment, sanctions, missiles, military operations, and diplomatic negotiations. For Israelis and others living within range of Iranian weapons or Iranian-backed forces, those questions are much more immediate.

That difference in perspective matters.

The Iranian government has supported armed groups throughout the Middle East, while its nuclear and missile programs have remained central issues in American and Israeli security policy. The debate is not merely about whether Iran presents a threat. The harder policy question is how governments should respond to that threat while weighing diplomacy, deterrence, military action, escalation, and the human consequences of each.

The RAF Fairford investigation demonstrates how quickly those concerns can extend beyond the Middle East. Investigators are examining several possible explanations for what occurred near the base, including potential foreign-state involvement, though none has been established.

Political leaders naturally disagree about how aggressively governments should respond to such threats. Those disagreements should be debated seriously rather than reduced to accusations that one side is courageous and the other cowardly.

Christians have an additional responsibility. Scripture does not provide a modern foreign-policy platform, but it does establish principles that matter: government bears responsibility for restraining evil, human life possesses inherent dignity, truth matters, justice matters, and political power is never ultimate.

That framework leaves room for legitimate disagreement over policy while refusing to treat security as irrelevant.

It also challenges the assumption that international affairs have nothing to do with ordinary families. Decisions made in Washington, London, Jerusalem, or Tehran can eventually affect military families, energy prices, national security, immigration policy, and the stability inherited by the next generation.

What Does a Society Believe a Life Is Worth?

Few issues reveal a culture's assumptions about human dignity more clearly than assisted dying.

Canada reported 16,499 medically assisted deaths in 2024, representing about 5.1 percent of all deaths in the country. Health Canada also reported 22,535 requests for medical assistance in dying that year, including requests that ultimately did not result in MAID.

Those numbers deserve more than a passing reaction.

Supporters of Canada's MAID system generally emphasize individual autonomy and relief from intolerable suffering under legally defined eligibility requirements. Critics have raised different concerns, including how assisted dying affects people experiencing disability, serious illness, inadequate care, isolation, or economic vulnerability.

Christians enter that discussion with a fundamentally different starting point about human worth.

Human dignity does not rise and fall with independence, productivity, physical ability, economic cost, or the amount of medical care someone requires. The person in a wheelchair is no less an image-bearer than the marathon runner. The elderly patient requiring extensive care possesses no less dignity than the healthy 30-year-old.

A society reveals something about its understanding of human worth by how it treats people when they become dependent on everyone else.

That does not make end-of-life decisions simple. Christians can acknowledge the difference between intentionally causing death and declining extraordinary or excessively burdensome treatment when death is already approaching. Compassion for suffering is essential.

But compassion cannot be separated from the conviction that suffering people remain people of immeasurable worth.

That is why the Canadian debate deserves attention outside Canada. Questions surrounding healthcare systems, government authority, disability, suffering, and assisted death ultimately concern what kind of moral framework a society brings to its weakest moments.

The same is true of national security and immigration. These subjects look unrelated until the underlying question emerges: What responsibilities does government have toward the people entrusted to its care?

Governments cannot eliminate every threat, prevent every tragedy, or solve every human problem. Neither should Christians expect politics to accomplish what only Christ can accomplish.

But government still matters. Borders matter. Security matters. Religious liberty matters. Human dignity matters. And truth matters enough that facts should never be stretched merely because doing so strengthens the preferred political argument.

Ezekiel describes the watchman who sees danger approaching and sounds the warning. The principle is not an invitation to panic. A faithful watchman must actually see what is coming. He cannot invent the sword on the horizon.

Christian engagement therefore requires both courage and discernment: paying attention to danger without exaggerating it, evaluating government without worshiping it, protecting human life without reducing people to political arguments, and refusing to allow partisan loyalty to determine what counts as true.

The world may feel increasingly complicated. The Christian standard does not have to be.

‍

Stay informed about the stories shaping faith, culture, national security, and the world through The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.