International News

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.

One year after the death of Charlie Kirk, there is much worth remembering about a life that ended far too soon. He was known across the country as a conservative activist, speaker, and founder of Turning Point USA. But the convictions that increasingly defined his public life went deeper than politics. Kirk spoke openly about his faith in Jesus Christ, his love for his wife and children, and his belief that strong families were essential to the future of America.

When asked how he wanted to be remembered, Kirk pointed to courage and his Christian faith. Those who worked closely with him likewise described his relationship with Christ as the most important part of his life. He used an enormous platform not simply to discuss elections and public policy, but to encourage people to follow Jesus and take their faith seriously.

That priority deserves to be remembered.

Kirk also understood something increasingly countercultural: the future of a nation is inseparable from the health of its families.

He married Erika in 2021, and they had two children. Fatherhood became an important part of the message he shared with young Americans. He encouraged young adults to pursue marriage, welcome children, leave behind empty pursuits, and build something that could endure beyond themselves. His wife later recalled that marriage and family were among the greatest joys of his life.

That message mattered because Kirk spent much of his career speaking directly to young people. He founded Turning Point USA at only 18 and built an organization centered on engaging the next generation in the future of the country.

Yet preserving America was about more than winning elections. A country ultimately depends upon the character of its people, the strength of its homes, and the convictions parents pass to their children.

If we want to honor Kirk's life, admiration is not enough. We should imitate what was worthy of imitation.

Go to Real Life Network to watch great moments from the life of Charlie Kirk.

‍

‍

That means having the courage to profess Christ when doing so carries a cost. It means building strong marriages and treating parenthood as a calling rather than an inconvenience. It means investing in young people instead of surrendering the next generation to whatever ideas happen to dominate the culture. And it means being willing to enter conversations with people who disagree rather than retreating from difficult questions.

Kirk became famous in part because he was willing to walk onto college campuses, take questions, defend his convictions, and invite disagreement. His example should encourage Christians to develop convictions strong enough to withstand opposition without becoming afraid of the people on the other side.

Most importantly, his legacy should point beyond politics.

Political victories pass. Organizations change. Elections are won and lost. But faithfulness to Christ, love within the home, children raised with conviction, and lives invested in others carry significance far beyond an election cycle.

Charlie Kirk cared deeply about America's future. His life offered a reminder that the work of building that future begins with faithfulness to God, courage in the public square, and commitment to the family at home.

Go to Real Life Network to watch great moments from the life of Charlie Kirk.

The mayor of New York City’s presence will not be welcomed by all at the metropolis’s upcoming 9/11 memorial service. “I am not asking politely, I am demanding” New York City Councilmember Vickie Paladino (R) asserted from the steps of New York City Hall on Tuesday, “that he not show his face on that sacred ground.” The councilwoman, along with many others in the Big Apple, has made one thing clear: they do not want the mayor to be present at the event on Friday.

The ceremony to be held is the official 25th anniversary 9/11 commemoration at the World Trade Center Memorial Plaza and is a private event for families who lost loved ones on that day. On Tuesday, Forbes reported that a change.org petition created by relatives of 9/11 victims has received over 100,000 signatures to exclude Mamdani from the event.

This resistance is largely the result of Mamdani’s affiliation with Ramzi Kassem, who Mamdani appointed as the city’s chief legal counsel. In the past, Kassem represented a convicted al-Qaeda member whose brother-in-law was one of the 9/11 plane hijackers. The mayor drew criticism last Friday when video circulated of Mamdani signaling for the symbolic pen he had just used to authorize an executive order regarding 9/11 at city hall to be given to Kassem.

“That was a message to each and every one of us,” Paladino said about the pen, and she stood in the sea of those gathered at the city hall. “Cryptic as it is, but read through the lines. What’s going on here at City Hall and what we got representing us at City Hall, they do not belong on sacred ground. I could go through a list of people that he associates himself with and continues to associate himself with. We, the people, do not care for Zohran Mamdani.”

Robert Maginnis, retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand that the country can never lose sight of the effects of the tragedy that took place 25 years ago.

“What should not be lost in the political controversy is the extraordinary emotional significance of September 11. The memorial ceremony belongs first and foremost to the nearly 3,000 people who were murdered, the families who still live with that loss, the first responders and service members whose lives were changed by what followed, and a nation that promised never to forget. Anyone who participates in that ceremony should do so with humility and with an appreciation for just how deeply those memories still run.”

Charles Wolf, a man who lost his wife in the North Tower attack, also announced at city hall that he did not want Mamdani to attend: “We don’t want a mayor who only wants to be there for the publicity. This mayor is not serving us. He’s serving himself,” he shared.

“We are asking, respectfully, that he not show up even though there is going to be other politicians there. These are the politicians that helped us, pushed beneficial laws through, and literally held our hand during that time. Mayor Mamdani has not shown any of that. None of it. He just wants to be there because he wants to be there.”

Rudy Guiliani, the former mayor of New York City during the attack on the World Trade Center, also spoke against Mamdani’s planned attendance at the event. “Frankly, whatever he’d like to say, he doesn’t agree that Sept. 11 was an Islamic terrorist attack on the United States of America,” Giuliani told Newsmax in an interview on Sunday. “Having lost friends there, and being very close to many of the families, it offends me that he’s coming.”

Maginnis said that his experiences in the post-9/11 world, including working at the Pentagon in the Department of the Army, have shaped his perception of the tragedy. “Those experiences have given me an enduring appreciation for what September 11 means to the families of the victims, to those who served in the years that followed, and to millions of Americans who remember the fear, anger, and grief of that day.”

“That is the context in which I view the controversy surrounding Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his chief counsel, Ramzi Kassem,” he added. “Kassem’s prior representation of a terrorism defendant has become a particular point of contention for some 9/11 families. At the same time, representing a criminal defendant should not, by itself, be equated with sharing that defendant’s beliefs or actions.”

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

Some of the most important cultural debates begin with words. Mercy. Compassion. Truth. Justice. These words carry moral weight, but their meaning can change dramatically depending on the worldview behind them.

On Real Life Network, The Daniel Cohen Show examines the stories shaping American culture through a biblical worldview. This week, those stories raise difficult questions about the value of human life, the meaning of mercy, American citizenship, the institutions shaping children, and the responsibility Christians have to speak when foundational truths are being challenged.

At the center of those questions is a basic conviction: truth does not become relative simply because the culture has found a new way to describe something.

The Difference Between Mercy and Moral Confusion

The Lindsay Clancy case has reopened a painful national conversation about motherhood, mental illness, personal responsibility, and the deaths of children. That conversation deserves seriousness, particularly when postpartum mental illness is involved. But compassion for mental suffering cannot require society to stop acknowledging the value of the lives that were lost.

The broader cultural response is also worth examining. Videos have circulated online showing mothers joking about or pretending to harm their children, while supporters of Clancy have gathered under the slogan “We are all Lindsay.” At the same time, other cases involving mothers accused of killing their children have drawn comparisons to Clancy's case.

There is an important distinction between understanding mental illness and treating violence against children casually. Christians should be capable of showing compassion toward someone experiencing profound psychological suffering while simultaneously insisting that children possess inherent value and deserve protection.

That same confusion over language appears in the abortion debate.

In a resurfaced interview, Anne Hathaway described abortion as potentially “another word for mercy.” The statement illustrates a much deeper disagreement over what mercy actually means.

Scripture gives the word a radically different foundation.

In Exodus 34:6, God reveals Himself to Moses as compassionate and gracious. The Hebrew language provides a striking connection between compassion and the womb: rachum, describing compassion or mercy, is related to rechem, the Hebrew word for womb. The imagery points toward deep, protective compassion.

That makes the modern use of “mercy” to describe abortion especially significant. The biblical picture of compassion directs attention toward protection and care for the vulnerable.

Mercy cannot simply mean removing the person whose existence creates difficulty. Biblical mercy moves toward the vulnerable with compassion and protection.

That principle reaches beyond abortion. A society's understanding of human dignity determines how it treats people when they are weakest, most dependent, or least convenient.

Citizenship, Children, and the Institutions Shaping America

Another debate centers on birthright citizenship and the growing industry commonly called birth tourism.

During a congressional hearing, Dr. Vladimir Lorentz, associated with a business called Have Baby in Miami, repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned about whether his business had helped foreign nationals travel to the United States to give birth. The hearing highlighted concerns about companies marketing American childbirth to international clients and the citizenship that comes with being born on U.S. soil.

Whatever one's preferred constitutional solution, the underlying question deserves attention: What does American citizenship mean?

Citizenship should be more than a commodity attached to the ability to purchase airfare, accommodations, and medical services. A country has a legitimate interest in protecting the meaning and integrity of citizenship while treating people with dignity.

But government policy isn't the only place where questions about American identity are emerging.

The Boy Scouts, now known as Scouting America, and the Girl Scouts have historically occupied a distinctive place in American childhood. Recent examples of Islamic religious programming within scouting organizations have generated controversy, including mosque-based Scout programs incorporating Islamic prayer and Quran instruction and Girl Scout opportunities connected with learning about Islam.

The issue raises a broader question for Christian parents: Who is shaping the institutions entrusted with children?

Parents cannot assume that an organization carries the same values it did a generation ago simply because the name or uniform looks familiar. Schools, youth organizations, entertainment companies, churches, and political movements all communicate a worldview.

Parents have a responsibility to know not only where their children are spending their time, but what those institutions are teaching them to believe about God, truth, identity, and morality.

That responsibility requires courage. Christians cannot complain that institutions have changed while remaining unwilling to participate, lead, ask questions, or speak when those institutions move away from their convictions.

Conviction Is More Than Political Branding

The same test applies to politicians who use Christian language.

Texas politician James Talarico has increasingly incorporated Christianity into his political identity while advancing theological interpretations on abortion, sexuality, and gender that deserve careful biblical examination. A candidate quoting Scripture or speaking in churches should not automatically earn Christian credibility.

The test is not whether someone can use Christian vocabulary.

The question is whether the theology being presented actually agrees with Scripture.

Christians should apply that standard regardless of party. Political affiliation cannot transform bad theology into sound theology, and a politician's claim to Christianity should never replace biblical discernment.

The approaching elections make that distinction increasingly important. Polling discussed on the show suggests Republicans may be in a stronger position among likely voters than conventional expectations for a midterm election might suggest. But polling does not eliminate the responsibility to participate.

Christians are commanded to pray for those in authority. In a representative government, citizens also have the opportunity to participate in choosing those leaders.

Neither panic nor complacency is useful.

Political engagement should flow from conviction, not replace it. The Christian's ultimate allegiance belongs to Christ, which should make biblical truth more important than any candidate or party.

That perspective matters beyond American politics.

Iran continues to face severe economic pressure, while uncertainty remains about the country's political future and the possibility of internal opposition to the Islamic Republic. Reliable information from inside Iran can be difficult to obtain, which makes restraint important. Christians can nevertheless pray for the Iranian people, for those seeking freedom, and for wisdom among the leaders making consequential decisions about the region.

Across all these stories, the underlying challenge is remarkably similar.

Will words retain their meaning?

Will mercy still mean protecting the vulnerable? Will citizenship represent something more than an economic transaction? Will Christian institutions remain recognizably Christian? Will professing believers allow Scripture to shape their politics rather than reshaping Scripture around their politics?

Those questions cannot be answered by slogans.

They require discernment, courage, and a willingness to accept truth even when truth makes people uncomfortable.

Watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network for more news and commentary connecting the headlines to the good news through a biblical worldview.

When people discover a new streaming platform, one of the first questions they often ask is: Is there a free trial?

That makes sense. Most streaming services today require a monthly subscription, a limited trial period, or tiered upgrades before viewers can fully access content. But Real Life Network works differently.

The simple answer is this: RLN does not require a free trial because the entire platform is ALREADY FREE to watch.

There are no subscription tiers, hidden fees, or surprise upgrades needed to access the content.

Why Real Life Network Is Free

Real Life Network was created with a mission-first approach rather than a subscription-first model. The goal is to make biblical teaching, faith-based programming, documentaries, podcasts, and family-friendly content accessible to as many people as possible without financial barriers.

Instead of charging viewers, RLN is supported entirely through the generosity of donors who believe in the mission of Real Life with Jack Hibbs and the broader outreach of the network.

This allows viewers to:

• Stream content without monthly payments 
• Explore the full platform freely 
• Share programs with friends and family easily 
• Access biblical teaching regardless of financial situation 

For many families, this removes a major obstacle and makes faith-based streaming far more accessible.

No Subscription Required

Unlike many mainstream streaming platforms, RLN does not require:

• Paid memberships 
• Credit card trials 
• Premium unlocks 
• Hidden add-ons 
• Automatic billing after a trial period 

Viewers can simply create an account and begin watching.

This straightforward approach reflects the network’s focus on ministry and outreach rather than maximizing subscriptions.

What You Can Watch on RLN

Even though RLN is free, the platform includes a wide variety of content across multiple categories. Viewers can explore:

• Bible teaching and sermons 
• Podcasts and interviews 
• Faith-based films and documentaries 
• Apologetics and worldview programs 
• Family and kids’ programming 
• Cultural discussions and special events 

Programs such as Real Life with Jack Hibbs, A Daily Walk, Bridge Bible Talk, Way of the Master, and documentaries like Before the Wrath and C.S. Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert are all available without requiring a paid subscription.

Why This Matters for Families

Streaming costs can add up quickly. Many households already juggle multiple subscriptions across entertainment, music, and live TV platforms. By offering free access, RLN gives families a way to add faith-based content into their homes without increasing monthly expenses. It also makes it easier to:

• Introduce children to biblical programming 
• Watch sermons and teaching regularly 
• Share content with small groups or friends 
• Explore faith-based media without commitment pressure 

This accessibility is especially meaningful for viewers who are exploring Christian content for the first time.

A Different Kind of Streaming Model

Most modern streaming services are built around subscriptions because content licensing and original production are expensive. Christian streaming platforms often operate differently, especially those tied closely to ministry outreach.

RLN’s donor-supported model allows the platform to focus on:

• Expanding biblical content 
• Supporting discipleship and evangelism 
• Reaching viewers globally 
• Providing family-safe programming without paywalls 

Rather than asking viewers to “upgrade” for better access, the platform is designed to make truth available as broadly as possible.

What If You Want to Delete Your Account?

Another common concern with streaming services is cancellation. Many viewers are frustrated by complicated account systems or unclear billing structures. RLN keeps the process simple.

If a user decides they no longer want an account, they can:

1. Go to their account settings 
2. Select delete account 
3. Confirm deletion 

There are no cancellation fees, hidden commitments, or subscription complications because there is no paid membership attached to the account.

Why Donors Support Free Christian Streaming

The reason RLN can remain free is because many people believe biblical teaching and Christ-centered content should remain widely accessible. Supporters of Real Life with Jack Hibbs help fund:

• Ongoing platform development 
• New programming and documentaries 
• Streaming infrastructure 
• Outreach and discipleship efforts 

Their generosity allows viewers around the world to access content without worrying about cost barriers.

Real Life Network does not offer a free trial because it doesn’t need one. The platform is already free to access, with no subscriptions, hidden fees, or premium tiers required.

That approach reflects the heart behind the network: making biblically grounded content available to anyone seeking truth, encouragement, and faith-based programming.

Explore free Christian streaming anytime on Real Life Network.

Should Ukraine’s ongoing battle against Russian aggression concern Americans?

Russian tanks, missiles, and drones have destroyed homes and schools and killed more than 16,800 civilians. But they are only the visible weapons of war. Behind them is something less visible but no less consequential: Putin’s Russian Imperialism 2.0, an ideology that seeks not merely to conquer Ukrainian territory, but to erase Ukrainian identity, sovereignty, and culture. This is not just a threat to Ukraine; it is a threat to Europe and, left unchecked, to freedom everywhere.

Putin’s Russian Imperialism 2.0 borrows heavily from Soviet authoritarianism, with one important exception: the Russian Orthodox Church, which the communists persecuted, has now become an instrument of the Russian state.

Soviet communism tried to replace Christianity with the state. Putinism enlists a form of Christianity in service to the state.

In occupied Ukraine, independent religious expression is suppressed, churches closed, and religious leaders imprisoned, exiled, or worse, while the Moscow-aligned Russian Orthodox Church is privileged. Evangelical and Catholic churches have been closed, with some sanctuaries turned into operational centers for the occupiers.

During my visit to Ukraine, Denys Uliutin, Minister of Social Policy, Family and Unity, briefed me on Russia’s systematic attacks on Ukraine’s religious heritage, damaging or destroying hundreds of religious structures, a pattern documented by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Ukrainian officials have also documented 67 religious leaders and clergy killed or who died as a result of torture in occupied territories.

But there is more to Putinism than crushing religious institutions and leaders who refuse to surrender their kingdom authority to an earthly tyrant. If attacking churches is an assault on Ukraine’s spiritual identity, Russifying its children is an assault on its future.

In occupied territories, children are subjected to Russian curriculum, forced use of the Russian language, citizenship requirements, and expressions of allegiance to Russia.

Even more disturbing, thousands of Ukrainian children have been deported or forcibly transferred, with more than 8,400 relocated to at least 57 facilities, where many have undergone Russian re-education. Some have been placed for adoption or fostering in Russia, an effort to sever their Ukrainian identity.

Russian Imperialism 2.0 is as deadly and dangerous as its communist precursor when it comes to the Christian faith and family, two institutions vital for freedom.

Why should we care here in the West, where Putin is unlikely to militarily attack America?

As Christians, we should care when our brothers and sisters in Christ are targeted and tortured, because the kingdom of God knows no borders.

As Americans, history instructs us that evil never stands still. The question is not whether Russian tanks will reach America, but whether America is safer in a world where military aggression, religious repression, and forced assimilation are allowed to succeed.

What should we do?

We should pray because Christians are suffering. We should materially support Ukraine because aggression must not be rewarded. And we must understand that what Ukraine is defending is bigger than territory.

Ukraine is fighting for its territory, but also for the right of a people to remain a people, to worship God freely, raise their children in their own faith and culture, and govern themselves.

Those are freedoms Americans should recognize as worth defending.

This article was originally published on The Washington Stand.

There are moments when a single story reveals something much larger about the direction of a culture. A news organization hesitates to call terrorism terrorism. A political candidate distances himself from the very people who helped build his campaign. Companies permit religious messages about almost anyone except Jesus. Churches burn while much of the media looks elsewhere.

On Real Life Network, The Daniel Cohen Show looks beyond individual headlines to the worldview underneath them. And increasingly, the same question keeps appearing: Who gets to define what can be said, what can be believed, and what can be acknowledged in public?

That question matters politically. It matters culturally. And for Christians, it matters spiritually.

When Terrorism Becomes Too Controversial to Name

The CBC recently found itself facing intense criticism over guidance telling journalists not to refer to the September 11 attacks as “terrorist attacks” except through attribution. After public backlash, the Canadian broadcaster reversed course.

Think about what that means.

Nearly 25 years after hijacked passenger planes were deliberately flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands, one of Canada's largest news organizations was uncomfortable simply calling the attack terrorism.

Words matter because words describe reality. When institutions become more concerned about whether accurate language might offend someone than whether that language is true, journalism stops informing people and begins managing what people are permitted to think.

That problem extends far beyond one Canadian newsroom.

New York City offers another glimpse of the cultural and political tensions developing across the country. The rise of Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America is not simply another election story. It represents a much larger ideological shift taking place within the Democratic Party.

The old political establishment increasingly appears unable to control the movement growing beneath it. Candidates and activists who once existed on the political margins are becoming power brokers.

The same tension is playing out in Michigan.

Abdul El-Sayed has campaigned alongside Hasan Piker, a controversial political streamer who has made inflammatory statements about America, Israel, and capitalism. Yet when questioned about that relationship, El-Sayed attempted to reduce Piker to merely a “social media person in California.” The problem is that Piker himself has publicly described campaigning and fundraising for El-Sayed.

The issue isn't simply association. It's accountability.

If political candidates believe the people surrounding them represent ideas worth defending, they should be willing to defend those relationships openly. If they don't, voters should ask why.

Which God Is Allowed in Public?

Politics is only one part of the story.

Recent examples involving the WNBA and Coca-Cola raise another question about Christianity's place in American culture.

Testing of the WNBA's custom jersey system reportedly found that phrases including “Jesus Christ” and “Jesus is God” were blocked while Islamic phrases were permitted. A similar controversy arose around Coca-Cola's personalization system, where attempts to enter “Jesus” were reportedly rejected while references to other religious figures or even Satan could be accepted.

The point isn't that Christians should demand corporations become Christian.

The issue is whether the rules are actually being applied equally.

If companies allow religious expression, Christianity should not uniquely become the expression that is unacceptable.

That question becomes even more important as children return to school and debates over sexuality and gender continue. In Massachusetts, Senator Ed Markey has promoted a federal “Transgender Bill of Rights,” while schools around the country continue wrestling with what children should be taught about sex, gender, and identity.

Christians cannot outsource these conversations to politicians, corporations, schools, or professional sports leagues.

Scripture gives Christians an identity that precedes politics. Human beings are created by God. Male and female are not arbitrary categories invented by society. And Jesus Christ is not simply one spiritual option among many.

The question isn't whether America will have a worldview in the public square. The question is which worldview will shape it.

That is why believers must pay attention even to cultural stories that initially appear trivial. A custom jersey. A personalized soda can. A school message. Individually, each can look insignificant. Together, they reveal the assumptions increasingly governing public life.

When Institutions Stop Serving the People They Were Meant to Serve

California provides another example.

After the devastating 2025 Southern California wildfires, Americans donated enormous sums believing their money would directly help families who had lost homes and communities. Yet questions have since emerged about where portions of wildfire relief money went and whether organizations unrelated to rebuilding received funding.

A House Judiciary Committee staff report cited on the show raised concerns about grants and assistance allegedly being directed toward organizations and causes with unclear connections to wildfire victims. Meanwhile, many families affected by the fires continue struggling to rebuild.

People gave because neighbors were hurting.

They deserve transparency about where that money went.

But perhaps one of the least discussed stories is what has been happening to churches.

A century-old former church building in Cleveland was recently destroyed in a fire investigators ruled arson. In Canada, another church burned, part of a broader pattern of churches being burned or vandalized in recent years.

Church buildings are not the church. Scripture is clear that God's people are the church.

But that doesn't make attacks on places of worship meaningless.

When churches are vandalized or burned, Christians should care. Authorities should investigate. Journalists should report it. And believers should refuse to accept the idea that hostility toward Christianity somehow becomes less significant because Christianity has historically been influential in the West.

Christians do not need cultural permission to proclaim Christ, but they do need the courage to recognize when the culture is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with His name.

That courage also requires discernment.

Not every controversy is persecution. Not every political disagreement is spiritual warfare. Not every person on the other side of an issue is an enemy.

But Christians should be able to recognize patterns without pretending they don't exist.

Truth still matters when a newsroom finds it uncomfortable. Political accountability still matters when the candidate belongs to the preferred party. Religious freedom still matters when the religion being expressed is Christianity. And people harmed by disasters still matter after the cameras leave.

The solution isn't panic. It is faithfulness.

Pay attention. Ask questions. Hold leaders accountable. Protect your children. Know Scripture. Participate in your community. Vote. And most importantly, refuse to surrender the truth simply because the culture has decided that truth is inconvenient.

Watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network for more news and commentary connecting the headlines to the good news through a biblical worldview.

The relentless hold that online pornography has on American society is continuing unabated, with limited public effort to contain or reduce it. Surveys show that porn use is almost as widespread among practicing Christians as it is in the general public. Even as age verification laws have spread throughout the country, a lingering question remains: could an internet service provider (ISP) filtration model implemented in the U.K. help lower porn consumption in the U.S.?

With the universal adoption of internet-enabled phones has come the reality that smut is now consumed as easily and privately as viewing a text. AddictionHelp.com estimates that an astounding 95% of porn traffic is viewed on phones, with just 5% of traffic viewed on desktops. This may help explain why porn use is so rampant among younger generations of adults aged 18-35 in America, with a stunning 87% of men and 28% of women viewing it at least weekly. Porn is so omnipresent that the vast majority (70%) of males under 18 have viewed porn, along with 40% of minor females. Fully half of teens under 15 have also viewed online obscenity.

Perhaps most distressing for the church is that even the majority of practicing Christians are consuming porn. According to a 2024 report from Barna and Pure Desire, 54% of those who say “faith is important to them and have attended church in the last month” sometimes view porn, compared to 61% of all U.S. adults.

All of this consumption is taking place on human beings who are being sexually abused and coerced into being filmed. One study found that all porn subjects were coerced to participate in being filmed in some way, with 96% of them being victims of sexual abuse as children.

The effects of porn use on consumers are also contributing to a spiraling mental health crisis in the U.S. Research shows that habitual consumption causes increased anxiety and depression, emotional numbness and relationship strain, impaired focus and productivity, and increased isolation and loneliness, not to mention increased sexual dysfunction.

The immense damage that porn has inflicted on public health has led to a large swath of U.S. states enacting laws that require porn sites to verify the age of potential users before allowing them website access. Since 2023, 25 states have passed such laws. While human rights advocates have rightly celebrated these efforts at reducing minors’ consumption of porn, subsequent studies have found that the laws have done little to mitigate overall porn use. One study found that the laws’ effect induced a 10% reduction in time spent on porn sites, but “Many users appear to have circumvented restrictions with VPNs [virtual private networks] or shifted to noncompliant sites that did not verify age.”

Another way that countries like the U.K. are attempting to tackle the smut problem is by requiring ISPs to offer internet services that filter out porn sites. In 2011, the U.K. government announced an agreement with the country’s four largest ISPs in which their default internet service would be free of porn sites, requiring subscribers to “opt in” to an unfiltered service if they wanted access to smut. ISPs began implementing the policy in 2013. But subsequent reports revealed that the vast majority of British users opted out of the service, showing that the model has likely had a negligible effect on lessening porn consumption in the country.

Still, the model remains untried in the U.S., where many parents would likely choose to curtail porn at its source instead of having to navigate third-party filters to protect their children. However, experts like Benjamin Bull, who serves as general counsel for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, say that the ISP filtration model may not stand up to legal scrutiny if it were enacted in the U.S.

“While we admire the U.K. model for blocking pornography unless users opt out, I fear the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would likely make such a law in this country be held unconstitutional,” he told The Washington Stand. “Although pornography found by a court to be legally ‘obscene’ has no constitutional protection, there is a presumption of constitutional protection until such a ruling occurs. Our Supreme Court would likely strike down the U.K. model as a ‘prior restraint’ on presumptively protected expression and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.”

Bull continued, “However, in the most recent term of our Supreme Court, the court upheld a Texas law that prohibits dissemination of pornography to minors unless the online platform first obtains confirmation that the recipient is 18 years of age or older. In other words, age verification is now a requirement for online dissemination of pornography in Texas and several other states that have adopted this law. The reason is that while pornography is presumptively protected for adults, it has little, if any, protection for minors. Because of a ‘compelling’ governmental interest in protecting children, the Supreme Court held that the burden of determining that the recipient is an adult prior to dissemination passes constitutional muster.”

“This is much weaker than the U.K. model, and our Supreme Court may not have reached this decision had the U.K. not been a leader in curtailing unlimited access to pornography, which social scientists have concluded has a corrosive and negative effect on society in so many ways,” he added.

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

The biggest stories in the news often have another layer beneath the headlines. Political movements reveal the ideas shaping the country. Foreign relationships raise questions about influence and consistency. Cultural icons leave legacies that extend far beyond their fame.

On Real Life Network, The Daniel Cohen Show looks at those connections through a biblical worldview, bringing together the news, Israel, and Scripture. This week, those stories stretch from a growing debate over Sharia law and antisemitism to election integrity, foreign influence, and a remarkable connection between Dolly Parton and Jewish families around the world.

Sharia Law, Antisemitism, and the Direction of American Politics

President Donald Trump recently told Glenn Beck that he would prohibit Sharia law in the United States. The statement raises a larger question Americans need to consider: Can a religious legal system operate alongside the protections and principles of the United States Constitution?

Sharia and the American constitutional system contain fundamental differences regarding the relationship between religion and government, individual rights, and the source of law. Whatever policies ultimately emerge, America cannot maintain competing legal systems when their requirements conflict with constitutional protections.

The issue becomes even more important when considering the political movements gaining influence across the country.

In Michigan, Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s association with political commentator Hasan Piker has generated controversy. Piker has faced criticism for past comments about America, Israel, Hamas, and American Jews. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is Jewish, has also publicly expressed concerns about the political environment within her own party. She has made clear that her Jewish identity comes before her political affiliation.

That is a principle worth remembering far beyond Michigan.

When allegiance to a political movement requires overlooking hatred, threats, or extremism, truth must take priority over party loyalty.

For Christians, antisemitism also carries biblical significance. Zechariah 2:8 describes Israel as the “apple of His eye,” pointing to God’s covenant relationship with the Jewish people. Christians should therefore be among the first to reject hatred directed toward Jews, regardless of whether it comes from the political left or right.

The same discernment is necessary when evaluating claims surrounding Israel and Gaza. Questions about UNRWA personnel, Hamas, humanitarian aid, and conditions inside Gaza demonstrate why accusations should be examined carefully rather than simply repeated. Facts matter. Context matters. And when accusations against Israel spread around the world, getting those facts right matters even more.

The Standard Has to Apply to Everyone

Consistency becomes much harder when scrutiny turns toward our own political side.

President Trump’s opposition to Sharia law deserves to be weighed alongside his administration’s relationships in the Muslim world, including Qatar and Turkey. The prospect of a Boeing 747 provided by Qatar, in particular, raises legitimate questions about appearances and foreign influence.

Qatar has maintained a complicated role in Middle Eastern affairs, including relationships with Hamas, while also serving as a major American security partner. Turkey presents its own challenges under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whose relationship with Israel has become increasingly hostile.

Foreign policy inevitably requires dealing with governments that do not share American values. But Americans should still expect consistency from their leaders.

If foreign influence deserves scrutiny when it reaches the political left, it does not suddenly become harmless when it reaches the political right.

The same principle should apply to conservative media. Holding Democrats accountable while ignoring destructive rhetoric or questionable influences among conservatives does not demonstrate principle. It demonstrates partisanship.

Christians especially cannot allow political affiliation to determine when truth matters.

Election integrity provides another example. A recent Supreme Court decision allowed portions of Trump’s executive order concerning elections to move forward after determining that states challenging the order had sued prematurely. The dispute involves measures including ballot tracking and the creation of citizenship data that could be shared with states.

The Court did not settle every underlying legal question, meaning the dispute is far from finished. But the larger principle should not be controversial: eligible Americans should be able to vote, legitimate votes should be counted, and election systems should have safeguards capable of earning public confidence.

The Dolly Parton Story You Probably Haven’t Heard

Against those contentious political stories stands a very different kind of American story.

Dolly Parton’s legacy is usually told through the obvious accomplishments: more than 100 million records sold, iconic songs, movies, awards, Dollywood, and a career spanning generations.

But there is another part of that legacy.

In the 1970s, a Jewish man from Brooklyn named Sandy Gallin became Parton’s manager. Gallin helped guide her crossover from country music into mainstream entertainment, including encouraging her to record “Here You Come Again.” Their professional relationship eventually developed into a partnership lasting roughly 25 years.

Then came another connection.

Parton launched the Imagination Library in 1995 with a simple mission: put books into the hands of children. Jewish philanthropist Harold Grinspoon saw what Parton had created and was inspired to develop a similar program for Jewish families.

That idea became PJ Library, which today distributes books about Jewish life and tradition to families around the world.

A Christian woman from Tennessee wanted children to read. A Jewish philanthropist saw what she was doing and carried that idea into Jewish homes across the globe.

Genesis 12:3 records God’s promise to Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you.”

Parton possessed the fame and business success to build an enormous personal fortune. Yet some of the most meaningful parts of her legacy are not about what she accumulated. They are about what she gave away.

A meaningful legacy is measured less by what we accumulate than by what we give, whom we bless, and what remains after we are gone.

That lesson reaches beyond Dolly Parton.

Politics will change. Elections will come and go. Today’s most influential personalities will eventually disappear from the headlines. But character, courage, generosity, and faithfulness leave a different kind of legacy.

Christians should be willing to confront antisemitism wherever it appears, examine political leaders consistently, demand truth from the institutions around them, and refuse to let partisan loyalty replace biblical conviction.

And when God gives someone influence, resources, or opportunity, the question is not merely how much can be gained from it.

The better question is what can be given through it.

Watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network for more news and commentary connecting the headlines to the good news through a biblical worldview.