Following the 2026 midterm elections, declining evangelical voter participation raises questions about the Church's influence on American culture. Discover why the Great Commission calls Christians to make disciples, share the Gospel, and engage society with biblical truth.
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 2026 midterm elections have changed America's political landscape, but they haven't changed God's promises. Read why Christians can move forward in hope, remain grounded in Scripture, pray for leaders, and stay faithful to their calling regardless of election results.
The midterm elections are behind us. Some Americans are encouraged by the results, while others are disappointed, frustrated, or uncertain about what the next few years may bring.
For Christians, however, the most important truth has not changed. Our hope does not come from a politician, a political party, a candidate, or the outcome of an election. Our hope is in Jesus Christ.
Elections can change who holds power. They can affect laws, policies, and the direction of the country. Christians have good reason to pay attention and remain engaged. But no election has the authority to change God’s Word, alter His promises, or remove the assignment He has given His people.
Political movements come and go. Public opinion shifts. Cultural values can change dramatically within a generation. God’s Word remains the same.
That is why Christians need biblical truth deeply rooted within them. When our beliefs depend on the cultural environment around us, an election result can leave us feeling as though everything has changed. When our foundation is Scripture, we can recognize that the most important things have not.
Jesus is still Lord. The Gospel is still true. God is still sovereign. Christians are still called to speak truth, love their neighbors, make disciples, serve others, and live faithfully.
Whatever happened at the ballot box, none of that has changed.
Political disappointment can be real. People invest time, energy, prayer, and concern in issues they believe will affect their families, churches, communities, and country. When the outcome is not what they hoped for, discouragement can follow. But Christians are not called to stay discouraged.
Isaiah 6:8 records the prophet’s response when God asks whom He will send: “Here am I! Send me” (NKJV). That is a useful posture after an election too. Instead of asking only what the government will do next, Christians can ask what God has given us to do next.
That assignment may be large or small. It may involve serving in a church, raising children who know biblical truth, helping a neighbor, speaking up when something is wrong, sharing the Gospel, strengthening a marriage, serving a community, or simply being faithful where God has already placed you.
There is still work to do.
Christians can care about politics without expecting politics to save the country, the culture, or the human heart.
Political leaders can make wise decisions or foolish ones. Governments can protect freedom or restrict it. Policies can have enormous consequences. Those realities are reasons to stay informed and engaged, but they are not reasons to place our ultimate confidence in government.
Psalm 146:3 says, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (NKJV). That warning applies whether your preferred candidates win or lose. A political victory should not produce misplaced confidence, and a political defeat should not produce despair. Our hope was never supposed to rest there.
One of the best responses to an uncertain political future is also one of the simplest: nurture your own walk with Christ.
Spend time in Scripture. Pray. Listen to the Lord. Know what you believe and why you believe it. The more confusing the culture becomes, the more important it is for Christians to be grounded in truth rather than carried along by every new headline or political argument.
That personal relationship with Christ also shapes the way believers engage the world around them. Christians should be known not simply for what they oppose but for the way they represent Jesus through truth, courage, compassion, integrity, and faithfulness.
Philippians 3:20 reminds believers that “our citizenship is in heaven” (NKJV). That does not remove our responsibilities here. It puts them in perspective.
Once an election ends, Christians have another responsibility: pray for the people who have been elected. First Timothy 2:1–2 calls believers to pray for those in authority. Scripture does not limit that command to leaders we supported, leaders from our preferred political party, or leaders who share our faith.
Pray that they will govern wisely. Pray that they will pursue what is right and resist what is wrong. Pray for their decisions, their advisers, their families, and the people affected by their leadership.
And pray for something even greater: that leaders who do not know Christ would come to know Him. A political opponent is not beyond the reach of the Gospel. A leader whose beliefs are far from biblical truth is not beyond God’s ability to change a heart. Christians believe in a God who does what human beings cannot. That should change the way we pray after an election.
No election can give the Church its mission, and no election can take that mission away. Pastors still need to teach the Bible faithfully. Parents still need to disciple their children. Christians still need to share the Gospel, defend truth, care for people in need, support their churches, strengthen their communities, and represent Christ wherever God has placed them.
There is no permission to quit because the political environment becomes difficult. If anything, challenging times make faithful biblical leadership and strong churches even more important.
Real Life Network exists to help believers stay grounded through Bible teaching, trusted news, Christian worldview programming, apologetics, documentaries, and other resources that point people back to truth. The goal is not simply to understand what is happening in the world, but to be equipped to live faithfully within it.
The midterms may have changed the political landscape, but they did not change who sits on the throne.
God was not surprised by the results. Christians therefore do not need to live as though the future has suddenly slipped beyond His control. We can pray for our leaders, stay engaged, stand for truth, and continue doing the work He has placed before us.
Most importantly, we can keep our eyes on Jesus. Political leaders will come and go. Parties will gain and lose power. Another election will arrive before long. But Jesus Christ remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV).
Whatever the political future holds, Christians still have reason to move forward with hope. Our confidence was never supposed to rest in an election result. It rests in the risen Christ, our King and our ultimate hope.
Stay grounded in biblical truth with free Bible teaching, trusted news, current events, and Christian programming on Real Life Network.
As the November elections approach, James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed face scrutiny over their positions on immigration, socialism, Christian values, and Israel. Explore how these political debates could shape America's economy, religious freedom, and national security.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann discusses Minnesota's Senate race, government fraud scandals, the rise of socialism, and America's relationship with Israel. Discover why she believes Christian voter turnout could shape the nation's future.
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 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.
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.
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.
A Washington school district has agreed to a $275,000 settlement after restricting LifeWise Academy's voluntary Bible education program. The agreement marks a victory for religious liberty, parental rights, and students' freedom to practice their faith.
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.
Election Night 2026 is almost here. Learn how to research your ballot, understand incoming results, and follow key races without getting lost in speculation. Plus, discover how to watch Real Life Network's live election coverage on November 3.
Election Day 2026 is less than two weeks away.
By now, campaigns are entering their final stretch, political advertising is intensifying, and attention is beginning to shift from what might happen on November 3 to what Americans will actually see when 2026 election results begin coming in.
There is still time to prepare.
Before Election Day arrives, finish researching the candidates and measures on your ballot, make sure you understand the issues at stake, and know where to find authoritative election information for your jurisdiction.
Then think ahead to Election Night itself.
Results will begin arriving from across the country at different times, major races may develop quickly, and some contests may remain unresolved well after Election Night ends. Knowing what to expect can help you follow the results without getting lost in the constant stream of numbers, projections, reactions, and commentary.
If there are still names or measures on your ballot that you know little about, now is the time to research them.
National headlines may be dominated by control of Congress and prominent statewide races, but your ballot may also include state legislators, judges, county or city officials, school boards, and ballot initiatives.
Return to the questions that matter:
By this point in the election cycle, voters are surrounded by persuasive messaging. Going back to original sources, public records, full interviews, policy proposals, and reliable reporting can help separate useful information from the final rush of campaign rhetoric.
The national political conversation includes the economy, immigration, healthcare, education, abortion, public safety, foreign policy, government spending, technology, and many other concerns.
But not every office has authority over every issue.
Before November 3, connect the issues you care about with the candidates and offices that can actually influence them.
A congressional candidate and a school board candidate may both talk about education, but their responsibilities are very different. A governor, state legislator, mayor, and U.S. senator can each affect public policy in different ways.
That context can make the difference between simply following political debate and understanding the choices in front of you.
The final days before an election can generate a remarkable amount of information, and not all of it deserves equal trust.
Old videos may resurface without context. Unverified claims can spread quickly on social media. Campaigns may make last-minute accusations against opponents. Commentary can sometimes be mistaken for reporting.
Slow down before accepting or sharing something simply because it confirms what you already believe.
Look for original statements. Read beyond headlines. Compare reporting from credible sources. Pay attention to when information was published and whether new facts have emerged since then.
Christians in particular should value truth more than partisan advantage. Proverbs 12:22 says, “Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who deal truthfully are His delight” (NKJV). Election season does not make accuracy less important.
Once voting concludes around the country, election reporting shifts rapidly from campaigns to results.
You will begin seeing vote totals, percentage reporting figures, maps, and race calls. But those numbers require context.
An early lead does not necessarily determine who will ultimately win a race. Different jurisdictions report results at different speeds, and the portions of the vote reported first may not resemble those reported later.
That is one reason reputable election-news organizations do not simply call a race because one candidate happens to be ahead.
The Associated Press, for example, says it declares a winner only when its analysts determine that the trailing candidate no longer has a path to victory. Some races can be called relatively quickly; closely contested races may take days or, occasionally, longer.
So on Election Night 2026, pay attention to more than the percentage of votes counted. Listen for explanations of where reported votes are coming from, how much remains outstanding, and why a race has or has not been called.
Election Night creates an expectation of instant answers, but elections do not always cooperate with television schedules.
Some races will become clear early in the evening. Others may remain uncertain as additional results are reported. Particularly close contests can require more time before a reliable winner can be identified.
That does not necessarily mean anything unusual has happened.
The United States does not have one centralized national vote-counting system. Elections are administered at the state and local level, and reporting practices differ across jurisdictions.
That means patience is sometimes part of following election results responsibly.
A responsible news source should be willing to say “too early to call” rather than turn uncertainty into speculation.
Individual races matter, but Election Night 2026 will also tell a broader story.
As results accumulate, the evening gradually moves from individual contests toward a national picture.
That broader context is one reason thoughtful election coverage matters. Numbers tell you who is ahead. Good reporting also helps explain what those results mean.
Political outcomes matter because government decisions affect real people, families, churches, communities, and institutions.
But Christians can care deeply about elections without treating politics as the source of their hope.
Whatever happens on November 3, God remains sovereign. The Gospel remains true. The responsibility to love your neighbor, speak truth, pray for leaders, serve your community, and faithfully follow Christ does not change when political control changes.
That perspective can be especially valuable on Election Night, when political coverage often encourages viewers to treat every development as an emergency or every victory and defeat as permanent.
Stay informed. Pay attention. Care about what happens. But keep politics in its proper place.
When the results begin coming in on Tuesday, November 3, Real Life Network will bring viewers America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live.
Coverage begins at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT and will include live election results, updates, commentary, conversation, and biblical perspective as major races unfold across the country.
Pastor Jack Hibbs, Daniel Cohen, and other Real Life Network voices will help viewers follow the evening’s developments and consider the larger issues behind the results.
RLN is free to watch, and creating an account ahead of Election Night means you can simply sign in and follow the coverage when November 3 arrives.
The campaigns will soon end. Then America will begin hearing from the voters.
Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates and join Real Life Network live on November 3 for Election Night coverage beginning at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT.
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 midterm elections are behind us. Some Americans are encouraged by the results, while others are disappointed, frustrated, or uncertain about what the next few years may bring.
For Christians, however, the most important truth has not changed. Our hope does not come from a politician, a political party, a candidate, or the outcome of an election. Our hope is in Jesus Christ.
Elections can change who holds power. They can affect laws, policies, and the direction of the country. Christians have good reason to pay attention and remain engaged. But no election has the authority to change God’s Word, alter His promises, or remove the assignment He has given His people.
Political movements come and go. Public opinion shifts. Cultural values can change dramatically within a generation. God’s Word remains the same.
That is why Christians need biblical truth deeply rooted within them. When our beliefs depend on the cultural environment around us, an election result can leave us feeling as though everything has changed. When our foundation is Scripture, we can recognize that the most important things have not.
Jesus is still Lord. The Gospel is still true. God is still sovereign. Christians are still called to speak truth, love their neighbors, make disciples, serve others, and live faithfully.
Whatever happened at the ballot box, none of that has changed.
Political disappointment can be real. People invest time, energy, prayer, and concern in issues they believe will affect their families, churches, communities, and country. When the outcome is not what they hoped for, discouragement can follow. But Christians are not called to stay discouraged.
Isaiah 6:8 records the prophet’s response when God asks whom He will send: “Here am I! Send me” (NKJV). That is a useful posture after an election too. Instead of asking only what the government will do next, Christians can ask what God has given us to do next.
That assignment may be large or small. It may involve serving in a church, raising children who know biblical truth, helping a neighbor, speaking up when something is wrong, sharing the Gospel, strengthening a marriage, serving a community, or simply being faithful where God has already placed you.
There is still work to do.
Christians can care about politics without expecting politics to save the country, the culture, or the human heart.
Political leaders can make wise decisions or foolish ones. Governments can protect freedom or restrict it. Policies can have enormous consequences. Those realities are reasons to stay informed and engaged, but they are not reasons to place our ultimate confidence in government.
Psalm 146:3 says, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (NKJV). That warning applies whether your preferred candidates win or lose. A political victory should not produce misplaced confidence, and a political defeat should not produce despair. Our hope was never supposed to rest there.
One of the best responses to an uncertain political future is also one of the simplest: nurture your own walk with Christ.
Spend time in Scripture. Pray. Listen to the Lord. Know what you believe and why you believe it. The more confusing the culture becomes, the more important it is for Christians to be grounded in truth rather than carried along by every new headline or political argument.
That personal relationship with Christ also shapes the way believers engage the world around them. Christians should be known not simply for what they oppose but for the way they represent Jesus through truth, courage, compassion, integrity, and faithfulness.
Philippians 3:20 reminds believers that “our citizenship is in heaven” (NKJV). That does not remove our responsibilities here. It puts them in perspective.
Once an election ends, Christians have another responsibility: pray for the people who have been elected. First Timothy 2:1–2 calls believers to pray for those in authority. Scripture does not limit that command to leaders we supported, leaders from our preferred political party, or leaders who share our faith.
Pray that they will govern wisely. Pray that they will pursue what is right and resist what is wrong. Pray for their decisions, their advisers, their families, and the people affected by their leadership.
And pray for something even greater: that leaders who do not know Christ would come to know Him. A political opponent is not beyond the reach of the Gospel. A leader whose beliefs are far from biblical truth is not beyond God’s ability to change a heart. Christians believe in a God who does what human beings cannot. That should change the way we pray after an election.
No election can give the Church its mission, and no election can take that mission away. Pastors still need to teach the Bible faithfully. Parents still need to disciple their children. Christians still need to share the Gospel, defend truth, care for people in need, support their churches, strengthen their communities, and represent Christ wherever God has placed them.
There is no permission to quit because the political environment becomes difficult. If anything, challenging times make faithful biblical leadership and strong churches even more important.
Real Life Network exists to help believers stay grounded through Bible teaching, trusted news, Christian worldview programming, apologetics, documentaries, and other resources that point people back to truth. The goal is not simply to understand what is happening in the world, but to be equipped to live faithfully within it.
The midterms may have changed the political landscape, but they did not change who sits on the throne.
God was not surprised by the results. Christians therefore do not need to live as though the future has suddenly slipped beyond His control. We can pray for our leaders, stay engaged, stand for truth, and continue doing the work He has placed before us.
Most importantly, we can keep our eyes on Jesus. Political leaders will come and go. Parties will gain and lose power. Another election will arrive before long. But Jesus Christ remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV).
Whatever the political future holds, Christians still have reason to move forward with hope. Our confidence was never supposed to rest in an election result. It rests in the risen Christ, our King and our ultimate hope.
Stay grounded in biblical truth with free Bible teaching, trusted news, current events, and Christian programming on Real Life Network.
“I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men.” Thus Benjamin Franklin exhorted the Constitutional Convention to prayer on June 28, 1787. Franklin was no born-again Christian, but even this man of the Enlightenment could recognize from experience the truth that Scripture proclaims from every page. In a chaotic election season, let Christians cling to this truth, lest an unbeliever show more faith in God’s power than we do.
The book of Daniel bears particular relevance to the current situation. It opens with God’s people in Judah sustaining a devastating political defeat. King Jehoiachin surrendered to the besieging Babylonian army, and Judah’s best and brightest were taken away into slavery and exile (2 Kings 24:10-16; Daniel 1:1-3).
Some exiles hoped for speedy deliverance, but soon Jeremiah wrote to inform the exiles that they would remain in Babylon for 70 years, “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. … seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Such a devastating message met with skepticism and doubt. “Really, God? Your people should seek the welfare of their enemies? You have placed us as an oppressed minority in a nation that defies your word! Worse yet, they ridicule your name when they gloat in triumph over us!”
The book of Daniel counters both the doubt of Israel and the gloating of their captors by showing beyond any doubt that the God of Israel is the sovereign ruler of history, and no one can thwart his purposes. The book proves its case with three arguments: God knows the future, God humbles the pride of human rulers, and God saves his people.
First, God knows the future. The book of Daniel is known for its apocalyptic visions, especially its detailed predictions of history through the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek empires (Daniel 8-11), and the strange, fourth beast in Daniel 7. This beast “shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time” (Daniel 7:25).
Why would God allow such a blasphemous ruler to “wear out the saints”? As Abraham Lincoln would say, “The Almighty has His own purposes.”
What we can know is the reason why God foretold these events to a prophet: so that God’s people would not become discouraged by bleak circumstances. After the beast rules, Daniel is told, “the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end” (Daniel 7:26). “But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever” (Daniel 7:18). Sinful human governments have their moment, but God and his people will triumph forever.
In fact, God’s plan for the future is so secure that he can “call his shots” ahead of time, alerting hostile rulers to his future plans, as if daring them to stop him. Thus, God gave King Nebuchadnezzar a vision of “what will be in the latter days” (Daniel 2:28), which none of his advisors could interpret. Daniel interpreted the statue of different metals as different kingdoms of dwindling glory, going all the way down until the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed,” which “shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44).
Nebuchadnezzar admitted that Daniel’s God was “God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries” (Daniel 2:47), but then he turned around and built an image of solid gold (Daniel 3:1), as if defying the vision. But Nebuchadnezzar died, and his empire perished. And God has built a kingdom under the lordship of Jesus Christ that will never pass away.
It’s almost impossible to imagine such a revelation injected into American discourse today. Suppose that someone claimed: America will fall, China will fall, Russia will fall; the mightiest powers will all pass away, but the church of Jesus Christ will reign triumphant. Now suppose that God mystically revealed this to the most anti-Christian officials of our day, as if daring them: go ahead; try and stop me. Our God is the only one who “changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding” (Daniel 2:21).
Second, God humbles the pride of human rulers. As if the previous revelations were not enough, God gave Nebuchadnezzar another vision with a more personal warning: he would suffer seven years of madness and live like an animal (Daniel 4:13-16).
When Daniel provided the interpretation yet again, he exhorted his master, “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:27). But Nebuchadnezzar did not heed the warning, and so the judgment came just as God had foretold — God was once again “calling his shots” (Daniel 4:31).
Nebuchadnezzar’s sanity only returned when he “blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever.” The king finally realized that “his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’ … All his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble” (Daniel 4:34-37).
God taught a similar but more severe lesson to Nebuchadnezzar’s son (or grandson) Belshazzar. Despite knowing the history of chapter 4, Belshazzar drunkenly mocked the God of Israel (Daniel 5:2), a disembodied hand wrote a message of doom on the palace wall (Daniel 5:5), and the king was killed that very night (Daniel 5:30). God is still undefeated in every contest against a king who challenged him.
Third, God saves his people. Even when his people are up against the wall — nay, especially then — God loves to demonstrate his saving power. When Daniel’s three friends refuse to worship the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar, they survive a trip through the fiery furnace that scorched their captors without so much as the smell of smoke (Daniel 3:26-27). How is that possible? Only with God. When Daniel disobeyed an edict to pray to God, he survived a night in a den of hungry lions without so much as a scratch (Daniel 6:22).
Again, this is only possible through divine intervention. And it prompted King Darius to decree that “people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end” (Daniel 6:26).
This suggests an application still relevant for American Christians today. Instead of fretting over election results, let us resolve to keep following God. Love of neighbor should incite us to vote; but after we have done our duty, we can safely put the results in God’s hands. If the results turn out differently than we would wish, we can take comfort in the fact that God knows the future, that he can humble the pride of rulers, and that he can deliver us, too — both now and hereafter.
Daniel learned this as soon as he arrived in Babylon. Instead of succumbing to the enticement of Babylonian pleasures, he “resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank” (Daniel 1:8). His faithfulness to God’s word was put to the test, and he came out so much healthier than his peers that his boss ordered everyone else to follow Daniel’s lifestyle (Daniel 1:15).
God also delivers his servants in the final judgment. When “those who sleep in the dust” awake to everlasting life or everlasting contempt, “your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. … And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:1-3).
We can hope confidently in this because we worship the risen Son of Man, who came and proclaimed a kingdom. As Daniel saw, “to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14). Compared to such eternal dominion, what is a single election?
This article was written by Joshua Arnold and originally 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Election Day 2026 is less than two weeks away.
By now, campaigns are entering their final stretch, political advertising is intensifying, and attention is beginning to shift from what might happen on November 3 to what Americans will actually see when 2026 election results begin coming in.
There is still time to prepare.
Before Election Day arrives, finish researching the candidates and measures on your ballot, make sure you understand the issues at stake, and know where to find authoritative election information for your jurisdiction.
Then think ahead to Election Night itself.
Results will begin arriving from across the country at different times, major races may develop quickly, and some contests may remain unresolved well after Election Night ends. Knowing what to expect can help you follow the results without getting lost in the constant stream of numbers, projections, reactions, and commentary.
If there are still names or measures on your ballot that you know little about, now is the time to research them.
National headlines may be dominated by control of Congress and prominent statewide races, but your ballot may also include state legislators, judges, county or city officials, school boards, and ballot initiatives.
Return to the questions that matter:
By this point in the election cycle, voters are surrounded by persuasive messaging. Going back to original sources, public records, full interviews, policy proposals, and reliable reporting can help separate useful information from the final rush of campaign rhetoric.
The national political conversation includes the economy, immigration, healthcare, education, abortion, public safety, foreign policy, government spending, technology, and many other concerns.
But not every office has authority over every issue.
Before November 3, connect the issues you care about with the candidates and offices that can actually influence them.
A congressional candidate and a school board candidate may both talk about education, but their responsibilities are very different. A governor, state legislator, mayor, and U.S. senator can each affect public policy in different ways.
That context can make the difference between simply following political debate and understanding the choices in front of you.
The final days before an election can generate a remarkable amount of information, and not all of it deserves equal trust.
Old videos may resurface without context. Unverified claims can spread quickly on social media. Campaigns may make last-minute accusations against opponents. Commentary can sometimes be mistaken for reporting.
Slow down before accepting or sharing something simply because it confirms what you already believe.
Look for original statements. Read beyond headlines. Compare reporting from credible sources. Pay attention to when information was published and whether new facts have emerged since then.
Christians in particular should value truth more than partisan advantage. Proverbs 12:22 says, “Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who deal truthfully are His delight” (NKJV). Election season does not make accuracy less important.
Once voting concludes around the country, election reporting shifts rapidly from campaigns to results.
You will begin seeing vote totals, percentage reporting figures, maps, and race calls. But those numbers require context.
An early lead does not necessarily determine who will ultimately win a race. Different jurisdictions report results at different speeds, and the portions of the vote reported first may not resemble those reported later.
That is one reason reputable election-news organizations do not simply call a race because one candidate happens to be ahead.
The Associated Press, for example, says it declares a winner only when its analysts determine that the trailing candidate no longer has a path to victory. Some races can be called relatively quickly; closely contested races may take days or, occasionally, longer.
So on Election Night 2026, pay attention to more than the percentage of votes counted. Listen for explanations of where reported votes are coming from, how much remains outstanding, and why a race has or has not been called.
Election Night creates an expectation of instant answers, but elections do not always cooperate with television schedules.
Some races will become clear early in the evening. Others may remain uncertain as additional results are reported. Particularly close contests can require more time before a reliable winner can be identified.
That does not necessarily mean anything unusual has happened.
The United States does not have one centralized national vote-counting system. Elections are administered at the state and local level, and reporting practices differ across jurisdictions.
That means patience is sometimes part of following election results responsibly.
A responsible news source should be willing to say “too early to call” rather than turn uncertainty into speculation.
Individual races matter, but Election Night 2026 will also tell a broader story.
As results accumulate, the evening gradually moves from individual contests toward a national picture.
That broader context is one reason thoughtful election coverage matters. Numbers tell you who is ahead. Good reporting also helps explain what those results mean.
Political outcomes matter because government decisions affect real people, families, churches, communities, and institutions.
But Christians can care deeply about elections without treating politics as the source of their hope.
Whatever happens on November 3, God remains sovereign. The Gospel remains true. The responsibility to love your neighbor, speak truth, pray for leaders, serve your community, and faithfully follow Christ does not change when political control changes.
That perspective can be especially valuable on Election Night, when political coverage often encourages viewers to treat every development as an emergency or every victory and defeat as permanent.
Stay informed. Pay attention. Care about what happens. But keep politics in its proper place.
When the results begin coming in on Tuesday, November 3, Real Life Network will bring viewers America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live.
Coverage begins at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT and will include live election results, updates, commentary, conversation, and biblical perspective as major races unfold across the country.
Pastor Jack Hibbs, Daniel Cohen, and other Real Life Network voices will help viewers follow the evening’s developments and consider the larger issues behind the results.
RLN is free to watch, and creating an account ahead of Election Night means you can simply sign in and follow the coverage when November 3 arrives.
The campaigns will soon end. Then America will begin hearing from the voters.
Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates and join Real Life Network live on November 3 for Election Night coverage beginning at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT.
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.
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.
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.
Something is happening among younger Americans. Spiritual questions have not disappeared. If anything, a generation often described as secular appears increasingly interested in religion, spirituality, meaning, and transcendence. That hunger deserves attention because hunger alone does not determine what eventually satisfies it.
That is one reason conversations about faith, culture, religious liberty, Israel, and the institutions shaping the next generation matter. Real Life Network exists to bring a biblical perspective into precisely those conversations.
The central question is not whether young people will believe in something. Human beings inevitably build their lives around some understanding of truth, identity, morality, and purpose. The more important question is what will shape those beliefs.
Joshua put the choice plainly before Israel: “Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve.” There was no illusion of neutrality. Something would occupy the center.
A spiritually hungry generation will be formed by something. The question is what reaches it first.
That question becomes especially important when families, schools, churches, and courts disagree about religious formation.
A recent Maine custody dispute illustrates how complicated those conflicts can become. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld an order giving a father final decision-making authority concerning his daughter’s involvement with a particular Calvary Chapel congregation. The mother argued that the restriction violated her constitutional religious rights.
The details matter. The court rejected the characterization that it had determined Christianity itself was psychologically harmful. Instead, it said the lower court’s concerns involved messages the child received about her father and the effects of the parental conflict. That distinction deserves to be represented accurately even as the case raises significant questions about parental rights, religious upbringing, and how courts should navigate disputes involving faith.
Similar questions emerge in public schools.
Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas, recently faced scrutiny after a Muslim student organization reportedly described a school space as intended for Muslim prayer and said “only Muslims” would be allowed. Frisco ISD responded that the space is actually a “quiet room,” is not designated as belonging exclusively to one religion, and can be used for purposes other than prayer. District policy allows students of any faith to request reasonable opportunities for voluntary prayer.
That is the standard worth defending: equal religious liberty.
Christian students should be free to read Scripture, gather voluntarily, pray, and express their faith under the same rules that protect Muslim, Jewish, or other religious students. Religious liberty becomes unstable when society begins treating freedom of religion as something that must be protected for certain beliefs but restrained for others.
The answer to religious pluralism is not less religious freedom. It is the consistent application of religious freedom.
That principle matters because schools and courts do more than settle isolated disputes. They help establish the boundaries within which families and young people understand faith in public life.
The competition for belief extends well beyond churches and schools.
Entertainment, political movements, universities, influencers, social media personalities, and celebrities all participate in forming cultural assumptions. The influence can be especially powerful when it arrives as entertainment rather than instruction.
Consider the controversy surrounding actor Adam Brody. Brody, who stars as a rabbi in Nobody Wants This, recently told GQ that he considers Israel’s conduct in Gaza a “genocide” and expressed support for a free Palestine. GQ
That is Brody’s political position, and the characterization of Israel's conduct as genocide remains fiercely disputed. But the larger cultural question extends beyond one actor or one television program: what happens when entertainment, identity, politics, and moral formation become intertwined?
Audiences should be capable of encountering political opinions without automatically adopting them. The same standard applies across ideological lines. Celebrity does not establish truth. Popularity does not establish truth. A viral video does not establish truth.
Neither does political influence.
Rep. Ro Khanna recently called for Israel to release Marwan Barghouti, describing him as a potentially unifying Palestinian leader who could contribute to a peaceful Palestinian state. Barghouti, a prominent Fatah figure, is serving multiple life sentences after an Israeli court convicted him on five counts of murder connected to attacks during the Second Intifada. Barghouti rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denied the charges.
That creates a serious policy and moral debate. Supporters of Barghouti’s release view him as a potential political alternative in Palestinian leadership. Critics point to the murder convictions and argue that presenting his release as a path toward peace minimizes the victims and the violence for which he was convicted.
Those facts should not disappear behind political slogans.
The same principle applies to Israel and Gaza more broadly. October 7, Palestinian civilian suffering, Hamas’s actions, Israel’s military response, and the future of Palestinians and Israelis deserve serious examination rather than arguments inherited from celebrities, influencers, political parties, or social-media feeds.
Discernment begins when the source of an idea matters less than whether the idea is actually true.
That brings the discussion back to spiritual hunger.
A generation searching for meaning is not necessarily a generation returning to biblical Christianity. Interest in spirituality can lead toward Christianity, but it can also lead toward astrology, manifestation, political ideology, personalized spirituality, or countless other belief systems. The transcript’s central argument is precisely that distinction: spiritual appetite and Christian revival are not automatically the same thing. Pasted text
Christians should therefore resist two temptations.
The first is panic. Cultural change does not mean God has lost control.
The second is passivity. Confidence in God’s sovereignty has never meant indifference toward the formation of children, families, churches, or communities.
Parents are forming children. Teachers are forming students. Churches are forming congregations. Algorithms are forming users. Entertainment is forming audiences. Political movements are forming supporters. The question is not whether formation is happening. It is whether people recognize it.
Joshua’s challenge remains remarkably relevant: choose whom you will serve.
That choice reaches far beyond elections or partisan politics. It reaches into what is watched, what is believed, what is taught to children, what voices receive trust, what definitions of good and evil are accepted, and ultimately where authority is located.
A hungry generation is already at the table.
What matters now is what it is being fed.
Find more biblical perspective on faith, culture, Israel, and the stories shaping the next generation on The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.
More than 50,000 Americans from across the country signed a new “Declaration for Life” within hours of its public release that calls on them and their fellow citizens “to stand for life” and for Congress “to ban the chemical abortion drug mifepristone,” Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters during an impromptu news conference in a Senate office building Wednesday.
“We think this declaration, written by pastors, is calling on spiritual leaders and everyday Christians across America to stand for life and to confront the scourge of chemical abortion. It is so critical on this the 250th anniversary of America,” Hawley said, referring to the four-page declaration he and a committee of pastors and other spiritual leaders from multiple denominations drafted.
The Declaration for Life was officially unveiled Wednesday during the first annual Missouri Prayer Breakfast hosted by the Show-Me State’s senior senator. The document is being circulated nationwide by multiple pro-life groups, including Family Research Council, and millions of Americans are expected to sign the document in the coming days.
“The Declaration of Independence gives us three examples of ‘inalienable rights:’ life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the first of those rights because it is the condition of the others. It is thus the most foundational of rights,” the document proclaims at its outset.
“We believe we have an obligation as Christians and spiritual leaders to remind our countrymen of what Scripture and conscience together proclaim: That every human being from the moment of our knitting together in our mothers’ wombs, was fearfully and wonderfully made. The divine image each human being bears was not earned. It cannot be forfeited. And it is the first duty of the Church to defend human dignity where it is denied,” the document states.
The declaration continues, noting that “what is at stake on this anniversary is nothing less than the conviction on which every flourishing society finally rests: That each and every member of the human family, as a creature fashioned in the image of the divine Creator and Ruler, is the bearer of profound dignity. Where that conviction is honored, civilizations flourish. Where it is forgotten, cultures decline and fall.”
The declaration explains that while in the four years since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision “returned the abortion question from courts to legislatures,” that decision “did not end abortion in America. Far from it. More abortions are performed in this country today than when [Roe v. Wade] was still the law of the land — over one million abortions in 2025 alone.”
Three-fourths of those abortions are carried out using the chemical drug mifepristone, and, the declaration points out, “thanks to recent changes in government regulations, mifepristone can now be mailed into every state and city in America, regardless of local rules. The abortion drug is nearly always fatal to the unborn child and frequently injurious to the mother. Recent studies indicate the drug puts more than one in 10 women who take it at risk of serious, life-threatening complications, including hemorrhaging, infections and sepsis.”
Hawley told reporters he believes “the time has come to ban mifepristone abortions, and I want to emphasize this is something only Congress can do. … Only Congress can act to take mifepristone off of the Food and Drug Administration’s [approved drug] schedule, only Congress can say it will not be available for abortions. That’s something that Congress should do. Congress should stop passing the buck to other people. Congress should stand up and act.”
As long as Congress fails to act, Hawley emphasized, state actions such as those in Louisiana, Missouri, and others that have banned chemical abortions carried out by medical professionals in those jurisdictions will continue to be rendered meaningless so long as the drug can be mailed across state lines and administered in private by the mother with a cup of water.
Hawley added that “when it comes to elected officials in Congress, there hasn’t been much of anything [done] to protect the innocent unborn, and I think we’ve got to change that. One of the things we want to do with this Declaration for Life is call on candidates for public office in both parties to sign this declaration, to say ‘We support it, we support protecting human life.’”
Earlier this year, Hawley introduced S. 4066, the Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act that would outlaw chemical abortions. On the House side of the Capitol, the same legislation was introduced as H.R. 7902 by Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.). The Senate bill has seven co-sponsors, all Republicans, while the House bill has 11 co-sponsors, also all GOPers. Neither proposal has been advanced to committee hearings, as Republican leaders focus on other issues.
Another major obstacle for such reforms includes the lack of action from President Donald Trump, whose administration approved in October 2025 a second generic version of mifepristone for abortion use and has delayed a promised FDA study of the drug.
In addition, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told reporters during the Hawley news conference, the Republican Party at its 2024 convention abandoned its long-standing defense of the right to life, and its congressional leadership has since failed to act vigorously on the issue.
“Unfortunately, the Republican Party has lost its voice on the right to life issue, and in that vacuum, there are leaders who are stepping forward like Senator Hawley calling upon the church, communities, and the country to step up on behalf of the unborn,” Perkins said.
“We have made great progress,” FRC’s president continued, “but there has been a tremendous setback, and we’ve reached a point where I think we have to call upon the faith community, Christian pastors, to step into this vacuum and speak unequivocally about the sanctity of human life and hold elected officials accountable to the standard. This declaration is a starting point for establishing a standard for what we should be aspiring to as a nation.”
When asked by The Washington Stand if he would initiate legislative action in response to a Government Accounting Office (GAO) study released earlier this week that found thousands of abortions are being paid for annually with federal tax dollars through the Obamacare health insurance program, Hawley replied, “100 percent, and the other thing that is happening is that Planned Parenthood is getting funded right now. The ban on Planned Parenthood funding has expired, [and] it’s being funded with taxpayer dollars.”
The Hyde Amendment — named after former Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) who authored the measure — was approved by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1977. That law bars the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortions except in a tiny class of exceptions.
This article was written by Mark Tapscott and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
.webp)
News can be useful. It helps us understand what is happening in our communities, our country, and around the world. It can alert us to events that deserve prayer, action, generosity, or thoughtful attention.
But news can also consume attention surprisingly quickly.
Breaking alerts lead to updates. Updates lead to commentary. Commentary leads to another video, article, or social media post. Before long, a few minutes of staying informed can become hours of absorbing conflict, outrage, fear, and speculation.
Christians don’t need to withdraw from what is happening in the world. But neither should the news determine the condition of our hearts.
Here are seven practical ways believers can remain informed without allowing the news cycle to become spiritually overwhelming.
One of the simplest ways to keep news in perspective is to decide which voice gets your attention first.
Opening a news app before getting out of bed can immediately fill your mind with elections, wars, economic concerns, crime, cultural conflict, and international crises. Scripture begins somewhere very different: with God, His character, His promises, and His purposes.
Psalm 119:105 says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
Starting with God’s Word doesn’t make difficult events disappear. It helps place them within a larger biblical framework.
Before asking, What happened overnight? it can be helpful to remember what has not changed. God is still sovereign. His Word is still true. The Gospel is still good news. Christ is still building His Church.
Headlines change by the hour. Those truths do not.
There is no biblical command requiring Christians to know every development immediately. Yet modern media can create a sense that we must continually monitor events or risk falling behind.
That urgency deserves examination.
Being informed means understanding significant events well enough to think, pray, and respond wisely. Being consumed means repeatedly checking for updates even when little has changed and continuing long after the information is useful.
One helpful question is: Am I learning something I need to know, or am I simply feeding my anxiety?
Setting specific times for checking news can help establish boundaries. So can turning off unnecessary alerts or stepping away when a developing story has become repetitive.
You can care deeply about the world without following every headline in real time.
Fast-moving news rewards quick reactions. Christian discernment often requires something slower. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.”
That principle is especially useful in an age of social media clips, partial quotations, dramatic headlines, and rapidly developing stories.
Before sharing or reacting, ask:
Christians should have a particular concern for truth. Passing along something inaccurate simply because it supports our assumptions does not honor that responsibility.
Sometimes wisdom means waiting.
Politics matters because government, law, freedom, justice, family, human dignity, and public policy affect real people. But Christianity cannot be reduced to a political party or ideology.
Believers should evaluate political and cultural questions through Scripture rather than modifying Scripture to fit a preferred political position.
That means Christians may sometimes agree strongly with a political leader, movement, or commentator and at other times need to challenge what that same person says or does.
Biblical conviction should remain the standard.
Programs that approach culture from an explicitly Christian worldview can be useful here. Cure America with Star Parker, The Daniel Cohen Show, Rose Unplugged, Small Talk Big Issues, and The City of God are among the programs available through Real Life Network that engage cultural and public issues from faith-informed perspectives.
The objective isn’t to replace independent thinking. It is to consider events alongside voices that recognize biblical truth as relevant to public life.
News can easily produce frustration. It can also become a prayer list.
First Timothy 2:1–2 instructs believers to offer prayers and intercessions “for kings and all who are in authority.” That command gives Christians something constructive to do with difficult information.
Instead of merely asking, Can you believe this? we can also ask, How should I pray about this?
News naturally emphasizes problems. That is partly because crises, disagreements, disasters, and unexpected developments are newsworthy. But consuming an uninterrupted stream of what is going wrong can distort our perception of what God is doing.
Churches are serving communities. Missionaries are sharing the Gospel. People are coming to Christ. Christians are caring for the poor, helping disaster victims, defending the vulnerable, strengthening families, and serving in places most viewers will never see on the evening news.
Programs such as On the Ground with Samaritan’s Purse can provide glimpses of Christians responding to suffering with practical help. Fred Jordan Missions TV highlights faith expressed through compassion and community involvement. Evangelism Explosion International focuses on equipping believers to share Christ with others.
These stories don’t erase bad news.
They remind us that bad news isn’t the whole story.
Perhaps the most important way to remain grounded is to remember where Christian hope ultimately rests.
Governments change. Political movements rise and fall. Economies strengthen and weaken. International alliances shift. Cultural attitudes change.
Jesus Christ does not.
Philippians 3:20 reminds believers, “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” That doesn’t make Christians indifferent to earthly events. In fact, biblical faith should encourage believers to care about their neighbors, communities, country, and world.
But it prevents temporary events from carrying eternal weight.
Christians can vote, serve, advocate, give, pray, speak truth, and remain engaged while remembering that no election, institution, economic system, or human leader can carry the hope that belongs to Christ alone.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to understand what is happening in the world.
The challenge is keeping the news in its proper place.
Read Scripture before allowing headlines to establish the tone of your day. Set reasonable limits. Check facts carefully. Evaluate cultural and political questions through a biblical worldview. Pray about what you learn. Look for evidence of God’s work as well as evidence of human brokenness.
Above all, remember that Christians already know the most important news.
Jesus Christ has come. He died for sinners. He rose again. He offers forgiveness and eternal life to those who trust in Him, and He will return.
No breaking-news alert can change that.
Real Life Network offers RLN News along with programs such as The Daniel Cohen Show, Cure America, Rose Unplugged, The City of God, Small Talk Big Issues, and other biblically informed programming to help Christians consider current events without separating the headlines from their faith.
Explore Christian news, cultural commentary, Bible teaching, and more for free on Real Life Network.
“The Declaration of Independence gives us three examples of ‘unalienable’ rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the first of those rights because it is the condition of the others. It is thus the most foundational of all rights.”
Those words come from the opening paragraph of a “Declaration for Life: A Statement from Christian Leaders,” spearheaded by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley (R). I joined Senator Hawley in releasing the declaration this week after a prayer breakfast with Missouri pastors who traveled to Washington for the occasion.
The biblically and historically guided statement lays out the reason for the declaration: “The divine image each human being bears was not earned. It cannot be forfeited. And it is the first duty of the Church to defend human dignity where it is denied.”
The Declaration says life is foundational because of both America’s founding principles and the biblical doctrine of the image of God. But what makes this declaration timely is that it does not stop with the prose of biblical purpose; it moves to practical application with what has happened since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade did not end abortion in America. “Far from it. More abortions are performed in this country today than when Roe was still the law of the land.” The reason? Federal policy governing the abortion drugs, like mifepristone, that now accounts for over two-thirds of the abortions in the United States. The FDA dropped the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, and the DOJ refuses to enforce federal law that prohibits abortion materials being sent through the mail. The result? Mailboxes in America have been turned into potential abortion facilities.
From the abortion industry’s own estimates, annual abortions have gone from about 930,000 prior to the overturn of Roe to over 1.1 million — an over 20% increase. That comes despite the efforts of many states to protect the unborn.
There are Republican members of Congress and state leaders who continue to champion the unborn, but the Republican Party has gone all but silent on the issue of life. The strong pro-life language that was a part of the GOP platform for decades was removed, and little is said about abortion.
Political parties may change their platforms. Politicians may change their priorities. But the responsibility of the church does not change.
Proverbs 31:8-9 says, “Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”
In the context of that passage, it is a call to the king, the civil leader. But in America, ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We cannot simply outsource the responsibility for justice to those we elect.
We are called to defend the defenseless and speak for those whose voices have been silenced. Justice must have an advocate.
And that begins with life. Because the Declaration for Life gets this fundamental truth exactly right: life is the condition of every other right. If we will not defend the right that makes every other right possible, we weaken the foundation of justice itself.
To sign the declaration, text “declaration” to 67742.
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
“An innocent, defenseless human life, in a caring and humane society, deserves better than to be flushed down a toilet or burned in an incinerator.” Such are the words of Henry Hyde, the former U.S. congressman from Illinois who tirelessly championed life and introduced the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Almost 50 years later, the legislative rider faces the opportunity to be renewed again.
For a half-century, the Hyde Amendment has stopped taxpayer dollars from funding abortion.
On Wednesday evening, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, hosted a Special Order on the House floor to acknowledge the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment on September 30. “The promise of America is that life is not just for the privileged, the planned, or the perfect,” Smith said, quoting Hyde. “This may sound odd, even ironic; you are here in the flush of victory. And yet it is precisely now that I ask you to contemplate the possibility of defeat, perhaps even the necessity of defeat. If you don’t know the principle or the policy for which you are willing to lose your office, then you are going to do damage here.”
Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, explained to The Washington Stand that Smith and Hyde have a history. “Representative Chris Smith served with Representative Henry Hyde for 26 years; he’s been a tireless defender of the unborn in Congress for 45 years and comes as close as anyone to carrying Hyde’s inimitable mantle.”
After the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, the U.S. government paid for an estimated 300,000 abortions each year via Medicaid. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, since the Hyde Amendment’s first enactment in 1976, approximately 2.7 million lives have been saved.
During Wednesday’s event, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) asserted that society has a duty to protect the unborn. “Life matters. Who are we as a people if we cannot stand up in defense of the most innocent form of life there is — a child in the womb of its mother? That should be our calling. And we should be able to unite as human beings in defense of the defenseless.”
Legislative Assistant for FRC’s Government Affairs Chantel Hoyt praised what House members shared during the Special Order. “I appreciated seeing Representative Chip Roy connect this important anniversary to the toll that chemical abortion is taking,” she told TWS. “It’s encouraging to see members like Representative Chris Smith carrying on Henry Hyde’s legacy and seeking to not only retain but build on the protections of the Hyde Amendment.”
Rep. Tracey Mann (R-Kan.) observed during the House event that he believes that abortion is not consistent with the Constitution. “Hyde should not be viewed as the finish line for the pro-life movement. It’s the floor. It’s a bare minimum compromise,” he shared. “America is founded on the self-evident truth that every person is created equal and endowed with our creator with an inherent right to life. That right is the foundation of every other right that we enjoy. As a father, I believe that every child is fearfully and wonderfully made by God. Every life has value, every child has purpose, and no child is a mistake.”
The Special Order and Hyde Amendment anniversary come at a time when chemical abortion has become a hot button issue on Capitol Hill. Pro-life politicians, lobbyists, and organizations continue to work tirelessly to ban the abortion drug mifepristone. “It’s always great to see members of Congress speak on the floor in defense of life, but especially now as we are urging the Trump administration to take action on chemical abortion to protect mothers and their babies,” Hoyt concluded.
This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
A healthy society depends on institutions that understand both their responsibilities and their limits. Elections require rules voters can trust. Immigration requires laws that can be enforced while treating people with dignity. Schools and child-welfare agencies exercise enormous power, but parents retain profound responsibilities toward their children.
These debates may look unrelated. They are not.
Running through each is the same fundamental question: Who has authority, where does that authority come from, and what happens when institutions move beyond their proper boundaries?
For Christians, authority is neither meaningless nor absolute. Government has a legitimate role. Parents have a legitimate role. Laws matter. Compassion matters. And none of those principles should be rewritten simply because the political circumstances have changed.
That framework is increasingly important in an America where arguments over election administration, immigration, parental rights, and political power are testing public trust from several directions.
The Supreme Court recently blocked the Trump administration from implementing new Postal Service requirements for mail ballots before the 2026 midterms. The proposed system would have required states to provide lists of eligible voters and use USPS-approved, barcoded ballot envelopes. The Court divided 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated there was a reasonable argument that the Postal Service possesses authority to impose some requirements, but concluded that changing procedures this close to voting risked significant disruption.
There are legitimate disagreements over the proposal. The administration presented additional verification as an election-integrity measure. Opponents argued that the Postal Service was assuming authority traditionally exercised by states and that last-minute changes could prevent legitimate ballots from being counted.
Those arguments deserve more than slogans.
Election integrity and voter access do not have to be enemies. Americans should be able to expect systems that verify lawful votes while also ensuring lawful voters can participate. Confidence deteriorates when either concern is dismissed simply because it is associated with the other political party.
Trust cannot survive indefinitely when rules are treated as essential under one set of political circumstances and disposable under another.
The same principle applies to immigration.
The Trump administration has expanded the federal government's consideration of public benefits when determining whether certain immigrants qualify for permanent residency. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is leading a coalition of local governments challenging the new public-charge rule, while New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a separate state lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that the rule exceeds federal authority and could discourage immigrant families from using health care and nutrition programs for which they are legally eligible. The administration argues that the policy promotes self-sufficiency and reduces dependence on public assistance.
The legal dispute will work its way through the courts. The broader question is worth considering now: What obligations accompany legal immigration, and what obligations does a nation have toward those it admits?
Scripture commands God's people to treat the stranger with justice and compassion. It also recognizes governments, nations, boundaries, and civil authority. Biblical compassion cannot be reduced to a slogan for one immigration policy any more than biblical order can be used to excuse mistreatment of immigrants.
Hospitality and order are not inherently contradictory.
Nowhere does the question of authority become more personal than when the government intervenes between parents and children.
Joseph and Arlene Kutzko, a Catholic couple in Massachusetts, are fighting a legal battle involving their teenage daughter, Sophie. The parents say Algonquin Regional High School supported their daughter's male gender identity without their knowledge and that their religious objections later became intertwined with a child-welfare dispute. Sophie was removed from their custody in 2024, and the parents say they have since been prevented from maintaining contact with her.
The case includes important details that should not be ignored. An allegation of physical abuse against the father was reportedly found unsupported, according to recent reporting and the family's legal advocates. The family is now seeking to prevent testosterone treatment while pursuing its custody claims; treatment has reportedly been paused while litigation continues.
The family's account has become part of a much larger national disagreement over parental rights, gender identity, medical treatment for minors, religious liberty, and the circumstances under which child-welfare authorities should intervene.
Those are serious questions precisely because the state sometimes must intervene. Children can genuinely suffer abuse and neglect, and government has a legitimate responsibility to protect them.
But that extraordinary power also requires extraordinary care.
Parents should not automatically lose their authority simply because their religious or moral convictions conflict with prevailing cultural beliefs. At the same time, disagreements over a child's care cannot by themselves establish every fact in a contested custody case.
The power to protect children must never quietly become the power to require ideological conformity from their parents.
For Christians, parenthood is not merely a legal status granted by government. Scripture repeatedly places responsibility for the instruction and formation of children upon families. Government can protect children from genuine harm, but it should approach replacing parental judgment as an exceptional intervention, not an ordinary solution to ideological disagreement.
That distinction matters far beyond Massachusetts.
The question of authority also appears inside political parties themselves.
The Democratic National Committee has officially changed its early presidential-primary calendar for 2028. South Carolina will vote first, followed by Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, and Virginia. The DNC says the calendar gives a more representative mix of voters an early role and better tests candidates across diverse constituencies and battleground states.
The change will inevitably affect campaign strategy. South Carolina's large Black Democratic electorate and Nevada and New Mexico's Latino populations will matter earlier than under the old Iowa-and-New Hampshire-centered system. But it is too early to know which prospective candidate, if any, will ultimately benefit most.
That uncertainty is important. Politics tempts people to treat every institutional decision as evidence of a predetermined outcome. Christians should resist that impulse just as strongly as they resist political naivete.
Political parties pursue power. Candidates pursue office. Governments exercise authority. Courts interpret law. None deserves the kind of unquestioning allegiance that belongs to God.
That should produce Christians who can think clearly rather than react predictably.
A Republican administration should not receive automatic approval merely because it invokes election integrity, immigration enforcement, or parental rights. A Democratic official should not receive automatic approval merely because a policy is presented in the language of compassion, democracy, or inclusion. Every claim still has to be examined.
Proverbs 14:34 provides a standard much older than any American political coalition: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”
That standard does not change with election results.
Christian political discernment begins when truth matters more than protecting a party, an institution, or a preferred political narrative.
Government matters. Elections matter. Borders matter. Parents matter. Protecting children matters. So do due process, compassion, religious liberty, and the rule of law.
The difficult work is refusing to sacrifice one principle whenever another becomes politically convenient.
That is why Christians need more than political instincts. They need a biblical framework capable of asking not merely, Which side is doing this? but Is this true? Is it just? Is authority being exercised within its proper limits? And does the standard remain the same when political power changes hands?
Those are the questions worth continuing to ask through Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show, where the headlines are examined alongside the deeper questions of faith, culture, government, and truth.
A Catholic couple in Massachusetts had their daughter taken away by the state under the guise of child abuse after refusing to affirm her so-called transgender identity. In 2024, the 15-year-old child was removed from the home of Joseph and Arlene Kutzko after they say she was secretly socially “transitioned” at Algonquin Regional High School. Now, they’re fighting to get her back before she is medically “transitioned” on high-dose testosterone.
“Here, a public school is ‘stuck on stupid’ by engaging in the willful and dehumanizing practice of destroying both family and child. This school should be closed permanently,” Walt Heyer, senior fellow at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “The school abused the child emotionally and psychologically, causing lifelong damage. My life was destroyed by the trans insanity. Stop the madness.”
Fox News reported that a permanent restraining order was issued against the family, and the Department of Children and Families (DCF) cut off the Kutzkos’ contact with their daughter, Sophie, when they refused to refer to her by male pronouns. Fox also reported that the Kutzkos say DCF has “housed their daughter in a boys’ dormitory, stripped away her Catholic faith by denying her Sunday Mass, and put her on birth control and psychiatric drugs.”
“In Massachusetts today, a sizable portion of government and the population will call you a good mom if you violently strangle your own three kids to death but will take custody of your teenage daughter away from you if you don’t want her to be castrated & mutilated by the gender lobby. Let that sink in,” Daily Wire personality Isabel Brown posted on X Monday.
The Kutzkos appeared on the Fox News “Lighthouse Faith” podcast hosted by Religion Correspondent Lauren Green to share about the dire situation over the weekend, alongside their attorney Vernadette Broyles. “The Northborough-Southborough public schools and their counseling practices exposed our daughter to teachings on LGBTQ [ideology] and topics that conflict with our Catholic beliefs about human dignity, creation as male and female in Catholic teaching,” Joseph Kutzko said.
He continued, “[O]ur daughter had been placed in counseling with sessions at Algonquin Regional High School [with] school counselor … Denise Brienze, without our knowledge or consent. [W]e were told she was simply staying after school for extra math help.”
The Kutzkos say that they have not been able to have contact with their daughter since January 2025. “I even begged them [to allow me] just to hug her or kiss her. They say they can’t. They will not allow it,” Arlene Kutzko explained.
Just months before Sophie was taken from them, she wrote her dad a heartfelt birthday card. In October of 2024, her words to her father said, “Without you, I would have nothing. So wholeheartedly, fully, sincerely. I love you with no end,” Joseph read during an appearance on “America’s Newsroom” with Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino.
The Kutzkos explained that Sophie grew up loving church. “She led the parish in rosary before mass, and she was so faithful — everybody in the church knew it — that she was given a special dispensation to be confirmed early. So, one year early, she was allowed to make her confirmation.”
But at age 15, Sophie started experiencing some inner turmoil. Next thing they knew, the Kutzkos were losing custody of their daughter. They had no idea what had been going on at the school.
“The most important thing is to bring her back to our family. But a shorter-term goal is to prevent them from giving her testosterone,” Joseph Kutzko reiterated. Boyer explained that under Massachusetts state law, DCF could administer the hormones to Sophie without her parents’ permission even though she is still a minor.
“We are actively fighting in court to keep them from really poisoning this young lady with testosterone that would have the capacity to cause her to become potentially infertile, would harm her cardiovascular system, and would have a number of irreversible effects and harms to her body,” Boyer lamented. She added that DCF is hoping to move forward with giving Sophie the testosterone.
Time may be running out, but the Kutzkos are actively working to bring their daughter home. “We love her. We love her. We miss her,” Joseph Kutzko wanted people to know.
This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
There are moments that should transcend politics.
A memorial honoring nearly 3,000 Americans murdered on September 11 should be one of them. It should be a place for grief, remembrance, gratitude, and reverence. Families who have carried that loss for 25 years deserve something increasingly rare in American public life: a moment in which their pain is not reduced to another political opportunity.
That is why images of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani smiling and laughing together during the 25th anniversary commemoration drew criticism. A photograph cannot reveal the context of every conversation or establish what prompted a smile. But juxtaposed with grieving families at Ground Zero, the moment raised a larger question worth asking: Does American culture still recognize that some things should be treated as sacred?
These are exactly the kinds of cultural questions worth examining on Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show, where the headlines are considered alongside the biblical truths that should shape how Christians understand them.
Public leadership is not merely about legislation, budgets, speeches, or elections. Leadership also requires understanding the human consequences behind public events.
That principle extends far beyond a single 9/11 ceremony.
When thirteen American service members were killed during the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, controversy followed images of President Joe Biden appearing to check his watch during the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base. Biden later disputed some characterizations of the moment, but Gold Star families publicly described feeling disrespected.
Politics can make people remarkably selective about empathy. When someone on the other side suffers, compassion becomes conditional. When an uncomfortable tragedy threatens a preferred narrative, attention shifts somewhere else.
Christians cannot adopt that standard.
Human dignity does not change according to political usefulness. A child killed in an act of violence matters. A soldier returned home in a flag-draped casket matters. A family still grieving someone murdered on September 11 matters. An immigrant victim matters. An American citizen victim matters. Political affiliation does not determine the value of a human life.
A healthy society should be capable of looking at suffering and seeing a human being before seeing a political opportunity.
Jesus warned that a time would come when “the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12). That description should make Christians examine more than the behavior of politicians. It should make believers examine their own hearts.
Have politics made compassion selective? Has outrage become entertainment? Have human tragedies become useful primarily when they help defeat the other side?
If so, something far more important than an election is being lost.
The same problem appears when Christianity itself becomes a political instrument.
Texas politician James Talarico has increasingly incorporated Christian language into his political message. In one recent appearance, he invoked Matthew 25 while arguing that Jesus would condemn senators over food assistance, Medicaid, and deportations.
Christians should welcome politicians talking seriously about Scripture. But biblical vocabulary does not automatically make an argument biblical.
Matthew 25 unquestionably demonstrates Christ's concern for the vulnerable. Christians should care about hungry people, strangers, the sick, prisoners, and those suffering around them. But translating those commands directly into support for a particular government program requires an additional political argument. Christians can share the same biblical concern while disagreeing about which policies best address it.
The same principle applies to immigration.
Scripture repeatedly commands God's people to care for foreigners and strangers. Scripture also recognizes nations, governing authorities, boundaries, and civil order. Romans 13 gives government genuine authority, while Acts 17:26 speaks of God determining nations and their dwelling places.
Neither side gets to erase the passages that complicate its politics.
Scripture should judge political convictions. Political convictions should never be allowed to rewrite Scripture.
That requires biblical literacy.
A politician who can quote a verse fluently may still misuse it. A conservative can misuse Scripture just as easily as a progressive. Christians who know only fragments of the Bible become vulnerable to anyone capable of wrapping a political agenda in Christian vocabulary.
Read the Word. Know the context. Test the argument.
There is another quality disappearing from American life: the courage to stand alone.
The Lindsay Clancy case offers a difficult example. Clancy admitted killing her three young children but mounted an insanity defense. Her 2026 trial ended in a mistrial after eleven jurors favored acquittal and one juror held out.
According to another juror who later discussed the deliberations publicly, the lone holdout was a Black man.
Whatever conclusions people reach about the complicated legal questions surrounding mental illness and criminal responsibility, there is something worth recognizing in anyone willing to maintain a sincerely held conviction while an entire room pressures him to surrender it.
Standing with the crowd is easy. Standing alone costs something.
That lesson reaches far beyond a courtroom.
Christians will increasingly encounter moments when biblical convictions are unpopular, unfashionable, or professionally inconvenient. There will be pressure to remain silent because speaking could cost friendships, opportunities, influence, or reputation.
Conviction means deciding beforehand that truth matters more.
That does not grant permission to be reckless or cruel. Courage without humility quickly becomes arrogance. But humility without courage can become cowardice disguised as kindness.
Christian conviction requires both: the humility to recognize when we are wrong and the courage to stand when God's truth is clear.
America does not merely need better political messaging. It needs adults capable of recognizing sacred things, leaders who understand the human cost of their decisions, Christians who know Scripture well enough to recognize when it is being manipulated, and ordinary people willing to stand for truth when standing becomes uncomfortable.
Politics will continue changing. Candidates will come and go. Headlines that seem enormous today will eventually disappear.
The deeper question is what kind of people Americans are becoming in the process.
When nothing is sacred, everything becomes political. Christians should resist that transformation by recovering reverence, compassion, biblical discernment, and courage.
Continue examining the cultural and political stories shaping America through a biblical worldview on The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.
One year after the death of Charlie Kirk, there is much worth remembering about a life that ended far too soon. He was known across the country as a conservative activist, speaker, and founder of Turning Point USA. But the convictions that increasingly defined his public life went deeper than politics. Kirk spoke openly about his faith in Jesus Christ, his love for his wife and children, and his belief that strong families were essential to the future of America.
When asked how he wanted to be remembered, Kirk pointed to courage and his Christian faith. Those who worked closely with him likewise described his relationship with Christ as the most important part of his life. He used an enormous platform not simply to discuss elections and public policy, but to encourage people to follow Jesus and take their faith seriously.
That priority deserves to be remembered.
Kirk also understood something increasingly countercultural: the future of a nation is inseparable from the health of its families.
He married Erika in 2021, and they had two children. Fatherhood became an important part of the message he shared with young Americans. He encouraged young adults to pursue marriage, welcome children, leave behind empty pursuits, and build something that could endure beyond themselves. His wife later recalled that marriage and family were among the greatest joys of his life.
That message mattered because Kirk spent much of his career speaking directly to young people. He founded Turning Point USA at only 18 and built an organization centered on engaging the next generation in the future of the country.
Yet preserving America was about more than winning elections. A country ultimately depends upon the character of its people, the strength of its homes, and the convictions parents pass to their children.
If we want to honor Kirk's life, admiration is not enough. We should imitate what was worthy of imitation.
Go to Real Life Network to watch great moments from the life of Charlie Kirk.
That means having the courage to profess Christ when doing so carries a cost. It means building strong marriages and treating parenthood as a calling rather than an inconvenience. It means investing in young people instead of surrendering the next generation to whatever ideas happen to dominate the culture. And it means being willing to enter conversations with people who disagree rather than retreating from difficult questions.
Kirk became famous in part because he was willing to walk onto college campuses, take questions, defend his convictions, and invite disagreement. His example should encourage Christians to develop convictions strong enough to withstand opposition without becoming afraid of the people on the other side.
Most importantly, his legacy should point beyond politics.
Political victories pass. Organizations change. Elections are won and lost. But faithfulness to Christ, love within the home, children raised with conviction, and lives invested in others carry significance far beyond an election cycle.
Charlie Kirk cared deeply about America's future. His life offered a reminder that the work of building that future begins with faithfulness to God, courage in the public square, and commitment to the family at home.
Go to Real Life Network to watch great moments from the life of Charlie Kirk.
Some of the most important cultural debates begin with words. Mercy. Compassion. Truth. Justice. These words carry moral weight, but their meaning can change dramatically depending on the worldview behind them.
On Real Life Network, The Daniel Cohen Show examines the stories shaping American culture through a biblical worldview. This week, those stories raise difficult questions about the value of human life, the meaning of mercy, American citizenship, the institutions shaping children, and the responsibility Christians have to speak when foundational truths are being challenged.
At the center of those questions is a basic conviction: truth does not become relative simply because the culture has found a new way to describe something.
The Lindsay Clancy case has reopened a painful national conversation about motherhood, mental illness, personal responsibility, and the deaths of children. That conversation deserves seriousness, particularly when postpartum mental illness is involved. But compassion for mental suffering cannot require society to stop acknowledging the value of the lives that were lost.
The broader cultural response is also worth examining. Videos have circulated online showing mothers joking about or pretending to harm their children, while supporters of Clancy have gathered under the slogan “We are all Lindsay.” At the same time, other cases involving mothers accused of killing their children have drawn comparisons to Clancy's case.
There is an important distinction between understanding mental illness and treating violence against children casually. Christians should be capable of showing compassion toward someone experiencing profound psychological suffering while simultaneously insisting that children possess inherent value and deserve protection.
That same confusion over language appears in the abortion debate.
In a resurfaced interview, Anne Hathaway described abortion as potentially “another word for mercy.” The statement illustrates a much deeper disagreement over what mercy actually means.
Scripture gives the word a radically different foundation.
In Exodus 34:6, God reveals Himself to Moses as compassionate and gracious. The Hebrew language provides a striking connection between compassion and the womb: rachum, describing compassion or mercy, is related to rechem, the Hebrew word for womb. The imagery points toward deep, protective compassion.
That makes the modern use of “mercy” to describe abortion especially significant. The biblical picture of compassion directs attention toward protection and care for the vulnerable.
Mercy cannot simply mean removing the person whose existence creates difficulty. Biblical mercy moves toward the vulnerable with compassion and protection.
That principle reaches beyond abortion. A society's understanding of human dignity determines how it treats people when they are weakest, most dependent, or least convenient.
Another debate centers on birthright citizenship and the growing industry commonly called birth tourism.
During a congressional hearing, Dr. Vladimir Lorentz, associated with a business called Have Baby in Miami, repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned about whether his business had helped foreign nationals travel to the United States to give birth. The hearing highlighted concerns about companies marketing American childbirth to international clients and the citizenship that comes with being born on U.S. soil.
Whatever one's preferred constitutional solution, the underlying question deserves attention: What does American citizenship mean?
Citizenship should be more than a commodity attached to the ability to purchase airfare, accommodations, and medical services. A country has a legitimate interest in protecting the meaning and integrity of citizenship while treating people with dignity.
But government policy isn't the only place where questions about American identity are emerging.
The Boy Scouts, now known as Scouting America, and the Girl Scouts have historically occupied a distinctive place in American childhood. Recent examples of Islamic religious programming within scouting organizations have generated controversy, including mosque-based Scout programs incorporating Islamic prayer and Quran instruction and Girl Scout opportunities connected with learning about Islam.
The issue raises a broader question for Christian parents: Who is shaping the institutions entrusted with children?
Parents cannot assume that an organization carries the same values it did a generation ago simply because the name or uniform looks familiar. Schools, youth organizations, entertainment companies, churches, and political movements all communicate a worldview.
Parents have a responsibility to know not only where their children are spending their time, but what those institutions are teaching them to believe about God, truth, identity, and morality.
That responsibility requires courage. Christians cannot complain that institutions have changed while remaining unwilling to participate, lead, ask questions, or speak when those institutions move away from their convictions.
The same test applies to politicians who use Christian language.
Texas politician James Talarico has increasingly incorporated Christianity into his political identity while advancing theological interpretations on abortion, sexuality, and gender that deserve careful biblical examination. A candidate quoting Scripture or speaking in churches should not automatically earn Christian credibility.
The test is not whether someone can use Christian vocabulary.
The question is whether the theology being presented actually agrees with Scripture.
Christians should apply that standard regardless of party. Political affiliation cannot transform bad theology into sound theology, and a politician's claim to Christianity should never replace biblical discernment.
The approaching elections make that distinction increasingly important. Polling discussed on the show suggests Republicans may be in a stronger position among likely voters than conventional expectations for a midterm election might suggest. But polling does not eliminate the responsibility to participate.
Christians are commanded to pray for those in authority. In a representative government, citizens also have the opportunity to participate in choosing those leaders.
Neither panic nor complacency is useful.
Political engagement should flow from conviction, not replace it. The Christian's ultimate allegiance belongs to Christ, which should make biblical truth more important than any candidate or party.
That perspective matters beyond American politics.
Iran continues to face severe economic pressure, while uncertainty remains about the country's political future and the possibility of internal opposition to the Islamic Republic. Reliable information from inside Iran can be difficult to obtain, which makes restraint important. Christians can nevertheless pray for the Iranian people, for those seeking freedom, and for wisdom among the leaders making consequential decisions about the region.
Across all these stories, the underlying challenge is remarkably similar.
Will words retain their meaning?
Will mercy still mean protecting the vulnerable? Will citizenship represent something more than an economic transaction? Will Christian institutions remain recognizably Christian? Will professing believers allow Scripture to shape their politics rather than reshaping Scripture around their politics?
Those questions cannot be answered by slogans.
They require discernment, courage, and a willingness to accept truth even when truth makes people uncomfortable.
Watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network for more news and commentary connecting the headlines to the good news through a biblical worldview.
The relentless hold that online pornography has on American society is continuing unabated, with limited public effort to contain or reduce it. Surveys show that porn use is almost as widespread among practicing Christians as it is in the general public. Even as age verification laws have spread throughout the country, a lingering question remains: could an internet service provider (ISP) filtration model implemented in the U.K. help lower porn consumption in the U.S.?
With the universal adoption of internet-enabled phones has come the reality that smut is now consumed as easily and privately as viewing a text. AddictionHelp.com estimates that an astounding 95% of porn traffic is viewed on phones, with just 5% of traffic viewed on desktops. This may help explain why porn use is so rampant among younger generations of adults aged 18-35 in America, with a stunning 87% of men and 28% of women viewing it at least weekly. Porn is so omnipresent that the vast majority (70%) of males under 18 have viewed porn, along with 40% of minor females. Fully half of teens under 15 have also viewed online obscenity.
Perhaps most distressing for the church is that even the majority of practicing Christians are consuming porn. According to a 2024 report from Barna and Pure Desire, 54% of those who say “faith is important to them and have attended church in the last month” sometimes view porn, compared to 61% of all U.S. adults.
All of this consumption is taking place on human beings who are being sexually abused and coerced into being filmed. One study found that all porn subjects were coerced to participate in being filmed in some way, with 96% of them being victims of sexual abuse as children.
The effects of porn use on consumers are also contributing to a spiraling mental health crisis in the U.S. Research shows that habitual consumption causes increased anxiety and depression, emotional numbness and relationship strain, impaired focus and productivity, and increased isolation and loneliness, not to mention increased sexual dysfunction.
The immense damage that porn has inflicted on public health has led to a large swath of U.S. states enacting laws that require porn sites to verify the age of potential users before allowing them website access. Since 2023, 25 states have passed such laws. While human rights advocates have rightly celebrated these efforts at reducing minors’ consumption of porn, subsequent studies have found that the laws have done little to mitigate overall porn use. One study found that the laws’ effect induced a 10% reduction in time spent on porn sites, but “Many users appear to have circumvented restrictions with VPNs [virtual private networks] or shifted to noncompliant sites that did not verify age.”
Another way that countries like the U.K. are attempting to tackle the smut problem is by requiring ISPs to offer internet services that filter out porn sites. In 2011, the U.K. government announced an agreement with the country’s four largest ISPs in which their default internet service would be free of porn sites, requiring subscribers to “opt in” to an unfiltered service if they wanted access to smut. ISPs began implementing the policy in 2013. But subsequent reports revealed that the vast majority of British users opted out of the service, showing that the model has likely had a negligible effect on lessening porn consumption in the country.
Still, the model remains untried in the U.S., where many parents would likely choose to curtail porn at its source instead of having to navigate third-party filters to protect their children. However, experts like Benjamin Bull, who serves as general counsel for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, say that the ISP filtration model may not stand up to legal scrutiny if it were enacted in the U.S.
“While we admire the U.K. model for blocking pornography unless users opt out, I fear the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would likely make such a law in this country be held unconstitutional,” he told The Washington Stand. “Although pornography found by a court to be legally ‘obscene’ has no constitutional protection, there is a presumption of constitutional protection until such a ruling occurs. Our Supreme Court would likely strike down the U.K. model as a ‘prior restraint’ on presumptively protected expression and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.”
Bull continued, “However, in the most recent term of our Supreme Court, the court upheld a Texas law that prohibits dissemination of pornography to minors unless the online platform first obtains confirmation that the recipient is 18 years of age or older. In other words, age verification is now a requirement for online dissemination of pornography in Texas and several other states that have adopted this law. The reason is that while pornography is presumptively protected for adults, it has little, if any, protection for minors. Because of a ‘compelling’ governmental interest in protecting children, the Supreme Court held that the burden of determining that the recipient is an adult prior to dissemination passes constitutional muster.”
“This is much weaker than the U.K. model, and our Supreme Court may not have reached this decision had the U.K. not been a leader in curtailing unlimited access to pornography, which social scientists have concluded has a corrosive and negative effect on society in so many ways,” he added.
This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Throughout history, people have looked to their leaders for strength, wisdom, and direction. But here's a question worth asking: who do our leaders look to?
Our Founders understood something that seems almost forgotten today. They believed rights came from God, not government. That's why the Declaration of Independence speaks of our Creator. The idea was simple but profound: if our rights come from God, then government cannot legitimately take them away.
For most of American history, if your job title was President of the United States, then securing the free exercise of religion wasn't a side issue — it was part of the job description.
From the very beginning, George Washington understood that. Washington spoke of Divine Providence and believed the success of the nation depended on something higher than human ambition. In 1790, he assured a Hebrew congregation in Newport that the government "gives bigotry no sanction" and "persecution no assistance." He set a tone that religious liberty would not belong to one group but would be protected for all.
John Adams carried that same conviction forward. He warned that nothing was more dangerous than the government meddling with religion. For Adams, liberty and morality were inseparable, and freedom without virtue could not survive.
Thomas Jefferson, who was often misunderstood, insisted that rights come from our Creator, not government. And when he spoke of a "wall of separation between church and state," he was arguing for protection of faith from government interference — not the removal of faith from public life.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, went even deeper. He believed conscience itself could not be governed — that no authority on earth had the right to control what a person believes before God.
So, when we talk about religious liberty in America, we're not talking about a modern idea or a political talking point. We're talking about something woven into the foundation of this country. And that thread continues through American history.
Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of national crisis, turned repeatedly to prayer and spoke openly of God's sovereignty over the nation. His Second Inaugural Address reads less like a political speech and more like a sermon on accountability before God.
Even later presidents carried this understanding forward. Benjamin Harrison, a devout Presbyterian elder, lived his faith openly and led prayer meetings long before and during his time in leadership. His convictions were part of how he governed and how he lived.
William McKinley, a lifelong Methodist who once considered entering the ministry, leaned heavily on his faith during moments of national decision, including times of war and uncertainty. He understood leadership as stewardship under God.
And Ronald Reagan, in the modern era, put it plainly when he said, "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant, and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." He believed, simply, that without God, democracy cannot endure.
Now, none of these men were perfect. That's not the point. The point is that across centuries, from Washington to Reagan, there has been a consistent recognition: leadership is strongest when it is humbled by something greater than itself.
One worldview says authority begins and ends with man. The other says authority ultimately comes from God. And that difference shapes everything — from how a nation defines freedom, to how it protects conscience, to how it understands human dignity.
That's why the conversation about faith in the public square still matters today. Not because government should replace the church, but because leaders, like the rest of us, are shaped by what they believe about truth, authority, and God. It isn't really about politics. It's about whether faith still has a place in the public square. It's about whether moral truth exists beyond political power. And it's about whether leaders should seek wisdom from sources greater than themselves.
There is one man who quietly stood at the intersection of faith and power for more than half a century. Not a president. Not a politician. But a pastor. And that was Billy Graham.
Graham once said that whether the story of Christ is told in a huge stadium, across the desk of a powerful leader, or shared with a golfing companion, it satisfies a common hunger. He understood something most people in power eventually discover -- fame, authority, and success don't silence spiritual need. They reveal it.
Over the course of American history, that truth played out in remarkable ways. Every U.S. president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama met with Billy Graham while he was alive. Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, when presidents faced crisis, war, scandal, or personal decisions, many of them asked for one thing: prayer and counsel.
It began simply with Harry Truman. In 1950, a congressman called Billy Graham and asked if he'd like to meet the president. Without any briefing on protocol, he agreed and went in with three colleagues to speak with President Truman, who told Graham that he lived by the Sermon on the Mount. Before he left, the two prayed together. Years later, Truman warmly received Graham at his home in Independence, Missouri.
Dwight Eisenhower invited Graham's counsel during moments of military and national tension, once calling him "an ambassador of heaven." Graham later said Eisenhower was the first president who really asked his counsel in depth, when he was sending troops into Little Rock. Just before Eisenhower died, Graham was invited to see him at Walter Reed Hospital. After talking again about assurance of salvation, the two men prayed.
John F. Kennedy spent time with him just before taking office, reflecting on the moral condition of the nation.
And Lyndon Johnson — perhaps one of the presidents closest to him — invited Billy Graham into the White House repeatedly. Graham later recalled that whenever he said, "Let's have a prayer," Johnson would kneel beside him.
Richard Nixon and Billy Graham had known each other since 1950, and over the years they developed a real personal friendship. While Nixon was often seen as private and complicated in public life, Graham experienced something different behind the scenes — he found him warmer and more compassionate than the public image suggested.
Nixon was also shaped by his Quaker background, and in private moments he would often ask Graham to pray with him and read Scripture when they met. But during the final year of his presidency, as Watergate intensified, those meetings stopped. It was later reported that Nixon didn't want Graham drawn into the scandal, or "tarred with Watergate."
Gerald Ford defended their friendship publicly, saying Graham's visits were "get-togethers of old friends" with no political agenda. Jimmy Carter called his reputation "above reproach."
Ronald Reagan credited Billy Graham with deepening his own prayer life, especially after the assassination attempt in 1981, when Graham immediately came to pray with the Reagan family. Reagan said it was through Billy Graham that he found himself praying even more than daily, and that in the position he held, his prayers increasingly were for the wisdom to make decisions that would serve God and be pleasing to Him.
George H.W. Bush said no one could be president without understanding prayer, and credited Graham with helping him understand that truth. Bill Clinton remembered hearing him preach as a boy in Arkansas and later described his ministry as always completely private, always completely genuine. George W. Bush said a private conversation with Billy Graham in Maine planted the spiritual seed that led to his own faith renewal. Barack Obama visited him in North Carolina and prayed with him privately. And even Donald Trump met him during a celebration honoring his ministry legacy.
Different eras. Different politics. Different personalities. But a consistent pattern: when the most powerful leaders in the world needed grounding, many of them turned to a pastor.
Billy Graham never accepted political appointments, even when presidents like Johnson and Nixon offered them. He refused every time — because he understood his role was not to govern, but to point people back to God. And maybe that's why presidents trusted him. He wasn't there to manage policy. He was there to remind them of something higher than policy. Something higher than power. Something higher than themselves.
In a culture where leadership is often measured by influence, Billy Graham quietly reminded us that true leadership is measured by humility. And that raises a question worth sitting with: if some of the most powerful men in the world needed spiritual counsel, what does that say about the rest of us?
Because whether you're in the Oval Office or living an ordinary life, the truth remains the same. We all need wisdom beyond ourselves. We all need grounding beyond politics. And ultimately, we all need a foundation that doesn't shift with the times.
That preserves the author's wording from the uploaded article exactly while adding links only to direct quotations for which the supplied sources provide support.
.webp)
The biggest stories in the news often have another layer beneath the headlines. Political movements reveal the ideas shaping the country. Foreign relationships raise questions about influence and consistency. Cultural icons leave legacies that extend far beyond their fame.
On Real Life Network, The Daniel Cohen Show looks at those connections through a biblical worldview, bringing together the news, Israel, and Scripture. This week, those stories stretch from a growing debate over Sharia law and antisemitism to election integrity, foreign influence, and a remarkable connection between Dolly Parton and Jewish families around the world.
President Donald Trump recently told Glenn Beck that he would prohibit Sharia law in the United States. The statement raises a larger question Americans need to consider: Can a religious legal system operate alongside the protections and principles of the United States Constitution?
Sharia and the American constitutional system contain fundamental differences regarding the relationship between religion and government, individual rights, and the source of law. Whatever policies ultimately emerge, America cannot maintain competing legal systems when their requirements conflict with constitutional protections.
The issue becomes even more important when considering the political movements gaining influence across the country.
In Michigan, Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s association with political commentator Hasan Piker has generated controversy. Piker has faced criticism for past comments about America, Israel, Hamas, and American Jews. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is Jewish, has also publicly expressed concerns about the political environment within her own party. She has made clear that her Jewish identity comes before her political affiliation.
That is a principle worth remembering far beyond Michigan.
When allegiance to a political movement requires overlooking hatred, threats, or extremism, truth must take priority over party loyalty.
For Christians, antisemitism also carries biblical significance. Zechariah 2:8 describes Israel as the “apple of His eye,” pointing to God’s covenant relationship with the Jewish people. Christians should therefore be among the first to reject hatred directed toward Jews, regardless of whether it comes from the political left or right.
The same discernment is necessary when evaluating claims surrounding Israel and Gaza. Questions about UNRWA personnel, Hamas, humanitarian aid, and conditions inside Gaza demonstrate why accusations should be examined carefully rather than simply repeated. Facts matter. Context matters. And when accusations against Israel spread around the world, getting those facts right matters even more.
Consistency becomes much harder when scrutiny turns toward our own political side.
President Trump’s opposition to Sharia law deserves to be weighed alongside his administration’s relationships in the Muslim world, including Qatar and Turkey. The prospect of a Boeing 747 provided by Qatar, in particular, raises legitimate questions about appearances and foreign influence.
Qatar has maintained a complicated role in Middle Eastern affairs, including relationships with Hamas, while also serving as a major American security partner. Turkey presents its own challenges under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whose relationship with Israel has become increasingly hostile.
Foreign policy inevitably requires dealing with governments that do not share American values. But Americans should still expect consistency from their leaders.
If foreign influence deserves scrutiny when it reaches the political left, it does not suddenly become harmless when it reaches the political right.
The same principle should apply to conservative media. Holding Democrats accountable while ignoring destructive rhetoric or questionable influences among conservatives does not demonstrate principle. It demonstrates partisanship.
Christians especially cannot allow political affiliation to determine when truth matters.
Election integrity provides another example. A recent Supreme Court decision allowed portions of Trump’s executive order concerning elections to move forward after determining that states challenging the order had sued prematurely. The dispute involves measures including ballot tracking and the creation of citizenship data that could be shared with states.
The Court did not settle every underlying legal question, meaning the dispute is far from finished. But the larger principle should not be controversial: eligible Americans should be able to vote, legitimate votes should be counted, and election systems should have safeguards capable of earning public confidence.
Against those contentious political stories stands a very different kind of American story.
Dolly Parton’s legacy is usually told through the obvious accomplishments: more than 100 million records sold, iconic songs, movies, awards, Dollywood, and a career spanning generations.
But there is another part of that legacy.
In the 1970s, a Jewish man from Brooklyn named Sandy Gallin became Parton’s manager. Gallin helped guide her crossover from country music into mainstream entertainment, including encouraging her to record “Here You Come Again.” Their professional relationship eventually developed into a partnership lasting roughly 25 years.
Then came another connection.
Parton launched the Imagination Library in 1995 with a simple mission: put books into the hands of children. Jewish philanthropist Harold Grinspoon saw what Parton had created and was inspired to develop a similar program for Jewish families.
That idea became PJ Library, which today distributes books about Jewish life and tradition to families around the world.
A Christian woman from Tennessee wanted children to read. A Jewish philanthropist saw what she was doing and carried that idea into Jewish homes across the globe.
Genesis 12:3 records God’s promise to Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you.”
Parton possessed the fame and business success to build an enormous personal fortune. Yet some of the most meaningful parts of her legacy are not about what she accumulated. They are about what she gave away.
A meaningful legacy is measured less by what we accumulate than by what we give, whom we bless, and what remains after we are gone.
That lesson reaches beyond Dolly Parton.
Politics will change. Elections will come and go. Today’s most influential personalities will eventually disappear from the headlines. But character, courage, generosity, and faithfulness leave a different kind of legacy.
Christians should be willing to confront antisemitism wherever it appears, examine political leaders consistently, demand truth from the institutions around them, and refuse to let partisan loyalty replace biblical conviction.
And when God gives someone influence, resources, or opportunity, the question is not merely how much can be gained from it.
The better question is what can be given through it.
Watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network for more news and commentary connecting the headlines to the good news through a biblical worldview.
