International News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‍

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The disagreement also extends to the judiciary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health care is another major issue in the Michigan contest.

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

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

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

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

Israel Becomes a Defining Issue in Democratic Politics

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

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

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

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

The disagreement extends beyond terminology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‍

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

Adapted from my conversation on Rose Unplugged with Derek Maltz, former Acting Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Watch the full episode here: Is China Waging Chemical Warfare on America? 

There is something coming for your family. Whether you live in a city or a suburb. Whether your kids are in middle school or college. Whether you think this is someone else's problem — or you've already lived it.

It is the drug crisis pouring across our border. Not one drug. Not one cartel. Not one route. A flood. And it is changing — and ending — American lives every single day.

Not a Single-Drug Crisis

I want to be clear about something from the start, because the news often focuses on one drug at a time, and that gives us a false sense of the scale of what we're facing.

Yes — fentanyl is the headline. And it should be. It’s the deadliest drug ever to hit this country. It’s synthetic, lab-made, and lethal at just two milligrams — the weight of a few grains of salt.

It's driving the majority of overdose deaths in America. At the peak of this crisis, we were losing more than 70,000 people a year to fentanyl alone. That’s nearly 200 lives every single day.

But fentanyl isn’t coming alone. Methamphetamine, cartel-produced, and ultra-potent, is flooding communities from coast to coast. It's not the meth of 20 years ago. It's cheaper, stronger, and more widely available than ever.

Cocaine trafficking remains massive and increasingly, it's being laced with fentanyl without the user's knowledge.

And now there are emerging threats most Americans have never even heard of: xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer mixed with fentanyl that Narcan can't fully reverse, and nitazenes, a synthetic opioids so powerful they make fentanyl look mild by comparison.

This is not a single-drug crisis. This is a chemical assault on the American people. And it is being orchestrated deliberately by foreign adversaries and transnational criminal networks that don't care how many of us they kill.

Even with a decline of nearly 24% in overdose deaths — and yes, we should acknowledge that progress — we are still talking about roughly 87,000 overdose deaths in a single year. That’s not a statistic. That’s a national emergency.

Drug overdoses remain one of the leading causes of death for American adults. And for every death, there are dozens more lives derailed; families broken, futures stolen, and communities hollowed out.

Follow the Supply Chain

So where is all of this coming from? Because this is where truth gets complicated and where the political noise gets loudest.

Here is what the evidence shows: The precursor chemicals, the building blocks, are largely manufactured in China. They are shipped to Mexican drug cartels. The cartels synthesize, press, and package the drugs. And then they move them north into the United States.

Now, here is the part that gets lost: the vast majority of these drugs are not being carried across open desert by migrants on foot. They are being driven through legal ports of entry. In passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, and in cargo shipments often by U.S. citizens.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized over 19,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2024 alone. And fentanyl now makes up nearly 90% of all opioid seizures at the border.

Which means this is not just a border wall conversation. It is a technology conversation. An intelligence conversation. A cartel conversation. And a China conversation — because none of this happens without China supplying the chemicals.

A Counterfeit Answer

This is not just about policy. When a nation loses its sense of purpose, when truth becomes relative, and when emptiness fills the space where meaning used to live, people look for escape.

And what is crossing our border right now is not just a drug. It is a counterfeit answer to a real spiritual hunger. One that ends in destruction.

We need stronger enforcement. Absolutely. We need to go after the cartels and hold China accountable. Without question. But we also need something no government can legislate. We need restored families. Engaged parents. Communities that are awake. And young people who know their worth — not from culture, but from their Creator.

This Is a Spiritual Battle

Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Xylazine, Cartels, all weapons of destruction. But the scale of this, the sophistication of the networks, the multiple poisons being unleashed on our families — all of it confirms something I believe with everything in me.

This is not just a policy fight. This isn't just a border fight. This is a spiritual battle. And we need to start treating it that way.

In 1 Peter 5:8 we are told:

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8, NASB)

Think about that word — devour. Not inconvenience. Not discourage. Devour.

And “be of sober spirit” — not just physically, but clear-minded, alert, and aware. Because the danger isn't always obvious. It doesn't announce itself.

It comes as a pill that looks like medicine. As meth that looks manageable. As cocaine that looks like recreation. As something a friend hands you and says — it's fine.

But Scripture also tells us in John 10:10:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. (John 10:10, NASB)

Steal innocence, and kill potential. Our families or being destroyed. And if we are honest, with every drug coming across that border, that is exactly what we are watching play out.

Ephesians 6:12 tells us:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12, NASB)

Which means this: if we only fight this battle at the surface level and if we only debate policy and argue about which party deserves the credit or the blame, we will always be reacting. And reacting is not the same as overcoming.

Yes, we need stronger enforcement across every drug, every route, every cartel. Yes, we need to hold China accountable for the chemical warfare they are enabling. Yes, we need the technology and the intelligence to stay ahead of networks that never sleep.

But we also need something that no legislation can provide. We need discernment. We need truth spoken in our homes, in our churches, and our schools. We need families and communities that are not just alarmed but awake. We need to fight a spiritual battle on our knees. Collectively.

To the Young People

I want to speak directly to young people for a moment. I don't care what it was called. I don't care how it was offered or who gave it to you. What's being disguised as relief, escape, or just a good time has a body count.

And I want you to know — really know — that your life has value. Not because of what the culture tells you. Not because of what shows up on your screen. But because you were created on purpose, for a purpose.

And there is nothing, no substance, no moment, no amount of pressure from anyone worth trading that for.

To Every Parent

To every parent reading this: the time to lean in is now. Not when you find something. Not when the call comes. Now.

Talk to your kids about all of it — not just fentanyl. Talk about the counterfeit pills made to look like medicine. The meth that doesn't look like meth anymore. The pill some other kid promises will help them get through an exam. The powder hidden in something they never even knew to question.

Not out of fear, but out of love. Because silence is not protection anymore. Awareness is.

Darkness Does Not Win

Romans 12:21 tells us:

Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21, NASB)

That’s not wishful thinking. That is not passive. That is a call to action.

Darkness may be real. The threat may be sophisticated. The enemy may be relentless. But darkness does not win.

Not when truth is spoken. Not when families are engaged. Not when communities stand up and say — not here. Not our children. Not on our watch.

So yes, this is about drugs, fentanyl, meth, and the poisons being trafficked across our border. It’s also about cartels and chemicals and a fight that is far from over.

For More Information check out my guest’s website; Lost Voices of Fentanyl https://lvof.org

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

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

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

Obama's Iran Deal Returns to the Spotlight

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, the underlying concern remains significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration Enforcement, Ilhan Omar, and Media Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same standard applies to the media.

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

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

That principle extends beyond immigration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minnesota's Senate Race and the Debate Over Government Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bachmann believes turnout will be decisive.

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

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

National Security, Israel, and the Future of American Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Christian Voter Turnout Matters in the 2026 Midterms

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

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

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

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

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

These disagreements deserve careful examination rather than automatic dismissal.

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

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

Scripture provides principles that can inform those decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‍

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

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

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

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

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

France's Unrest and the Challenge of Protecting Religious Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The biblical principle of responsible leadership offers an important perspective.

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

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

Michigan's Senate Race and the National Security Debate

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

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

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

The candidates represent different approaches to the responsibilities of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The debate over Israel remains especially consequential.

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

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

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

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

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

Persecuted Christians and the Biblical Call to Remain Watchful

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

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

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

The human cost extends beyond casualty figures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor does love require ignoring genuine threats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Voting, Political Momentum, and the Limits of Polling

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

But historical trends do not determine individual elections.

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

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

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

National polling presents similar challenges.

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration, Religious Liberty, and the Responsibility of Public Officials

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

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

Candidates offer different approaches to those responsibilities.

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

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

National security questions have also entered several prominent Senate campaigns.

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

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

That distinction is particularly important when discussions involve religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Costs, Government Spending, and Biblical Stewardship

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

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

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

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

Those competing approaches involve real tradeoffs.

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

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

Energy policy also intersects with national security.

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

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

That makes understanding the responsibilities of each elected office essential.

Biblical stewardship offers a helpful framework for considering these decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‍

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

This article is adapted from a recent episode of Rose Unplugged featuring former Congressman Louie Gohmert — a former judge who served 18 years on the House Judiciary Committee. 

Every so often, it's worth pausing to step away from the noise and lean into what's real. Right now, that means taking a hard look at two things: judges who think they answer to no one, and a culture that wants to erase the heroes who don't fit the modern mold. 

They look unrelated. They're not. They're the same problem wearing two different masks. One is a refusal of accountability. The other is a refusal of honesty. 

What Scripture Expects of a Judge 

Scripture doesn't leave the subject of judges to guesswork. In Exodus 18, when Moses is drowning in disputes, his father-in-law Jethro tells him to appoint leaders — “able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain.” 

Deuteronomy 16 goes further, instructing judges, “You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial.” That's the standard. Fear God. Reject dishonest gain. No favoritism. No corruption. 

Now hold that up against what's happening in our own courts today — judges with undisclosed conflicts of interest, judges reportedly using AI to manufacture case law that doesn't exist, judges quietly reprimanded behind closed doors for conduct that would getanyone else fired. 

This isn't a partisan gripe. It's a bench that has drifted from “good behavior” into something Scripture would call exactly what it is — corrupt judgment. 

A Fourth, Untouchable Branch 

And this is not some abstract, inside-the-Beltway squabble. This is the unelected, unaccountable administrative state in black robes. We're talking about activist judges legislating from the bench, single district judges issuing nationwide injunctions to override the will of the American people and their duly elected president, and a judiciary that has quietly built itself into a fourth, untouchable branch of government. 

That should alarm every single one of us, regardless of party, because a Republic where judges answer to nobody isn't a Republic anymore. 

Here's what gets missed: accountability for judges isn't a modern political invention. It's baked into the oldest legal tradition we have. In 2 Chronicles 19, King Jehoshaphat appoints judges and warns them plainly, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord.” 

A judge was never meant to be untouchable. A judge was meant to answer to a higher standard, precisely because of the power he holds over other people's lives, liberty, and property. 

Isaiah 1 doesn't mince words either: “Learn to do good; seek justice.” Judgment is supposed to protect people, not shield the judge from consequence. When a judiciary polices itself for forty-plus years and the abuses keep piling up anyway, that bargain has failed. 

Unchecked power, whether it's sitting on a bench or rewriting a history book, doesn't correct itself. That's not cynicism. That's what

Scripture has always told us about the human heart — and it's precisely why the Founders built in checks in the first place. They didn't build three co-equal branches so that one of them could operate with zero checks. And our faith doesn't teach us that any man — king, judge, or committee — gets a permanent pass from scrutiny. 

Practicing Amnesia 

And it's not just the courtroom. We're watching the same instinct — the refusal to be honest and the refusal to be accountable — show up in how the culture treats its own history. Britain is erasing Winston Churchill from its currency because a focus group calls him “divisive.” 

This is the same woke revisionism we see here at home — knock down the statue, rename the school, cancel the man. 

But there is exactly one perfect man who ever walked the earth, and none of us are Him. Scripture is remarkably unsentimental about its own heroes. It tells you David committed adultery and had a man killed to cover it up — and still calls him a man after God's own heart. It tells you Noah got drunk, Moses disobeyed God at the rock, and Peter denied Christ three times. The Bible doesn't airbrush its heroes. It shows the whole man, flaws and all, because the point was never that these men were flawless. 

That's the opposite instinct of what we're watching happen with Churchill. Modern cancel culture wants a spotless résumé or it wants erasure. Scripture never asked us to pretend our heroes were flawless. It asks us to tell the truth about them — the good and the bad — and let the record stand. 

A nation that can't hold “Churchill saved civilization” and “Churchill had serious flaws” in the same breath isn't practicing justice. It's practicing amnesia.

Two Sides of the Same Coin 

So let's be honest about what's at stake here. This isn't about one bad ruling or one bad headline out of London. This is about whether we still believe in a Republic of laws, or whether we've quietly let ourselves drift into rule by unelected robes and unelected editors of history. 

Judges answering to no one and a culture rewriting its own history are two sides of the same coin — a slow, quiet abandonment of truth and accountability. That should matter to every conservative, every Christian, every American who still believes truth is truth regardless of what a focus group or a black robe says about it. 

If we let the judiciary and the culture police themselves without any accountability to God or to “We the People,” we will wake up one day and not recognize the country our Founders risked everything to build. As citizens, we don't get to sit this one out. This is one to lean into, not scroll past. 

A Word of Thanks 

I want to say this plainly: men like Louie Gohmert don't get nearly enough credit for the work they do long after the cameras and the Capitol Hill office are gone. Eighteen years on the House Judiciary Committee, a career on the bench himself, and he's still out there walking the halls of Congress, folder in hand, doing the unglamorous, unpaid, unnoticed work of trying to hold power accountable. That's not politics. That's public service in the truest sense of the word, and we don't say thank you for that kind of thing nearly often enough. 

Whether it's a judge who thinks he answers to no one, or a culture that thinks history should answer to a marketing survey — the answer is the same. Truth, judged rightly, doesn't need to hide from scrutiny, and it doesn't need to erase the past to feel comfortable. It just needs someone willing to say it plainly. 

So keep your faith steady, your focus clear, and keep moving forward — because you are here for such a time as this. 

‍

Watch or listen to the full conversation with former Congressman Louie Gohmert on Rose Unplugged: Rogue Judges, Erased History, SCOTUS Graded — Louie Gohmert Holds Nothing Back

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

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

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

The Sanctity of Life and the Meaning of Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Accountability Requires More Than Religious Language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar standards of accountability apply to questions of national security.

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

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

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

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

That distinction matters because accountability depends upon evidence.

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

The same principle should apply regardless of political affiliation.

Iran, Terrorism, and the Responsibility to Protect Civilians

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

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

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

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

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

The same concerns apply to attempted attacks against commercial aircraft.

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

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

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

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

That distinction is especially important when discussing Iran.

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

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

Foreign policy decisions also carry consequences for American families.

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

The approaching elections therefore involve more than competing campaign messages.

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

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

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

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

‍

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

At a Glance

Three years after Hamas launched its October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, the consequences still reach far beyond that terrible morning. The attack rocked assumptions about Israeli security, began a prolonged hostage crisis, reshaped the Middle East, and contributed to a dramatic rise in antisemitism around the world.

• About 1,200 people were killed in the Hamas-led attack, and 251 were taken hostage.
• Civilians were murdered in their homes, communities, and at the Nova music festival.
• The final 20 Israeli hostages known to be alive were released in October 2025 as part of a ceasefire agreement.
• Antisemitism remains far above pre-October 7 levels in the United States and other parts of the world.
• For Christians, the anniversary is a time to remember the victims, reject antisemitism and terrorism, and pray for Israel and lasting peace.

At sunrise on October 7, 2023, Israel was a very different country from the one that would exist by nightfall. Hamas-led attackers breached the border from Gaza, striking Israeli communities, military positions, and the Nova music festival. Approximately 1,200 people were killed, most of them civilians, and 251 people were abducted into Gaza.

What happened during those hours was horrific, but the significance of October 7 cannot be measured only by what occurred that day. Three years later, its effects are still being felt across Israel, throughout the Middle East, on American campuses, and in Jewish communities around the world.

October 7 became a dividing line: before and after.

October 7 Rocked Israel’s Sense of Security

Israel has lived with terrorism and war throughout its modern history, but October 7 exposed vulnerabilities on a scale few Israelis had imagined possible. Communities near Gaza that had lived for years with rocket fire suddenly faced armed attackers inside their neighborhoods. Families hid in safe rooms while gunmen moved nearby, and in some communities, military help took hours to arrive.

The shock went far beyond the immediate loss of life. Israel has long faced the reality of terrorism and hostile forces seeking its destruction, but October 7 demonstrated the extraordinary lengths Hamas was willing to go to target Israeli civilians. The attack permanently changed the country’s understanding of the threats along its borders and intensified the determination to prevent anything like October 7 from happening again.

The Hostages Became a National Wound

Among the most enduring images after October 7 were the faces of the hostages. Posters appeared around the world. Families spoke publicly about loved ones ranging from children to elderly grandparents. Israelis gathered in what became known as Hostages Square in Tel Aviv, calling for their return.

The hostage crisis lasted two years. Some captives were released through agreements, others were rescued, and some died in captivity or were killed on October 7 and their bodies taken into Gaza. In October 2025, the remaining 20 Israeli hostages known to be alive were released as part of a ceasefire agreement.

Their return closed one chapter of October 7, but it did not erase what captivity had done to the hostages, their families, or Israeli society. The ordeal reinforced something terrorism is designed to accomplish: creating fear and trauma that continue long after an attack ends.

Remember the People, Not Just the Date

Three years later, October 7 risks becoming a shorthand phrase for a war, a political argument, or a date in a timeline. But before it became any of those things, it was a human tragedy.

The people murdered that day were parents, grandparents, children, soldiers, young adults, foreign workers, and visitors. Some were killed inside their homes. Others were attacked while trying to escape. At the Nova music festival, young people who had gathered for a night of music found themselves running for their lives.

Remembering October 7 means refusing to let those lives disappear inside statistics or political debate. It means remembering the families who still live with empty chairs, the survivors who carry lasting trauma, and the communities that were forever changed in a matter of hours.

Romans 12:15 tells believers to “weep with those who weep.” On this anniversary, remembrance is one way of doing exactly that.

The Attack Reshaped the Middle East

October 7 did not remain a conflict between Israel and Hamas. The war reverberated throughout the region, increasing tensions involving Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, and other armed groups. Governments reconsidered security relationships, diplomatic efforts changed course, and long-standing regional conflicts became increasingly interconnected.

The war also brought terrible loss and destruction to Palestinian civilians in Gaza, a reality that can be acknowledged without minimizing what happened to Israelis on October 7 or excusing the actions of Hamas.

The October 2025 ceasefire stopped the largest phase of fighting between Israel and Hamas and brought the remaining living hostages home, but it did not resolve the deeper questions surrounding Gaza’s future, Israeli security, Hamas, or future peace. Three years after the attack, those questions remain unsettled.

Jewish Life Changed Far Beyond Israel

October 7 also changed life for Jewish communities thousands of miles from the Middle East. In the United States, antisemitic harassment, vandalism, threats, and violence rose sharply after the attack and the war that followed.

Jewish Americans who had nothing to do with the decisions of Israel’s government found themselves confronted over events thousands of miles away. Synagogues increased security. Jewish students faced hostility on campuses. Demonstrations sometimes crossed the line from political criticism into explicit anti-Jewish rhetoric or threats.

That distinction matters. In the years since October 7, critics of Israel’s conduct have argued that its military response was disproportionate or caused unacceptable harm to Palestinian civilians. Those policies and military decisions can be debated, and criticism of the Israeli government is not automatically antisemitic. But holding Jewish people collectively responsible for Israel’s response, repeating antisemitic conspiracies, threatening Jewish institutions, or excusing violence against Jews crosses a very different line.

October 7 exposed how quickly an ancient hatred can reappear.

Christians Should Remember, Reject Hatred, and Pray

For Christians, the anniversary of October 7 should be more than a marker on the calendar. It is an opportunity to remember those who were murdered, honor the survivors and families still carrying the weight of that day, and stand firmly against the terrorism and antisemitism that helped make such atrocities possible.

The anniversary also calls Christians to resist allowing political arguments to overshadow the human reality of what happened. Terrorism must be condemned for what it is, antisemitism must be rejected wherever it appears, and the suffering of those affected by October 7 should move believers toward compassion rather than political point-scoring.

The anniversary is also a time to pray. Psalm 122:6 says, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.” Pray for Israel, for those still living with trauma and loss, for Jewish communities facing antisemitism, for leaders making difficult decisions, and for a lasting peace that protects innocent life and restrains those who seek violence.

Remembering October 7 should move Christians toward truth, compassion, courage, and prayer.

Three Years Later, the Story Is Still Unfinished

October 7 is moving further into history, but its consequences are still unfolding. Israel continues to confront the threat of terrorism and the challenge of protecting its citizens in an increasingly volatile region. Families are still living with trauma and loss. Jewish communities around the world remain alert to antisemitism that intensified after the attack. And leaders throughout the Middle East continue to confront questions of terrorism, diplomacy, regional stability, and peace.

The attack also changed relationships and assumptions across the region in ways that are still developing. Questions surrounding Hamas, Gaza’s future, Iran and its proxies, Israel’s borders, and the possibility of lasting regional peace remain unresolved.

Three years later, October 7 remains a turning point whose consequences continue to shape Israel and the Middle East. Remembering what happened matters, but so does understanding how that day continues to influence what comes next.

‍

Follow developments in Israel, the Middle East, and around the world through a biblical worldview on The Daniel Cohen Show and RLN News, streaming free on Real Life Network.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Warning Signs Before FlyDubai Flight 1073

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

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

That was not the only breakdown.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe Was Warned About Radicalization

The concern extends beyond one airline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should also remind Christians that discernment is not fear.

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

A Watchman Has to See Clearly

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

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

He must remain awake, and he must see clearly.

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

That principle reaches beyond terrorism.

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

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

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

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

Christians should be comfortable saying that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The watchman does not determine what is true.

The watchman pays attention to what is actually there.

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

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

‍

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

Election Day 2026 is approaching, and much of the attention will naturally fall on the biggest national races, political personalities, and questions about which party will control Congress. But your ballot will likely have much more on it than that.

The 2026 midterm elections on November 3 include races for the U.S. House and Senate alongside elections for governors, state legislators, local officials, judges, and ballot measures across the country. What appears on your ballot will depend on where you live, which is why preparing for Election Day should begin closer to home.

Rather than waiting until the final days of the campaign, now is the time to find out what you will actually be voting on, research the candidates and issues, and understand the decisions facing your community.

What Are the 2026 Midterm Elections?

Midterm elections take place halfway through a president’s four-year term. There is no presidential race on the ballot, but voters will decide who represents them in Congress and, in many states, choose governors, state lawmakers, and other officials.

Every seat in the U.S. House of Representatives is part of the 2026 election cycle, along with roughly one-third of the U.S. Senate. Many states are also holding gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

That means the November 3 election could affect decisions made at nearly every level of government, from Washington, D.C., to your state capitol, county, city, and school district.

National coverage can help explain the larger political picture, but it cannot tell you everything you need to know about your own ballot.

Start by Finding Out What’s on Your Ballot

Before researching who or what to support, begin with a simpler question:

What’s on my ballot in 2026?

A sample ballot can show you the races, candidates, and ballot measures that will appear when you vote. Depending on where you live, that could include:

• U.S. House and Senate races
• Governor and other statewide offices
• State legislature
• County and city offices
• Judges
• School board or other local offices
• State and local ballot measures

Some of these races may receive very little television or national news coverage even though the people elected will make decisions that directly affect your community.

Your state or local election office is a good starting place for identifying what will appear on your ballot. Once you know the races and measures involved, you can research them one by one rather than trying to absorb everything happening in the 2026 elections at once.

Don’t Stop With the Biggest Races

It is easy to know the names of candidates running for Congress or governor while knowing almost nothing about the other contests further down the ballot.

Yet state and local officials make decisions involving education, public safety, taxes, land use, transportation, budgets, business regulations, and many other issues that affect everyday life.

Ballot measures can matter just as much. Depending on your state or community, voters may be asked to decide questions involving taxes, bonds, constitutional amendments, criminal justice, education, election rules, or other public policies.

The wording can sometimes be complicated, so don’t wait until Election Day to read a measure for the first time.

Find out what is on the ballot, read the actual proposal, and look beyond campaign slogans from both supporters and opponents.

Research Candidates Beyond Party Labels

Political affiliation tells you something about a candidate, but it does not tell you everything.

Whether a candidate is Republican, Democrat, independent, or affiliated with another party, look at the person’s record and stated positions. Visit campaign websites, read interviews, examine public statements, and consider reliable reporting about previous votes or public service.

Questions worth researching include:

• What issues does the candidate emphasize?
• What policies has the candidate supported?
• What has the candidate done in previous public office?
• How does the candidate describe the responsibilities of the position?
• Do independent sources confirm the claims being made by the campaign or its opponents?

Campaign advertisements and social media posts are designed to persuade. Research should go further.

Proverbs 18:17 offers a useful principle: “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (NKJV). Hearing a claim is only the beginning. Informed citizens take time to examine it.

Pay Attention to the Issues Behind the Campaigns

Candidates often dominate election coverage, but elections are also about policy.

As November 3 approaches, national conversations will continue around issues such as the economy, immigration, public safety, education, foreign policy, religious liberty, government spending, healthcare, energy, and other concerns. State and local races may bring additional issues to the forefront.

The most useful question is not simply, What is everyone talking about? Ask instead: How does this issue connect to the choices on my ballot?

A national debate may have very different implications in a congressional race, a governor’s race, a state legislative contest, or a local ballot measure.

Understanding that connection helps turn election news into useful information rather than another stream of political noise.

Christian Voters Should Be Informed Voters

For Christians, civic participation provides an opportunity to approach public questions thoughtfully and responsibly.

That does not mean every Christian will reach the same conclusion about every candidate or public policy. It does mean believers can take the responsibility seriously enough to learn what they are voting on, examine competing claims, and consider political questions in light of their biblical convictions.

Being informed also means resisting the temptation to let a viral clip, political personality, favorite commentator, or party label do all the thinking for you.

Ask questions. Check sources. Read more than headlines. Understand both the office and the candidate seeking it. And pray for wisdom.

National Headlines Are Only Part of the 2026 Election Story

Election Night will be filled with major congressional contests and closely watched races around the country. Those results matter. But so does the race that may never appear on national television.

The November 3 election is national, state, and local at the same time. Your ballot may include choices that affect who writes federal laws, who leads your state, who represents your community, and what policies take effect where you live.

Preparing now gives you time to understand those decisions before campaign advertising and breaking-news coverage reach their peak.

Find your sample ballot. Make a list of the races and measures you need to investigate. Research candidates from multiple reliable sources. Learn what the offices actually do. Then keep following the broader election picture as November approaches.

Follow the 2026 Elections with Real Life Network

As Election Day draws closer, Real Life Network will be following the issues, conversations, and races shaping the country.

Then on Tuesday, November 3, RLN will present America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live, with live election results, updates, commentary, and conversation. Coverage will follow major races both in California and across the country, with biblical perspective from Pastor Jack Hibbs, analysis from Daniel Cohen, and insight from other Real Life Network voices.

Election Night coverage begins at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT and is free to watch with a Real Life Network account.

‍

Stay informed as Election Day approaches. Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates from Real Life Network and be ready to follow Election Night live on November 3.

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.

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

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

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

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

Security Requires Facts, Not Assumptions

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

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

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

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

That distinction matters.

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

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

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

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

Foreign Policy Eventually Becomes Personal

The connection becomes even clearer when Iran enters the discussion.

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

That difference in perspective matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Does a Society Believe a Life Is Worth?

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

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

Those numbers deserve more than a passing reaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‍

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

Adapted from a recent Rose Unplugged podcast conversation with Marc Morano of Climate Depot. Watch the full episode: Here

We are watching something shift that many people were told would never shift. For years, the message was simple, absolute, and repeated everywhere: the science is settled, the timeline is urgent, and the consequences are existential.

Climate change was not presented as one issue among many. It was presented as the issue. The defining crisis of our time. And for a long stretch, questioning that framing was treated not as disagreement, but as denial.

But now, something is happening that is difficult to ignore.

The Quieting

Major political outlets are describing what they call “climate hushing”. It’s a noticeable quieting from Democrats and environmental groups at the very moment we were told urgency should be at its peak. Media voices and political strategists are openly admitting that climate messaging is no longer resonating with voters the way it once did.

And a very uncomfortable conversation is emerging inside mainstream reporting: that some of the most extreme climate scenarios that shaped headlines, policy, and public fear were never truly forecasts at all, but worst-case modeling that was often presented without that distinction being made clear to the public.

Now those same scenarios are being reconsidered. Recalibrated. In some cases, quietly set aside.

Meanwhile, at the Kitchen Table

At the same time, there is another layer to this story that can’t be ignored. Because while elites debate messaging strategies, ordinary families are dealing with something far more immediate. They are dealing with rising costs, energy insecurity, and food prices, and with the reality that policies sold as “saving the planet” often land first and hardest on working people.

And somewhere in the middle of all of that, I think a lot of people are just trying to live their lives and make sense of it all. Some climate activists say we’re destroying the planet if we eat meat. Vox, for example, has warned that beef is among the worst foods we consume when it comes to global warming. My only request is this: just do not take my steak away from me while you’re all figuring it out. I. Mean. It.

There’s something very human about that reaction. People can debate models and projections all day long, but at the end of the day, we’re still sitting down at a dinner table trying to live our lives without being told that everything we do is somehow destructive.

That disconnect, between elite narrative and lived experience, is now shaping the political response we’re seeing.

A Generation Raised on Collapse

And there’s something even deeper happening underneath all of this. We now have an entire generation that grew up hearing one dominant message: that the world is nearing the edge, that time is running out, and that catastrophic collapse is not just possible but likely, unless radical transformation happens immediately.

Many young people didn’t just hear that message. They internalized it. It shaped anxiety. It shaped worldview. And in some cases, it shaped despair.

Now, slowly, some are beginning to ask a question that’s not political at all, but deeply personal: What if what I was told was only part of the story?

Proverbs 14:15 says, “The naive believes everything, but the sensible man considers his steps.”

That verse feels more relevant in a moment like this than it has in a long time. Not as a political statement, but as a reminder that fear, especially sustained fear, has a way of shaping belief faster than discernment can catch up.

A Pattern Emerges

Viewed individually, these developments might seem like political adjustments or media recalibrations. But when you step back and place them side by side, a pattern begins to emerge.

Political leaders are pulling back from climate messaging. Media outlets are acknowledging that voters are not responding the way they once expected. The most extreme climate scenarios that shaped years of public discourse are being revised.

Some of the world’s largest economies are resisting sweeping energy transitions. And even long-standing institutions are adjusting scope, timelines, and assumptions that once appeared fixed.

None of this is happening in isolation. It is happening all at once. And what it points to is something deeper than policy disagreement. It points to a growing gap between institutional certainty and public trust.

Stewardship Was Never the Issue

Now, to be clear: stewardship of the environment is not the issue. Wisdom in caring for creation is not the issue.

The issue has always been how that stewardship is defined, and how it is communicated to the people asked to live under it. Because when fear becomes the primary engine of persuasion, something else begins to erode alongside it, and that is trust. And trust, once fractured, is not easily restored.

As parts of the narrative so many young people were raised on are being revised, softened, or walked back, a difficult question emerges: how does a generation recalibrate when the story they were told about the world begins to change?

Not with anger. Not with cynicism. But with discernment.

A World Not Out of Control

Isaiah 40:22 reminds us, “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.”

In other words, the world has never been out of control, even when our human interpretation of it has been incomplete.

So maybe what we are witnessing right now isn’t just a political shift or a media correction. Maybe it is a moment of reassessment: of how we weigh models versus reality, urgency versus accuracy, and narrative versus truth.

Because the question underneath all of this is not simply about climate policy. It is about trust. Trust in institutions. Trust in messaging. And ultimately, trust in how we understand the world we are being told to fear, and the world we truly live in.

If there is a path forward, it won’t come from fear alone. It will come from clarity. From honesty. And from the willingness to separate what we were told from what is true.

Keep your faith steady, your focus clear, and keep moving forward, because you are here for such a time as this.

‍

Sign up today for more content from Real Life Network.

Politics has always involved disagreement. A healthy country should be able to argue vigorously about taxes, foreign policy, abortion, immigration, health care, education, and the proper role of government without treating political opponents as enemies who deserve suffering or death.

That distinction matters because political rhetoric does not remain confined to television studios, campaign rallies, or social media.

A recent survey discussed on The Daniel Cohen Show asked Democratic respondents how they would react to a hypothetical headline announcing President Donald Trump had been assassinated at a rally. The transcript cites the results as evidence of a disturbing willingness among some Americans to respond positively to political violence.

A survey cannot establish that respondents would personally commit violence, and attitudes expressed in a poll should not be treated as evidence that an entire political party supports assassination. But even hypothetical approval of political murder should trouble Americans regardless of who the target is.

That principle has to work in every direction.

Political violence against Donald Trump is wrong. Violence against Democratic officials is wrong. Celebrating the murder of a conservative activist is wrong. Celebrating an attack on a progressive activist would be wrong.

A political culture becomes dangerous when disagreement is no longer enough and opponents have to be humiliated, harmed, or eliminated.

Political Violence Should Not Have a Party

The attempted assassination of Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, demonstrated how quickly political hostility can become something much more serious. The transcript also points to the killing of Charlie Kirk and the continuing controversy surrounding responses to political violence.

The deeper question is what kind of culture develops when suffering itself becomes partisan.

The 2017 attack on Senator Rand Paul offers a smaller but revealing example. MSNBC anchor Kasie Hunt introduced coverage of Paul's injuries by calling the incident one of her “favorite stories,” before immediately clarifying her concern for the senator. Paul suffered six broken ribs in the attack. The comment generated criticism at the time, and Hunt apologized, saying she had chosen her words poorly.

That distinction matters. An irresponsible comment should not automatically be interpreted as proof that someone celebrates political violence. Corrections and apologies matter too.

But so does the underlying standard.

Nobody's broken ribs should become funny because of the letter beside his name. Nobody's assassination should become acceptable because of political hatred. And nobody's murder should become easier to dismiss because the victim belonged to the wrong ideological camp.

Christians should be particularly careful here. Human dignity does not disappear when someone votes differently.

The command to love one's enemies is most revealing when there actually are enemies to love.

Foreign Policy Exposes the Difference Between Slogans and Consequences

That same need for moral clarity appears in foreign policy.

At a University of Michigan event, Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed was questioned by a student who described relatives suffering under Iran's government and asked about El-Sayed's previous comments concerning Iran and its leadership. El-Sayed responded that the United States should not pursue regime change and said he supports “freedom and democracy for the people of Iran,” while arguing that democratic change should come from Iranians themselves.

There is a legitimate policy debate underneath that exchange.

Opposing American-led regime change is not the same thing as supporting the Iranian government. American policymakers have debated intervention, sanctions, military force, diplomacy, and regime change for decades. But candidates asking voters for significant national authority should expect difficult questions about how their principles translate into policy when authoritarian governments repress their own citizens.

The same is true of Israel.

Missile defense can sound like an abstraction until a siren gives a family seconds to reach a shelter. Iron Dome is designed to intercept rockets and other airborne threats headed toward populated areas. Arguments over American support for the system therefore involve more than budget lines; they involve competing judgments about U.S. foreign policy, Israeli security, regional stability, and civilian protection.

Political language becomes much easier when the human consequences remain theoretical.

That reality became painfully tangible this week for Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter. His son Neria, an IDF reservist, was seriously wounded in a car-ramming attack at a checkpoint in the West Bank. Another son, Moshe Yedidya Leiter, was killed in Gaza in November 2023.

Arguments over Israel, Iran, terrorism, and American foreign policy deserve serious debate. They also involve families for whom those debates are not academic.

Truth Still Matters When It Complicates the Argument

Political rhetoric becomes especially dangerous when facts are treated as raw material rather than constraints.

French President Emmanuel Macron provided a striking example at the United Nations this week when he said Hamas had “never operated” in the West Bank. A French official subsequently said Macron meant that Hamas had never governed the West Bank. Those are materially different claims. Hamas has operated in the West Bank even though it has not governed the territory.

Corrections matter because words matter, particularly when they come from heads of state discussing one of the world's most contentious conflicts.

The same principle applies closer to home.

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico recently sued the Trump administration after their reporters were barred from White House grounds. The administration defended the action by accusing the organizations of dishonest reporting; the outlets argued that exclusion based on their coverage violated constitutional protections. A federal judge has since temporarily ordered their access restored, finding that the outlets were likely to succeed on their claim that the credentials were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process.

That dispute raises legitimate questions about both government power and media responsibility. News organizations can and should be criticized when reporting is inaccurate. Government officials can and should face scrutiny when they use official authority against news organizations they dislike.

Neither principle requires abandoning the other.

Truth cannot become a partisan possession, defended when useful and discarded when inconvenient.

That standard also belongs inside the church.

The transcript raises theological questions about churches and political candidates who identify themselves as Christian while challenging historic Christian doctrines.  Those disagreements should ultimately be evaluated by Scripture rather than by whether a candidate has the preferred political affiliation.

Christianity is not infinitely adjustable. The virgin birth, bodily resurrection, identity of Christ, authority of Scripture, sin, repentance, and salvation are not campaign language to be reshaped around contemporary politics.

At the same time, theological disagreement should be represented accurately. Criticism is strongest when it addresses what someone actually teaches rather than exaggerating the position for political effect.

That principle connects every issue here.

Political violence. Media coverage. Iran. Israel. Churches. Presidential power. International diplomacy.

Different subjects, same responsibility.

Tell the truth about opponents. Refuse to celebrate their suffering. Examine claims before repeating them. Apply standards consistently. Remember the human beings living with the consequences of political decisions.

For Christians, political engagement should never require surrendering those obligations. Scripture does not permit hatred simply because the stakes feel high. It does not permit dishonesty because the other side is dishonest. And it does not allow political allegiance to determine who deserves dignity.

Politics reveals plenty about candidates and parties.

How people speak about their opponents can reveal even more.

‍

Real Life Network provides biblically grounded programming examining faith, culture, and current events. Watch The Daniel Cohen Show for more conversations about the stories shaping American and international life.

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.

1. Start with Scripture Before Starting with Headlines

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.

2. Know the Difference Between Being Informed and Being Consumed

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.

3. Test What You Hear Instead of Reacting Immediately

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:

• Is the information confirmed?
• Am I hearing the full context?
• Is this reporting, commentary, or speculation?
• Does another trustworthy source corroborate the claim?

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.

4. Evaluate the World Through Scripture, Not a Political Tribe

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.

5. Let the News Become a Prompt for Prayer

News can easily produce frustration. It can also become a prayer list.

• A report about war can remind us to pray for civilians, soldiers, government leaders, missionaries, and churches in affected regions.
• A story about persecution can lead us to pray for believers who face consequences for their faith.
• A report involving children, schools, marriage, or culture can prompt prayer for parents, teachers, churches, and the next generation.

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?

6. Make Room for Good News Too

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.

7. Remember Which Kingdom Comes First

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.

Stay Informed Without Losing Your Peace

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.

A nation cannot function without trust.

Citizens have to trust that leaders are thinking beyond the next news cycle. Governments have to anticipate threats before those threats become emergencies. Journalists have to report facts accurately enough that the public can distinguish information from advocacy. And when institutions make mistakes, accountability matters.

That standard becomes especially important when the stakes involve national security.

The United States, Denmark, and Greenland have reached a new Arctic security agreement intended to strengthen Greenland's defenses and restrict adversarial powers from establishing military bases or making sensitive strategic investments on the island. President Donald Trump has described the arrangement as giving the United States permanent security rights there, although Denmark and Greenland have emphasized that Greenland remains under its existing sovereignty and the precise terms are still emerging.

Months ago, much of the public conversation surrounding Greenland sounded almost absurd. Late-night comedy made Trump's interest in the island a punchline, while critics questioned why the United States should care so much about a vast Arctic territory.

Now the strategic argument is much harder to dismiss.

Greenland sits in an increasingly important Arctic region where Russia and China have strategic interests. The new arrangement reportedly expands America's ability to operate militarily there while preventing non-NATO countries from establishing sensitive footholds.

The lesson is larger than Greenland.

Prudence sometimes means preparing for a danger before everyone else agrees that the danger is real.

Proverbs 22:3 says, “A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, but the simple pass on and are punished.”

That principle does not require accepting every government claim or supporting every proposed national-security measure. It requires taking threats seriously enough to examine them before a crisis removes the luxury of preparation.

September 11 remains the clearest American example of what happens when seemingly distant threats become immediate realities. Nearly 3,000 people were killed that morning. The lesson should not be that every warning proves correct. It should be that responsible leadership has to consider possibilities the public would rather never imagine.

A Free Press Still Has to Be a Trustworthy Press

The question of institutional trust becomes more complicated when applied to the media.

The Trump administration recently barred CNN, MS NOW, and Politico journalists from White House grounds and confiscated their credentials. Trump accused the organizations of publishing “fake news.” The three outlets have now sued the administration, arguing that their exclusion violates the First Amendment and that access was revoked in retaliation for unfavorable coverage.

Those facts create two questions that should not be collapsed into one.

The first is whether news organizations deserve criticism when their reporting is inaccurate, incomplete, or driven by political assumptions. Of course they do. Journalism possesses enormous power to shape what millions of Americans believe happened. Errors should be corrected, important context should not be deliberately omitted, and political figures should face comparable scrutiny regardless of party.

The second question is whether a president can revoke journalists' White House access because the administration believes their reporting is dishonest or unfair. That is now a constitutional dispute before the courts. The affected organizations argue that government cannot condition press access on favorable coverage, while the administration defends its ability to determine who receives access to White House facilities.

Both questions matter.

Freedom of the press and accountability for the press are not competing principles. A free press should be vigorously protected precisely because its responsibility to tell the truth is so consequential.

That responsibility includes resisting selective standards.

Donald Trump's 2017 comments following the Charlottesville violence remain a useful example of how context can become part of a political dispute. Trump did say there were “very fine people on both sides” while discussing people involved in the controversy surrounding Confederate monuments. In the same remarks, he explicitly said he was not referring to neo-Nazis and white nationalists and said they should be “condemned totally.”

That fuller context does not resolve every legitimate criticism of Trump's response to Charlottesville. Critics have argued that his broader remarks still minimized the nature of the Unite the Right rally and created an inappropriate equivalence. But accurately evaluating the controversy requires presenting what was actually said rather than removing inconvenient portions of the statement.

The same standard should apply to every president.

Journalists should scrutinize Republican administrations. They should scrutinize Democratic administrations. They should investigate political claims rather than protect preferred narratives. And audiences should be willing to correct themselves when evidence contradicts what they wanted to believe.

Trust disappears when people conclude that facts are being filtered according to who benefits from them.

When the Victim Disappears From the Story

That problem extends beyond Washington.

Media framing determines more than how people understand politicians. It can determine whose suffering remains at the center of a tragedy.

The transcript points to the killing of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte's light rail and subsequent coverage involving the accused killer's family.  The broader concern is worth considering carefully: compassion for mental illness should never require forgetting the victim of a violent crime.

Mental illness is real. Families trying to help severely mentally ill relatives can endure extraordinary hardship. Criminal courts also have established procedures for determining whether mental illness affects legal responsibility.

But compassion and accountability are not mutually exclusive.

A victim has a name. A family has suffered a loss. A community has been wounded. Those facts should not disappear simply because another part of the story raises difficult questions about mental health, criminal justice, or failures in the systems surrounding an accused offender.

A compassionate society should be capable of caring about mental illness without allowing the person who suffered the violence to vanish from the story.

That principle reaches well beyond crime reporting.

Every institution tells stories. Governments tell citizens which dangers deserve attention. Political parties tell voters which problems matter. Media organizations decide which facts lead a broadcast and which appear near the bottom of an article.

Christians should therefore develop habits that go deeper than simply choosing which institution to trust.

Ask what happened. Examine the complete statement rather than the viral clip. Distinguish established facts from allegations. Look for missing context. Pay attention to the people most directly affected. Apply the same standard when the facts help a preferred political side and when they hurt it.

Most importantly, remember that truth does not become more or less true depending on who benefits from it.

National security requires foresight. Journalism requires accuracy. Justice requires accountability. Compassion requires remembering the human beings affected by our political and cultural arguments.

None of those responsibilities belongs exclusively to the left or the right.

A biblical worldview should make truth more important than either.

That is why Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show continue examining the stories shaping American life through questions of truth, faith, culture, and responsibility.

“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.

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.

Leadership Requires More Than the Right Policies

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.

Biblical Language Cannot Become Political Branding

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.

Courage Means Refusing to Follow the Crowd

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.

Twenty-five years after September 11, 2001, two words remain inseparable from that day: Never forget. As a new generation inherits the story of 9/11, Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show are committed to examining the history, ideas, and cultural questions that Americans cannot afford to forget.

But remembering September 11 requires more than remembering its pain.

An entire generation of Americans has now grown up without any personal memory of the attacks. Roughly 100 million Americans have been born since 9/11. They did not watch the second plane strike the South Tower. They did not see smoke pouring across Manhattan or experience the uncertainty that gripped the country. For them, September 11 is history.

That raises an increasingly important question: What exactly are Americans promising never to forget?

Remembering the Victims Means Remembering the Truth

Calling September 11 a tragedy is true, but incomplete.

September 11 was an intentional terrorist attack carried out by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were not secretive about their worldview, grievances, or objectives. Their own statements repeatedly framed their conflict with America in explicitly religious as well as political terms.

America must be capable of acknowledging that history.

That does not mean treating every Muslim as a terrorist or holding peaceful Muslim neighbors responsible for crimes they did not commit. Americans should defend religious liberty, reject harassment, and protect the freedom of peaceful people to worship according to their beliefs.

But religious liberty cannot require historical amnesia.

There is a profound difference between refusing to hate Muslims and refusing to acknowledge Islamist extremism. America must be capable of doing the first without falling into the second.

For too long, political leaders, academics, and media figures have sometimes preferred vague descriptions of terrorism because specificity can be uncomfortable. Yet future generations cannot understand September 11 if the ideology of its perpetrators is removed from the history they inherit.

“Never forget” cannot mean remembering only the victims while becoming increasingly reluctant to explain why they became victims.

The Next Generation Will Remember What We Teach

This matters because the people who remember September 11 firsthand will not always be here to tell the story.

Already, debates over the meaning of 9/11 reveal dramatically different interpretations of what happened. Some emphasize American foreign policy, imperialism, economics, or Western actions as the primary explanation for terrorism. Others have gone considerably further, portraying America itself as deserving the violence directed against it.

Those ideas should not be allowed to replace historical clarity.

The terrorists who attacked America were responsible for their actions. The men aboard those airplanes chose innocent civilians as their targets. No disagreement with American foreign policy makes hijacking commercial airplanes and deliberately murdering civilians morally defensible.

The responsibility to preserve that truth belongs especially to parents.

Children should know about the people who boarded airplanes expecting to arrive home later that day. They should hear about the firefighters carrying equipment up stairwells as thousands rushed downward. They should know about Flight 93 and the passengers who fought back. They should understand what happened at the Pentagon and what unfolded at Ground Zero.

And they should know who carried out the attacks and what motivated them.

If parents do not teach their children what happened on September 11, someone else will eventually tell them what September 11 is supposed to mean.

History never remains an empty space. When one explanation disappears, another takes its place.

That is why remembrance is about more than nostalgia. It is a responsibility to those who died and to those who were not yet born.

Remembering Without Living in Fear

There is another part of September 11 worth remembering: what America looked like afterward.

For a brief period, the country rediscovered a sense of national unity that now seems almost unimaginable. Political labels became less important. American flags appeared on homes and businesses. Tens of thousands stood together at Yankee Stadium and sang “God Bless the USA.” President George W. Bush stood among firefighters and rescue workers at Ground Zero and promised that America would respond.

That unity did not last.

But the courage behind it should not disappear.

Charlie Kirk understood the importance of courage in the public square. He repeatedly warned younger Americans about ideological movements he believed threatened faith, family, and the American way of life. His words were often pointed because he believed dangerous ideas had to be identified rather than accommodated. His Christian convictions also became increasingly central to the way he understood the cultural battles around him.

That willingness to speak should challenge Christians today.

Courage does not require hatred. Conviction does not require cruelty. Christians can identify dangerous ideologies while remembering that human beings are not the ultimate enemy. Scripture reminds believers that the struggle is ultimately “not against flesh and blood,” but against spiritual forces of evil (Ephesians 6:12).

Christian courage tells the truth about evil without allowing hatred of people to take root in the heart.

Twenty-five years after September 11, America does not need to live in the fear of that morning. Neither should it erase the lessons purchased at such an enormous cost.

Remember the victims. Remember their families. Remember the first responders. Remember the passengers who fought back. Remember the courage that emerged from the rubble. Remember the enemy that attacked America and the ideology that animated its extremists.

Then make sure the children who were not there understand why it matters.

One day, September 11 will exist entirely outside living memory. When that day arrives, never forget will mean only as much as the truth one generation was willing to pass to the next. Continue examining the stories shaping America through a biblical worldview on The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.