Following the 2026 midterm elections, declining evangelical voter participation raises questions about the Church's influence on American culture. Discover why the Great Commission calls Christians to make disciples, share the Gospel, and engage society with biblical truth.
I think the most fitting response to this week’s election results is found in Jesus’s words in Matthew 28: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
What’s the connection to the election? First, let’s look at the election numbers.
In the 2018 midterms, white evangelicals made up 26% of the vote. On Tuesday, according to NBC, it was 17%. That’s a decline of nine percentage points.
I’m not a big fan of the elastic term “evangelical,” and tracking only white evangelicals leaves about 40% of my church out of the equation. White evangelicals are one slice of a racially diverse community of people who believe the Bible and allow it to inform their views on moral and spiritual issues that have been deemed political.
However, a decline in the share of voters could reflect lower turnout, a decline in the number of evangelicals relative to the population, or both. As for turnout, we won’t have a reliable number on what percentage of evangelicals actually voted. But some suggest it declined, and that’s a problem. When evangelicals sit out an election, they give up an opportunity to shape its outcome.
So how does all this connect to the words of Jesus?
First, Jesus tells us to make disciples. That should prompt us to ask how faithfully we’ve carried out the Great Commission. We need a renewed emphasis on sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, making disciples, and baptizing them. Start with someone you know. Share what Christ has done in your life and invite that person to read Scripture with you.
I’m sure some critics of the church would say, “Focus on evangelism and stay out of politics.” Well, consider the second part of what Jesus said, the Cultural Commission: “Teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” The truth of God and obedience to it is not just a private matter.
Followers of Jesus, equipped and encouraged by pastors, need to share their faith and live it out in a way that impacts the world around them, including government.
My response to the election? Go make disciples for Jesus and teach them to impact the country and the culture with biblical truth.
If you’re looking for a way to put that into practice in your community, visit frc.org/chapters to learn about our Pray Vote Stand chapters.
If you’re discouraged, remember how Jesus began and ended those words. He began by saying that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him. And He ended with a promise for us as we go. “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
The 2026 midterm elections have changed America's political landscape, but they haven't changed God's promises. Read why Christians can move forward in hope, remain grounded in Scripture, pray for leaders, and stay faithful to their calling regardless of election results.
The midterm elections are behind us. Some Americans are encouraged by the results, while others are disappointed, frustrated, or uncertain about what the next few years may bring.
For Christians, however, the most important truth has not changed. Our hope does not come from a politician, a political party, a candidate, or the outcome of an election. Our hope is in Jesus Christ.
Elections can change who holds power. They can affect laws, policies, and the direction of the country. Christians have good reason to pay attention and remain engaged. But no election has the authority to change God’s Word, alter His promises, or remove the assignment He has given His people.
Political movements come and go. Public opinion shifts. Cultural values can change dramatically within a generation. God’s Word remains the same.
That is why Christians need biblical truth deeply rooted within them. When our beliefs depend on the cultural environment around us, an election result can leave us feeling as though everything has changed. When our foundation is Scripture, we can recognize that the most important things have not.
Jesus is still Lord. The Gospel is still true. God is still sovereign. Christians are still called to speak truth, love their neighbors, make disciples, serve others, and live faithfully.
Whatever happened at the ballot box, none of that has changed.
Political disappointment can be real. People invest time, energy, prayer, and concern in issues they believe will affect their families, churches, communities, and country. When the outcome is not what they hoped for, discouragement can follow. But Christians are not called to stay discouraged.
Isaiah 6:8 records the prophet’s response when God asks whom He will send: “Here am I! Send me” (NKJV). That is a useful posture after an election too. Instead of asking only what the government will do next, Christians can ask what God has given us to do next.
That assignment may be large or small. It may involve serving in a church, raising children who know biblical truth, helping a neighbor, speaking up when something is wrong, sharing the Gospel, strengthening a marriage, serving a community, or simply being faithful where God has already placed you.
There is still work to do.
Christians can care about politics without expecting politics to save the country, the culture, or the human heart.
Political leaders can make wise decisions or foolish ones. Governments can protect freedom or restrict it. Policies can have enormous consequences. Those realities are reasons to stay informed and engaged, but they are not reasons to place our ultimate confidence in government.
Psalm 146:3 says, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (NKJV). That warning applies whether your preferred candidates win or lose. A political victory should not produce misplaced confidence, and a political defeat should not produce despair. Our hope was never supposed to rest there.
One of the best responses to an uncertain political future is also one of the simplest: nurture your own walk with Christ.
Spend time in Scripture. Pray. Listen to the Lord. Know what you believe and why you believe it. The more confusing the culture becomes, the more important it is for Christians to be grounded in truth rather than carried along by every new headline or political argument.
That personal relationship with Christ also shapes the way believers engage the world around them. Christians should be known not simply for what they oppose but for the way they represent Jesus through truth, courage, compassion, integrity, and faithfulness.
Philippians 3:20 reminds believers that “our citizenship is in heaven” (NKJV). That does not remove our responsibilities here. It puts them in perspective.
Once an election ends, Christians have another responsibility: pray for the people who have been elected. First Timothy 2:1–2 calls believers to pray for those in authority. Scripture does not limit that command to leaders we supported, leaders from our preferred political party, or leaders who share our faith.
Pray that they will govern wisely. Pray that they will pursue what is right and resist what is wrong. Pray for their decisions, their advisers, their families, and the people affected by their leadership.
And pray for something even greater: that leaders who do not know Christ would come to know Him. A political opponent is not beyond the reach of the Gospel. A leader whose beliefs are far from biblical truth is not beyond God’s ability to change a heart. Christians believe in a God who does what human beings cannot. That should change the way we pray after an election.
No election can give the Church its mission, and no election can take that mission away. Pastors still need to teach the Bible faithfully. Parents still need to disciple their children. Christians still need to share the Gospel, defend truth, care for people in need, support their churches, strengthen their communities, and represent Christ wherever God has placed them.
There is no permission to quit because the political environment becomes difficult. If anything, challenging times make faithful biblical leadership and strong churches even more important.
Real Life Network exists to help believers stay grounded through Bible teaching, trusted news, Christian worldview programming, apologetics, documentaries, and other resources that point people back to truth. The goal is not simply to understand what is happening in the world, but to be equipped to live faithfully within it.
The midterms may have changed the political landscape, but they did not change who sits on the throne.
God was not surprised by the results. Christians therefore do not need to live as though the future has suddenly slipped beyond His control. We can pray for our leaders, stay engaged, stand for truth, and continue doing the work He has placed before us.
Most importantly, we can keep our eyes on Jesus. Political leaders will come and go. Parties will gain and lose power. Another election will arrive before long. But Jesus Christ remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV).
Whatever the political future holds, Christians still have reason to move forward with hope. Our confidence was never supposed to rest in an election result. It rests in the risen Christ, our King and our ultimate hope.
Stay grounded in biblical truth with free Bible teaching, trusted news, current events, and Christian programming on Real Life Network.
As the November elections approach, James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed face scrutiny over their positions on immigration, socialism, Christian values, and Israel. Explore how these political debates could shape America's economy, religious freedom, and national security.
With the November 3 elections approaching, debates over immigration enforcement, economic policy, religious convictions, and America's relationship with Israel are taking center stage in several high-profile races. In Texas and Michigan, Democratic Senate candidates James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed have become focal points of these disagreements, offering competing visions of government that raise broader questions about the country's political direction.
On The Daniel Cohen Show, Cohen used an unusual approach to examine those questions. Drawing inspiration from the classic film It's a Wonderful Life, he imagined a future in November 2027 in which Democrats controlled Congress and pursued their policy priorities.
The imagined future was not a prediction or an account of actual events. It was a rhetorical device designed to explore the possible consequences of proposals already being debated.
At the center of the discussion was a question extending beyond individual candidates: How might today's political decisions reshape the institutions, freedoms, and international commitments Americans have long taken for granted?
In Texas, Talarico has attracted attention for combining progressive economic proposals with religious language. His approach emphasizes economic opportunity, government accountability, and a political vision that he presents as compatible with his Christian convictions.
During remarks featured on Cohen's program, Talarico called for an economy that produces fewer trillionaires and more millionaires. He also expressed support for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and restrictions on their political influence.
Those positions reflect a longstanding disagreement over the relationship between government intervention and economic prosperity.
Supporters of progressive taxation argue that it can help finance public services and address economic inequality. Critics contend that increasing the tax burden on successful businesses and investors can discourage entrepreneurship, reduce private investment, and ultimately limit job creation.
Cohen emphasized the role of business owners in generating employment, arguing that successful entrepreneurs create opportunities extending far beyond their personal wealth.
The disagreement also extends to the judiciary.
Talarico has expressed support for Supreme Court reforms, including binding ethics requirements and term limits for justices. He has also indicated openness to discussing an expansion of the Court.
Such proposals have prompted a national debate about judicial independence. Advocates maintain that reforms could improve accountability and public confidence. Opponents warn that changing the Court's composition for political reasons could undermine its role as an independent branch of government.
But perhaps the most distinctive element of Talarico's public profile is his use of religious language.
In remarks discussed on the program, he described God as love and suggested that Jesus would express particular concern for transgender children experiencing bullying.
For Christians who hold traditional interpretations of Scripture, those statements raise theological questions about the nature of God, biblical authority, and the relationship between compassion and moral teaching.
Cohen challenged Talarico's interpretation, arguing that Christian teaching cannot be separated from Scripture's broader claims about creation, human identity, and morality.
The dispute illustrates a growing divide over who gets to define Christian values in American public life and how those values should inform public policy.
Michigan's Senate race presents another set of policy disagreements.
Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers have offered contrasting approaches to immigration enforcement, health care, and American foreign policy.
El-Sayed has criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggesting that the country could return to an immigration system resembling the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. He has also advocated clearer legal pathways for immigrants seeking to live and work in the United States.
Supporters of immigration reform argue that enforcement agencies need stronger oversight and that legal immigration channels should be more accessible. Critics worry that weakening federal enforcement could create additional challenges for border security and immigration law.
Cohen portrayed El-Sayed's proposals as part of a broader shift away from traditional immigration enforcement. His program also questioned whether the candidate had adequately addressed concerns about the Iranian regime.
One exchange featured an Iranian American Christian student whose family, according to his account, had suffered persecution under Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The student asked El-Sayed to condemn the Iranian government and its treatment of protesters.
Rather than delivering the direct condemnation the student requested in the excerpt presented, El-Sayed responded by discussing America's role in international affairs.
Cohen argued that the response deserved greater scrutiny, particularly given the United States' ongoing security concerns involving Iran.
However, disagreements over foreign policy or the adequacy of a candidate's response do not, by themselves, establish sympathy for terrorism or ties to extremist organizations.
Health care is another major issue in the Michigan contest.
El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, a proposal intended to establish a comprehensive government-financed health insurance system. Supporters argue that universal coverage could reduce household medical expenses and simplify administration. Opponents question the cost, tax implications, and potential restrictions on private insurance.
Cohen focused particularly on whether voters were receiving a clear explanation of the financial trade-offs.
The distinction between lower personal medical bills and higher taxes is central to the debate. A government-financed system could change how Americans pay for health care without necessarily eliminating the underlying cost of providing it.
For voters evaluating competing proposals, understanding those trade-offs is essential.
Beyond domestic policy, Cohen devoted substantial attention to the growing disagreements over Israel within American politics.
His program highlighted a Colorado congressional contest involving progressive candidate Melat Kiros, whose criticism of Israel's military operations and American financial support reflects a broader debate among Democrats.
Kiros described Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide and argued that American taxpayers should not finance the conflict.
The genocide allegation is highly contested, and determining whether military conduct meets the legal definition requires examination of evidence and the applicable international legal standards. Israel disputes the allegation and maintains that its military operations have been directed against Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attacks.
The disagreement extends beyond terminology.
Some progressive politicians have called for restrictions on American military assistance to Israel, arguing that U.S. support should be conditioned on humanitarian protections and compliance with international law.
Others maintain that continued military cooperation is essential to Israel's security, particularly amid threats from Iran and Iranian-backed armed groups.
Cohen approached the issue from a biblical perspective, emphasizing the importance of America's relationship with Israel and citing Genesis 12:3 and Numbers 24:9.
His argument reflected a conviction shared by many Christians that God's promises concerning Israel remain relevant and that the Jewish state's security deserves particular attention.
Not all Christians interpret those passages identically, and there is considerable disagreement over how biblical promises should inform contemporary foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the theological dimension remains significant in American political discussions, especially among evangelical Christians.
The debate over Israel now encompasses more than foreign aid, touching fundamental disagreements about national security, biblical interpretation, and America's responsibilities abroad.
Cohen concluded his imagined journey into 2027 by returning to the choices confronting voters today. His fictional scenarios included expanded government programs, changes to immigration enforcement, judicial restructuring, and reduced American support for Israel.
Those outcomes are not inevitable consequences of any election. They represent one commentator's concerns about the direction of competing policy agendas.
Still, the underlying questions are real. Americans must evaluate what candidates propose, what those proposals would cost, how they would affect constitutional institutions, and whether their foreign policy commitments align with the country's long-term interests.
For Christians, the discussion also invites reflection on the proper relationship between biblical conviction and civic responsibility. Political engagement requires more than reacting to campaign rhetoric. It calls for examining competing claims, understanding the consequences of legislation, and distinguishing theological principles from partisan assumptions.
As election day approaches, voters have an opportunity to consider those questions carefully rather than relying on slogans or imagined futures.
For more reporting and commentary examining politics, faith, and America's relationship with Israel, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
.jpg)
A Virginia pastor is challenging a proposed constitutional amendment protecting same-sex marriage, alleging violations of state procedures. More than 400 pastors have joined efforts to defend biblical teachings on marriage, religious freedom, and the role of faith in public life.
A Virginia pastor is challenging the lawfulness of a proposed state constitutional amendment to codify same-sex marriage and spread gender ideology. The Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC) filed a lawsuit last week in Prince William County Circuit Court on behalf of Pastor Ben Purves of Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, Va.
The Amendment 2 initiative on the ballot in the Cavalier State this November would “(i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law” should the Supreme Court ever overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.
The amendment would repeal the provision of Article I, Section 15-A of the Virginia constitution defining marriage as a “union between one man and one woman,” and would instead say marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness,” explains the FFLC press release.
The legal group explained its reasoning for the lawsuit, stating, “This Complaint does not concern the wisdom or policy merits of the Proposed Amendment. It concerns whether the Proposed Amendment was brought forward to the November 2026 ballot through the process that the Constitution of Virginia requires. It was not. The Proposed Amendment reached the ballot through a process that departed from the mandatory requirements of Article XII, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia through Virginia Code § 30-13.”
It continues, “Virginia Code § 30-13 requires the Clerk of the House of Delegates to have published and distributed copies of a proposed amendment to the clerks of Virginia’s circuit courts, and requires each circuit court clerk to post a copy ‘at the front door of the courthouse’ and make a second copy ‘available for public inspection,’ no later than three months before the intervening general election of members of the House of Delegates. These steps exist to inform the voters before the pivotal House of Delegates election. They were not performed before the November 4, 2025 general election by the Clerk of the House of Delegates or the Circuit Court Clerk or any other Virginia circuit court.”
The complaint asserts that even if the amendment is favored by most voters, it should be considered invalid.
Purves, the plaintiff on the Complaint, told The Washington Stand that it is the responsibility of a pastor to proclaim biblical truth when it comes to every issue, even the polarizing ones.
“It’s my hope that pastors will become more bold in proclaiming the gospel and the truth of God’s word, and not letting it be restricted to the church building or to church members’ homes. We really need to amplify truth in the public square, and if we do not, we will find it increasingly anti-Christian,” Purves asserted.
“Pastors — the shepherds — are called to care for their sheep,” he added. “That means giving their sheep the food of God’s word, and not just some of it, but all of it. And so, when churches are setting aside parts of Scripture and not teaching those parts, and not willing to proclaim those parts of Scripture to the world, they are failing in their duty as shepherds. And when pastors do not stand to protect their flock from wolves that will prey on their church and on the vulnerable in their community, they are failing in their pastoral duty.”
Over 400 pastors have signed a letter Purves helped orchestrate asking Virginians to vote no on Amendment 2, as well as an additional amendment to codify abortion in the Constitution of Virginia. The Pastors of Virginia group is also asking Virginia voters to participate in a day or prayer and fasting for the state on November 3.
“We call upon every voter to oppose these amendments to protect pre-born children, to defend the institution of marriage, and to stand against the destruction of transgender ideology. God created mankind as male and female as a part of God’s good and perfect creation (Gen 1:27). God creates life in the womb, and every child is a blessing (Ps 127, 139). God created the institution of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman which is to be a portrait of Christ’s love for the church (Eph 5:32). Instead of defacing marriage, we must honor it (Heb 13:4),” the group stated.
Any pastor in the state who affirms the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation is eligible to sign the Open Letter from Virginia Pastors to the Commonwealth until voting closes after Election Day.
“To voters who are discouraged and maybe thinking of not voting — you should not lose heart,” Purves implored. “We’re called to be faithful, and we need to stand for truth, even when and if we are a minority. If we only stand for truth and we’re a majority, what does this say about us? So, it’s important for us to do the right thing and vote for the sake of truth.”
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Violent protests spread from France across Europe, raising concerns about economic instability, radical political movements, immigration, and declining Christian influence. Explore what Europe's unrest could reveal about the future of Western nations.
The riots that were supposedly about French school funding have fanned out across Europe, briefly even surrounding the Colosseum in Rome on Saturday. While more than 1,300 were arrested on Emmanuel Macron’s fiery streets, Greece, Albania, Italy, Belgium, and Spain are racing to contain their own pro-Palestine agitators, dispelling any doubts about the real roots of this unrest. “You might think that Saturday’s chaos was orchestrated by the same students who started the protests,” The Free Press’s Nora Bussigny warns. “But you would be wrong.”
While the frustration over the French education system is real enough, the storyline has been a convenient one for anti-republic factions to hijack, Bussigny insists. After spending more than a year undercover in the country’s anti-Israel movement, she knows the players well. “The convergence of radical leftists with political Islamists, brought together by their shared opposition to Western values and institutions — has become increasingly difficult to ignore, rearing its head from England to Germany to college campuses across the U.S. In other words, what we are seeing in France is only a symptom of a much larger problem.”
By Friday, the city of Paris was bracing for a second wave of terror that had looted and burned its way through iconic landmarks and beautiful old cobblestone streets. Troops stood guard under the Arc de Triomphe, while shops boarded their windows and doors. One local contractor told the AP that people were frantically reaching out for help in protecting their businesses. “I got the call last night,” he said, nodding at the optician’s office where he was working. “The owner seemed desperate. He said I was saving his life.”
Turns out, local merchants weren’t overreacting. On Saturday alone, the country responded to over 75 fires and at least two dozen store break-ins and robberies. David Bahnsen, founder and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group, believes that “behind the unrest is a much deeper economic problem.” He pointed to France’s catastrophic financial situation, noting that “government spending accounts for more than half of France’s economic output, while the country’s national debt is approaching 120% of their gross domestic product.” The irony, the economist told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” is that despite shoveling billions of dollars into social programs, “many French citizens believe they’re getting less in return, and they don’t want government cuts.”
Unfortunately, that’s why socialist governments continue to be a failed experiment. They can’t afford what they promise to provide, and ultimately, the economy collapses under the weight of trying. France is an especially dramatic snapshot, Bahnsen notes, because the debts they’ve racked up can’t be paid, and the only solution — cutting back — is one the people won’t accept.
“That’s a huge problem. And that’s what most people focus on.” But it also crowds out the private sector and future growth, he notes. “Every dollar spent covering government programs is a dollar that can’t go into the productive side of the economy. France made a conscious decision to have a very large social safety net, very large social programs. … But the politicians were doing what the people asked for. [They] said, ‘Give us earlier retirement. Give us pensions you can’t afford.’ And then they complain that the chickens come home to roost.”
Now, outraged by inflation and the cost of living, the French resent the government they’ve chosen. And ironically, this is where the schools did not fail the country’s extreme elements. They may be short-staffed and underfunded, but they’ve still managed to turn out far-left ideologues with “an ultra-progressive ideology of extreme egalitarianism, anti-capitalism, and cultural hostility to France and its historical institutions and identity. That might almost be a blend of European socialism and American woke-ism,” NRO’s John Sullivan observes.
“There are no justifications for this upsurge of violent rebellion, of course — merely angry grievances by groups of discontented people, mainly young, many from immigrant backgrounds (even if born in France),” Sullivan notes, “all persuaded that they are either oppressed or uniquely sensitive to the plight of the oppressed.” Which, many argue, is how it was so easily commandeered by Gaza sympathizers and Muslim opportunists. “[T]he Palestinian banner has become the equivalent of the North Vietnamese flag in the 1970s,” Rich Lowry points out, “a symbol of resistance to the West, and in this case, fierce opposition to Zionism and so-called settler-colonialism.”
As angry as Macron was at President Trump’s suggestion that France’s open-borders policy was ruining the country, the American leader isn’t wrong. “I told Macron, when I first came in, I met him early. I said, ‘You are destroying France. You’re letting people come in that hate your country.’”
Vice President J.D. Vance agreed. “Western liberals imported the third world into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion. They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility,” he posted on X. “They were told it would lead to this and they didn’t listen. I pray that France, a beautiful country of amazing people, will stop this madness before more of its landmarks burn. And I hope Americans are paying attention. This is the future congressional Democrats seek for your country.”
Some French leaders are brave enough to stand against the tide threatening to drag the nation under. Mayor of Nice Éric Ciotti was blunt in his assessment that “Islamo-leftism threatens the Republic. The massive presence of Palestinian flags and community slogans is a terrible reality in these demonstrations, just like the presence of movements close to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
While the rest of the West watches, Americans have plenty of cause for self-reflection. The warning signs are here, as DSA candidates and radical Muslims unite to battle for a foothold in U.S. politics. And while there are similarities between France and America, Bahnsen was careful not to compare the two countries. “I don’t want to diminish the risk going on. And I also don’t want to overstate it. … [But] as a national reality, America has a long way to go until we actually embrace the socialist impulse. And that’s a good thing.” He paused before adding, “But the problem is it moves marginally. It moves incrementally. And that’s what I think we have to resist.”
As troubling as the spiritual markers have been in the U.S., Europe is decades ahead of us in secularism, the economist stresses. “It’s a perfect inverse correlation there: decline of faith has coincided with an embrace of more state. The government [becomes] a sort of Messiah. And of course, we see it here in the States as well — not quite to the same degree, but Europe has proven to be a long-term test case of how a society that abandons Christian principles embraces more statist principles. … It’s not good.”
This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
America’s drug crisis threatens families and communities. Discover why parents, churches, and communities must respond with awareness, honest conversations, prayer, and hope.
Adapted from my conversation on Rose Unplugged with Derek Maltz, former Acting Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Watch the full episode here: Is China Waging Chemical Warfare on America?
There is something coming for your family. Whether you live in a city or a suburb. Whether your kids are in middle school or college. Whether you think this is someone else's problem — or you've already lived it.
It is the drug crisis pouring across our border. Not one drug. Not one cartel. Not one route. A flood. And it is changing — and ending — American lives every single day.
I want to be clear about something from the start, because the news often focuses on one drug at a time, and that gives us a false sense of the scale of what we're facing.
Yes — fentanyl is the headline. And it should be. It’s the deadliest drug ever to hit this country. It’s synthetic, lab-made, and lethal at just two milligrams — the weight of a few grains of salt.
It's driving the majority of overdose deaths in America. At the peak of this crisis, we were losing more than 70,000 people a year to fentanyl alone. That’s nearly 200 lives every single day.
But fentanyl isn’t coming alone. Methamphetamine, cartel-produced, and ultra-potent, is flooding communities from coast to coast. It's not the meth of 20 years ago. It's cheaper, stronger, and more widely available than ever.
Cocaine trafficking remains massive and increasingly, it's being laced with fentanyl without the user's knowledge.
And now there are emerging threats most Americans have never even heard of: xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer mixed with fentanyl that Narcan can't fully reverse, and nitazenes, a synthetic opioids so powerful they make fentanyl look mild by comparison.
This is not a single-drug crisis. This is a chemical assault on the American people. And it is being orchestrated deliberately by foreign adversaries and transnational criminal networks that don't care how many of us they kill.
Even with a decline of nearly 24% in overdose deaths — and yes, we should acknowledge that progress — we are still talking about roughly 87,000 overdose deaths in a single year. That’s not a statistic. That’s a national emergency.
Drug overdoses remain one of the leading causes of death for American adults. And for every death, there are dozens more lives derailed; families broken, futures stolen, and communities hollowed out.
So where is all of this coming from? Because this is where truth gets complicated and where the political noise gets loudest.
Here is what the evidence shows: The precursor chemicals, the building blocks, are largely manufactured in China. They are shipped to Mexican drug cartels. The cartels synthesize, press, and package the drugs. And then they move them north into the United States.
Now, here is the part that gets lost: the vast majority of these drugs are not being carried across open desert by migrants on foot. They are being driven through legal ports of entry. In passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, and in cargo shipments often by U.S. citizens.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized over 19,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2024 alone. And fentanyl now makes up nearly 90% of all opioid seizures at the border.
Which means this is not just a border wall conversation. It is a technology conversation. An intelligence conversation. A cartel conversation. And a China conversation — because none of this happens without China supplying the chemicals.
This is not just about policy. When a nation loses its sense of purpose, when truth becomes relative, and when emptiness fills the space where meaning used to live, people look for escape.
And what is crossing our border right now is not just a drug. It is a counterfeit answer to a real spiritual hunger. One that ends in destruction.
We need stronger enforcement. Absolutely. We need to go after the cartels and hold China accountable. Without question. But we also need something no government can legislate. We need restored families. Engaged parents. Communities that are awake. And young people who know their worth — not from culture, but from their Creator.
Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Xylazine, Cartels, all weapons of destruction. But the scale of this, the sophistication of the networks, the multiple poisons being unleashed on our families — all of it confirms something I believe with everything in me.
This is not just a policy fight. This isn't just a border fight. This is a spiritual battle. And we need to start treating it that way.
In 1 Peter 5:8 we are told:
Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8, NASB)
Think about that word — devour. Not inconvenience. Not discourage. Devour.
And “be of sober spirit” — not just physically, but clear-minded, alert, and aware. Because the danger isn't always obvious. It doesn't announce itself.
It comes as a pill that looks like medicine. As meth that looks manageable. As cocaine that looks like recreation. As something a friend hands you and says — it's fine.
But Scripture also tells us in John 10:10:
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. (John 10:10, NASB)
Steal innocence, and kill potential. Our families or being destroyed. And if we are honest, with every drug coming across that border, that is exactly what we are watching play out.
Ephesians 6:12 tells us:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12, NASB)
Which means this: if we only fight this battle at the surface level and if we only debate policy and argue about which party deserves the credit or the blame, we will always be reacting. And reacting is not the same as overcoming.
Yes, we need stronger enforcement across every drug, every route, every cartel. Yes, we need to hold China accountable for the chemical warfare they are enabling. Yes, we need the technology and the intelligence to stay ahead of networks that never sleep.
But we also need something that no legislation can provide. We need discernment. We need truth spoken in our homes, in our churches, and our schools. We need families and communities that are not just alarmed but awake. We need to fight a spiritual battle on our knees. Collectively.
I want to speak directly to young people for a moment. I don't care what it was called. I don't care how it was offered or who gave it to you. What's being disguised as relief, escape, or just a good time has a body count.
And I want you to know — really know — that your life has value. Not because of what the culture tells you. Not because of what shows up on your screen. But because you were created on purpose, for a purpose.
And there is nothing, no substance, no moment, no amount of pressure from anyone worth trading that for.
To every parent reading this: the time to lean in is now. Not when you find something. Not when the call comes. Now.
Talk to your kids about all of it — not just fentanyl. Talk about the counterfeit pills made to look like medicine. The meth that doesn't look like meth anymore. The pill some other kid promises will help them get through an exam. The powder hidden in something they never even knew to question.
Not out of fear, but out of love. Because silence is not protection anymore. Awareness is.
Romans 12:21 tells us:
Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21, NASB)
That’s not wishful thinking. That is not passive. That is a call to action.
Darkness may be real. The threat may be sophisticated. The enemy may be relentless. But darkness does not win.
Not when truth is spoken. Not when families are engaged. Not when communities stand up and say — not here. Not our children. Not on our watch.
So yes, this is about drugs, fentanyl, meth, and the poisons being trafficked across our border. It’s also about cartels and chemicals and a fight that is far from over.
For More Information check out my guest’s website; Lost Voices of Fentanyl https://lvof.org
I think the most fitting response to this week’s election results is found in Jesus’s words in Matthew 28: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
What’s the connection to the election? First, let’s look at the election numbers.
In the 2018 midterms, white evangelicals made up 26% of the vote. On Tuesday, according to NBC, it was 17%. That’s a decline of nine percentage points.
I’m not a big fan of the elastic term “evangelical,” and tracking only white evangelicals leaves about 40% of my church out of the equation. White evangelicals are one slice of a racially diverse community of people who believe the Bible and allow it to inform their views on moral and spiritual issues that have been deemed political.
However, a decline in the share of voters could reflect lower turnout, a decline in the number of evangelicals relative to the population, or both. As for turnout, we won’t have a reliable number on what percentage of evangelicals actually voted. But some suggest it declined, and that’s a problem. When evangelicals sit out an election, they give up an opportunity to shape its outcome.
So how does all this connect to the words of Jesus?
First, Jesus tells us to make disciples. That should prompt us to ask how faithfully we’ve carried out the Great Commission. We need a renewed emphasis on sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, making disciples, and baptizing them. Start with someone you know. Share what Christ has done in your life and invite that person to read Scripture with you.
I’m sure some critics of the church would say, “Focus on evangelism and stay out of politics.” Well, consider the second part of what Jesus said, the Cultural Commission: “Teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” The truth of God and obedience to it is not just a private matter.
Followers of Jesus, equipped and encouraged by pastors, need to share their faith and live it out in a way that impacts the world around them, including government.
My response to the election? Go make disciples for Jesus and teach them to impact the country and the culture with biblical truth.
If you’re looking for a way to put that into practice in your community, visit frc.org/chapters to learn about our Pray Vote Stand chapters.
If you’re discouraged, remember how Jesus began and ended those words. He began by saying that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him. And He ended with a promise for us as we go. “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
The midterm elections are behind us. Some Americans are encouraged by the results, while others are disappointed, frustrated, or uncertain about what the next few years may bring.
For Christians, however, the most important truth has not changed. Our hope does not come from a politician, a political party, a candidate, or the outcome of an election. Our hope is in Jesus Christ.
Elections can change who holds power. They can affect laws, policies, and the direction of the country. Christians have good reason to pay attention and remain engaged. But no election has the authority to change God’s Word, alter His promises, or remove the assignment He has given His people.
Political movements come and go. Public opinion shifts. Cultural values can change dramatically within a generation. God’s Word remains the same.
That is why Christians need biblical truth deeply rooted within them. When our beliefs depend on the cultural environment around us, an election result can leave us feeling as though everything has changed. When our foundation is Scripture, we can recognize that the most important things have not.
Jesus is still Lord. The Gospel is still true. God is still sovereign. Christians are still called to speak truth, love their neighbors, make disciples, serve others, and live faithfully.
Whatever happened at the ballot box, none of that has changed.
Political disappointment can be real. People invest time, energy, prayer, and concern in issues they believe will affect their families, churches, communities, and country. When the outcome is not what they hoped for, discouragement can follow. But Christians are not called to stay discouraged.
Isaiah 6:8 records the prophet’s response when God asks whom He will send: “Here am I! Send me” (NKJV). That is a useful posture after an election too. Instead of asking only what the government will do next, Christians can ask what God has given us to do next.
That assignment may be large or small. It may involve serving in a church, raising children who know biblical truth, helping a neighbor, speaking up when something is wrong, sharing the Gospel, strengthening a marriage, serving a community, or simply being faithful where God has already placed you.
There is still work to do.
Christians can care about politics without expecting politics to save the country, the culture, or the human heart.
Political leaders can make wise decisions or foolish ones. Governments can protect freedom or restrict it. Policies can have enormous consequences. Those realities are reasons to stay informed and engaged, but they are not reasons to place our ultimate confidence in government.
Psalm 146:3 says, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (NKJV). That warning applies whether your preferred candidates win or lose. A political victory should not produce misplaced confidence, and a political defeat should not produce despair. Our hope was never supposed to rest there.
One of the best responses to an uncertain political future is also one of the simplest: nurture your own walk with Christ.
Spend time in Scripture. Pray. Listen to the Lord. Know what you believe and why you believe it. The more confusing the culture becomes, the more important it is for Christians to be grounded in truth rather than carried along by every new headline or political argument.
That personal relationship with Christ also shapes the way believers engage the world around them. Christians should be known not simply for what they oppose but for the way they represent Jesus through truth, courage, compassion, integrity, and faithfulness.
Philippians 3:20 reminds believers that “our citizenship is in heaven” (NKJV). That does not remove our responsibilities here. It puts them in perspective.
Once an election ends, Christians have another responsibility: pray for the people who have been elected. First Timothy 2:1–2 calls believers to pray for those in authority. Scripture does not limit that command to leaders we supported, leaders from our preferred political party, or leaders who share our faith.
Pray that they will govern wisely. Pray that they will pursue what is right and resist what is wrong. Pray for their decisions, their advisers, their families, and the people affected by their leadership.
And pray for something even greater: that leaders who do not know Christ would come to know Him. A political opponent is not beyond the reach of the Gospel. A leader whose beliefs are far from biblical truth is not beyond God’s ability to change a heart. Christians believe in a God who does what human beings cannot. That should change the way we pray after an election.
No election can give the Church its mission, and no election can take that mission away. Pastors still need to teach the Bible faithfully. Parents still need to disciple their children. Christians still need to share the Gospel, defend truth, care for people in need, support their churches, strengthen their communities, and represent Christ wherever God has placed them.
There is no permission to quit because the political environment becomes difficult. If anything, challenging times make faithful biblical leadership and strong churches even more important.
Real Life Network exists to help believers stay grounded through Bible teaching, trusted news, Christian worldview programming, apologetics, documentaries, and other resources that point people back to truth. The goal is not simply to understand what is happening in the world, but to be equipped to live faithfully within it.
The midterms may have changed the political landscape, but they did not change who sits on the throne.
God was not surprised by the results. Christians therefore do not need to live as though the future has suddenly slipped beyond His control. We can pray for our leaders, stay engaged, stand for truth, and continue doing the work He has placed before us.
Most importantly, we can keep our eyes on Jesus. Political leaders will come and go. Parties will gain and lose power. Another election will arrive before long. But Jesus Christ remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV).
Whatever the political future holds, Christians still have reason to move forward with hope. Our confidence was never supposed to rest in an election result. It rests in the risen Christ, our King and our ultimate hope.
Stay grounded in biblical truth with free Bible teaching, trusted news, current events, and Christian programming on Real Life Network.
“I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men.” Thus Benjamin Franklin exhorted the Constitutional Convention to prayer on June 28, 1787. Franklin was no born-again Christian, but even this man of the Enlightenment could recognize from experience the truth that Scripture proclaims from every page. In a chaotic election season, let Christians cling to this truth, lest an unbeliever show more faith in God’s power than we do.
The book of Daniel bears particular relevance to the current situation. It opens with God’s people in Judah sustaining a devastating political defeat. King Jehoiachin surrendered to the besieging Babylonian army, and Judah’s best and brightest were taken away into slavery and exile (2 Kings 24:10-16; Daniel 1:1-3).
Some exiles hoped for speedy deliverance, but soon Jeremiah wrote to inform the exiles that they would remain in Babylon for 70 years, “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. … seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Such a devastating message met with skepticism and doubt. “Really, God? Your people should seek the welfare of their enemies? You have placed us as an oppressed minority in a nation that defies your word! Worse yet, they ridicule your name when they gloat in triumph over us!”
The book of Daniel counters both the doubt of Israel and the gloating of their captors by showing beyond any doubt that the God of Israel is the sovereign ruler of history, and no one can thwart his purposes. The book proves its case with three arguments: God knows the future, God humbles the pride of human rulers, and God saves his people.
First, God knows the future. The book of Daniel is known for its apocalyptic visions, especially its detailed predictions of history through the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek empires (Daniel 8-11), and the strange, fourth beast in Daniel 7. This beast “shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time” (Daniel 7:25).
Why would God allow such a blasphemous ruler to “wear out the saints”? As Abraham Lincoln would say, “The Almighty has His own purposes.”
What we can know is the reason why God foretold these events to a prophet: so that God’s people would not become discouraged by bleak circumstances. After the beast rules, Daniel is told, “the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end” (Daniel 7:26). “But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever” (Daniel 7:18). Sinful human governments have their moment, but God and his people will triumph forever.
In fact, God’s plan for the future is so secure that he can “call his shots” ahead of time, alerting hostile rulers to his future plans, as if daring them to stop him. Thus, God gave King Nebuchadnezzar a vision of “what will be in the latter days” (Daniel 2:28), which none of his advisors could interpret. Daniel interpreted the statue of different metals as different kingdoms of dwindling glory, going all the way down until the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed,” which “shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44).
Nebuchadnezzar admitted that Daniel’s God was “God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries” (Daniel 2:47), but then he turned around and built an image of solid gold (Daniel 3:1), as if defying the vision. But Nebuchadnezzar died, and his empire perished. And God has built a kingdom under the lordship of Jesus Christ that will never pass away.
It’s almost impossible to imagine such a revelation injected into American discourse today. Suppose that someone claimed: America will fall, China will fall, Russia will fall; the mightiest powers will all pass away, but the church of Jesus Christ will reign triumphant. Now suppose that God mystically revealed this to the most anti-Christian officials of our day, as if daring them: go ahead; try and stop me. Our God is the only one who “changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding” (Daniel 2:21).
Second, God humbles the pride of human rulers. As if the previous revelations were not enough, God gave Nebuchadnezzar another vision with a more personal warning: he would suffer seven years of madness and live like an animal (Daniel 4:13-16).
When Daniel provided the interpretation yet again, he exhorted his master, “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:27). But Nebuchadnezzar did not heed the warning, and so the judgment came just as God had foretold — God was once again “calling his shots” (Daniel 4:31).
Nebuchadnezzar’s sanity only returned when he “blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever.” The king finally realized that “his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’ … All his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble” (Daniel 4:34-37).
God taught a similar but more severe lesson to Nebuchadnezzar’s son (or grandson) Belshazzar. Despite knowing the history of chapter 4, Belshazzar drunkenly mocked the God of Israel (Daniel 5:2), a disembodied hand wrote a message of doom on the palace wall (Daniel 5:5), and the king was killed that very night (Daniel 5:30). God is still undefeated in every contest against a king who challenged him.
Third, God saves his people. Even when his people are up against the wall — nay, especially then — God loves to demonstrate his saving power. When Daniel’s three friends refuse to worship the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar, they survive a trip through the fiery furnace that scorched their captors without so much as the smell of smoke (Daniel 3:26-27). How is that possible? Only with God. When Daniel disobeyed an edict to pray to God, he survived a night in a den of hungry lions without so much as a scratch (Daniel 6:22).
Again, this is only possible through divine intervention. And it prompted King Darius to decree that “people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end” (Daniel 6:26).
This suggests an application still relevant for American Christians today. Instead of fretting over election results, let us resolve to keep following God. Love of neighbor should incite us to vote; but after we have done our duty, we can safely put the results in God’s hands. If the results turn out differently than we would wish, we can take comfort in the fact that God knows the future, that he can humble the pride of rulers, and that he can deliver us, too — both now and hereafter.
Daniel learned this as soon as he arrived in Babylon. Instead of succumbing to the enticement of Babylonian pleasures, he “resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank” (Daniel 1:8). His faithfulness to God’s word was put to the test, and he came out so much healthier than his peers that his boss ordered everyone else to follow Daniel’s lifestyle (Daniel 1:15).
God also delivers his servants in the final judgment. When “those who sleep in the dust” awake to everlasting life or everlasting contempt, “your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. … And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:1-3).
We can hope confidently in this because we worship the risen Son of Man, who came and proclaimed a kingdom. As Daniel saw, “to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14). Compared to such eternal dominion, what is a single election?
This article was written by Joshua Arnold and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Election Day 2026 is here.
Across the country, Americans are making decisions that will help determine the direction of Congress, state governments, local communities, and public policy for the years ahead. Tonight, attention will turn from campaigns and predictions to 2026 election results as vote totals begin coming in from races nationwide.
But Election Night is about more than watching numbers change on a screen.
The results will reflect months of debate over the economy, immigration, healthcare, education, public safety, abortion, foreign policy, religious liberty, government spending, and other issues that matter deeply to American families and communities.
That makes tonight an important time not only to follow who wins, but to understand what the results mean.
Real Life Network will be covering the evening live with America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live, bringing viewers election results, updates, conversation, and biblical perspective as the national picture develops.
The November 3 election marks the culmination of the 2026 midterm campaign.
There is no presidential election this year, but the results will shape the U.S. House and Senate while also determining governors, state lawmakers, local officials, and ballot measures around the country.
Some of the most closely followed races will have national consequences. Others may never become national headlines but will significantly affect the states and communities where they are being decided.
Throughout the day, campaigns will make their final appeals and news organizations will continue covering developments from around the country. Once results begin arriving tonight, the focus will shift quickly toward which races can be called, which remain uncertain, and what the emerging results may mean for the political landscape.
Election results tell us who received the votes.
Understanding an election requires going further.
As returns come in tonight, pay attention to the issues that shaped individual races. A congressional contest may turn heavily on economic concerns. A governor’s race may center on education, taxes, public safety, or state policy. Ballot measures may reveal how voters in a particular state or community view questions that have also been debated nationally. Those differences are important.
A national map can show which party gained or lost seats, but it cannot fully explain why voters in different parts of the country made the choices they did.
That is why useful live election coverage should provide context alongside results.
Election Night moves quickly, but not every race will produce an immediate answer.
Early vote totals can change considerably as additional results are reported. Different jurisdictions report at different speeds, and the first results available may come from areas that vote differently from those reporting later.
Reputable news organizations therefore do not simply declare whoever is ahead at a particular moment the winner.
The Associated Press, for example, says it calls a race only when its analysts determine that the trailing candidate no longer has a path to victory. Many winners can be identified on Election Night, while particularly close contests may take longer.
That means phrases such as “too early to call” are an important part of responsible election reporting.
Tonight, some races may be decided quickly. Others may remain unresolved long after the evening’s coverage ends.
The campaigns may be ending, but the policy debates will continue long after November 3.
Throughout the 2026 election season, Americans have heard competing arguments about affordability and the economy, immigration and border security, healthcare, education, abortion, public safety, foreign affairs, government spending, technology, and other issues.
Election results can help reveal how those debates played out in particular races and communities.
But a winning candidate does not necessarily mean every voter agreed with every position that candidate held. Elections involve candidates, parties, personalities, local conditions, economic concerns, and many other factors.
For that reason, be cautious about sweeping conclusions drawn from a single race or even one Election Night.
Understanding what voters decided is one question. Understanding why is often much more complicated.
Election nights generate an enormous amount of information.
Results flash across screens. Maps change. Analysts discuss trends. Candidates speak. Social media fills with reactions before many races have even been settled.
Having a reliable place to follow those developments matters.
Real Life Network approaches news and current events through a biblical worldview, helping viewers consider not simply what happened but why the issues behind the headlines matter.
Throughout the year, programs such as RLN News, The Daniel Cohen Show, Rose Unplugged, Cure America, and other RLN programming examine events affecting faith, culture, public life, and the nation.
Tonight, America Speaks ’26 brings that approach directly to Election Night.
Christians have good reason to care about elections.
Government decisions affect families, churches, businesses, schools, communities, religious freedom, public safety, and the lives of our neighbors. But Election Night can also tempt people to treat political victory or defeat as something larger than it is.
No election determines the truth of the Gospel. No political party replaces the Church. No candidate can carry the hope Christians place in Jesus Christ.
That does not make politics unimportant. It puts politics in perspective. Romans 13:1 reminds believers that governing authority ultimately exists under God’s sovereignty. First Timothy 2:1–2 also calls Christians to pray for those in authority. Those responsibilities continue regardless of tonight’s results.
Christians can follow Election Night closely, care deeply about its consequences, celebrate outcomes they support, feel disappointed by others, and still remember that their ultimate allegiance and hope rest somewhere higher than politics.
Tonight, Real Life Network presents America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live, beginning at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT.
Pastor Jack Hibbs, Daniel Cohen, and other Real Life Network voices will follow major races across the country with live election results, updates, commentary, conversation, and biblical perspective as the evening unfolds.
The coverage is free to watch with a Real Life Network account and is available online or through the RLN app on supported devices.
Election Day is here. The campaigning is ending, the results are beginning, and the country will soon have a clearer picture of what comes next.
Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates and join Real Life Network tonight for live Election Night coverage—news you can trust from a biblical worldview.
.webp)
Tomorrow, Americans will once again go to the polls.
Campaigns will end. Ballots will be cast. Representatives will be chosen. And for all the attention elections receive, Election Day also offers an opportunity to remember something bigger than any one race or candidate: the extraordinary responsibility of self-government.
That idea didn’t suddenly appear in 1776. Long before there was a United States of America, people on these shores were wrestling with questions of government, liberty, faith, responsibility, and how a community could order itself for the common good.
Those questions are woven throughout The American Story, the first Real Life Network Original documentary featuring Pastor Jack Hibbs and historian Tim Barton.
In 1620, before the Pilgrims even stepped onto the shores of Plymouth, the men aboard the Mayflower entered into an agreement that became known as the Mayflower Compact. They covenanted together to form what they called a “civil Body Politick” and to establish “just and equal Laws” for the good of the colony.
It was a small beginning. This was not yet the United States, nor was the Compact a blueprint for the Constitution that would come more than a century and a half later. But it reflected an idea that would become deeply important in the American story: people joining together, accepting responsibilities as members of a community, and participating in their own government.
The American Story returns to Plymouth to explore the Pilgrims, their faith, the hardships they endured, and the principles they hoped to pass on to future generations.
As the colonies grew, so did the debate over another principle that would become central to the nation: religious liberty.
In Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights, the section on religion declared that faith could be directed only by “reason and conviction, not by force or violence” and called for people to be free to exercise religion according to conscience.
A decade later, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom declared that no person should be compelled to support a particular religious ministry or suffer because of his religious beliefs.
These were significant ideas in an age when governments had often dictated religious practice.
Religious liberty was not conceived merely as permission to worship privately. The founding generation wrestled seriously with the relationship between faith, conscience, citizenship, and government. Those conversations helped shape the freedoms Americans continue to exercise today.
America’s first president also understood that a free form of government placed responsibilities on the people entrusted with it. In his first inaugural address, George Washington spoke of the relationship between duty, morality, public prosperity, and the preservation of liberty. He described the future of republican government as an experiment entrusted to the American people.
That phrase is worth considering: entrusted to the American people.
Self-government assumes participation. It asks citizens to pay attention, seek wisdom, understand the issues before them, choose representatives, and accept responsibility for the direction of their communities and country.
Voting is one expression of that responsibility, but citizenship does not begin or end at the ballot box. It includes:
That is one reason The American Story arrives at such an interesting moment.
Tim Barton takes viewers to Plymouth, Boston, Lexington, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Valley Forge, and other historic locations to examine the people and convictions behind events many of us have known about since childhood.
Pastor Jack Hibbs then brings those stories into the present, challenging Christians to consider what faithfulness, courage, and responsible citizenship look like in our own generation.
The film doesn’t merely ask us to admire the past. It asks us to remember it. Because before America chooses its next representatives, there is value in remembering the principles, sacrifices, and responsibilities that made representative government possible in the first place.
On Election Day, Americans will make many different choices at the ballot box. But whatever those choices may be, we share an inheritance worth understanding and a responsibility to steward the freedoms we have received.
Before America votes, remember where we began.
Learn more about The American Story and pre-order your copy today.
A Pew Research Center survey released earlier this year found that 66% of Americans believe churches and other houses of worship should stay out of political matters rather than address day-to-day social and political questions. Does that mean a pastor should avoid any subject politicians happen to debate?
Consider abortion, marriage, human sexuality, immigration, and justice. These are not merely political issues that divide the parties. They are moral and spiritual issues which Scripture addresses. If pastors were to cut every biblical passage that becomes controversial in Washington, our Bibles would look like Swiss cheese.
Perhaps the deeper question is whether we understand how frequently God’s people were called to bring God’s truth to bear on matters of civil government.
In a 2019 Pew survey of biblical knowledge, 79% correctly identified Moses, 78% David, 69% Abraham, but only 28% Esther.
Pew didn’t ask what those four had in common. Besides being Hebrews, each had a consequential encounter with political power.
Moses stood before Pharaoh and demanded freedom for God’s people. David became Israel’s model king. Abraham dealt with kings and rulers. Esther risked her life by approaching the Persian king to save her people from destruction.
And the list hardly ends there.
Joseph rose to authority in Egypt. Nehemiah served a Persian king before becoming governor of Judah. Prophets such as Nathan, Elijah, and Jeremiah confronted rulers when their actions violated God’s commands.
Then there was Daniel.
Daniel served under pagan kings in Babylon and, later, under Persian rule. Yet his proximity to power never silenced his allegiance to God. When King Belshazzar offered him rewards, Daniel refused them and delivered a message the king did not want to hear: God had weighed his kingdom and found it wanting.
Daniel understood something the church must rediscover: God’s people cannot remain silent on matters God has clearly addressed simply because those matters have been declared political.
This pattern continues in the New Testament. John the Baptist confronted Herod over his marriage. Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen and testified before governors and a king. Their witness did not stop at the palace gates.
Certainly, ancient Israel and Rome were not modern America, and Scripture does not offer a party platform or a position on every legislative detail. But it does establish moral truths that apply to nations, to their rulers and citizens alike.
Jesus called His followers the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Neither image suggests withdrawal. Both describe engagement that makes a difference.
So the issue is not whether the church should become political. It is whether Christians will remain biblical when biblical truth has political consequences.
Our calling is neither to become the mouthpiece of a party nor to retreat into silence. It is to stand on God’s word, defend what is right, confront what is wrong, and speak with courage — even when the culture would rather we remain silent.
This article was orginally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
With the November 3 elections approaching, debates over immigration enforcement, economic policy, religious convictions, and America's relationship with Israel are taking center stage in several high-profile races. In Texas and Michigan, Democratic Senate candidates James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed have become focal points of these disagreements, offering competing visions of government that raise broader questions about the country's political direction.
On The Daniel Cohen Show, Cohen used an unusual approach to examine those questions. Drawing inspiration from the classic film It's a Wonderful Life, he imagined a future in November 2027 in which Democrats controlled Congress and pursued their policy priorities.
The imagined future was not a prediction or an account of actual events. It was a rhetorical device designed to explore the possible consequences of proposals already being debated.
At the center of the discussion was a question extending beyond individual candidates: How might today's political decisions reshape the institutions, freedoms, and international commitments Americans have long taken for granted?
In Texas, Talarico has attracted attention for combining progressive economic proposals with religious language. His approach emphasizes economic opportunity, government accountability, and a political vision that he presents as compatible with his Christian convictions.
During remarks featured on Cohen's program, Talarico called for an economy that produces fewer trillionaires and more millionaires. He also expressed support for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and restrictions on their political influence.
Those positions reflect a longstanding disagreement over the relationship between government intervention and economic prosperity.
Supporters of progressive taxation argue that it can help finance public services and address economic inequality. Critics contend that increasing the tax burden on successful businesses and investors can discourage entrepreneurship, reduce private investment, and ultimately limit job creation.
Cohen emphasized the role of business owners in generating employment, arguing that successful entrepreneurs create opportunities extending far beyond their personal wealth.
The disagreement also extends to the judiciary.
Talarico has expressed support for Supreme Court reforms, including binding ethics requirements and term limits for justices. He has also indicated openness to discussing an expansion of the Court.
Such proposals have prompted a national debate about judicial independence. Advocates maintain that reforms could improve accountability and public confidence. Opponents warn that changing the Court's composition for political reasons could undermine its role as an independent branch of government.
But perhaps the most distinctive element of Talarico's public profile is his use of religious language.
In remarks discussed on the program, he described God as love and suggested that Jesus would express particular concern for transgender children experiencing bullying.
For Christians who hold traditional interpretations of Scripture, those statements raise theological questions about the nature of God, biblical authority, and the relationship between compassion and moral teaching.
Cohen challenged Talarico's interpretation, arguing that Christian teaching cannot be separated from Scripture's broader claims about creation, human identity, and morality.
The dispute illustrates a growing divide over who gets to define Christian values in American public life and how those values should inform public policy.
Michigan's Senate race presents another set of policy disagreements.
Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers have offered contrasting approaches to immigration enforcement, health care, and American foreign policy.
El-Sayed has criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggesting that the country could return to an immigration system resembling the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. He has also advocated clearer legal pathways for immigrants seeking to live and work in the United States.
Supporters of immigration reform argue that enforcement agencies need stronger oversight and that legal immigration channels should be more accessible. Critics worry that weakening federal enforcement could create additional challenges for border security and immigration law.
Cohen portrayed El-Sayed's proposals as part of a broader shift away from traditional immigration enforcement. His program also questioned whether the candidate had adequately addressed concerns about the Iranian regime.
One exchange featured an Iranian American Christian student whose family, according to his account, had suffered persecution under Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The student asked El-Sayed to condemn the Iranian government and its treatment of protesters.
Rather than delivering the direct condemnation the student requested in the excerpt presented, El-Sayed responded by discussing America's role in international affairs.
Cohen argued that the response deserved greater scrutiny, particularly given the United States' ongoing security concerns involving Iran.
However, disagreements over foreign policy or the adequacy of a candidate's response do not, by themselves, establish sympathy for terrorism or ties to extremist organizations.
Health care is another major issue in the Michigan contest.
El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, a proposal intended to establish a comprehensive government-financed health insurance system. Supporters argue that universal coverage could reduce household medical expenses and simplify administration. Opponents question the cost, tax implications, and potential restrictions on private insurance.
Cohen focused particularly on whether voters were receiving a clear explanation of the financial trade-offs.
The distinction between lower personal medical bills and higher taxes is central to the debate. A government-financed system could change how Americans pay for health care without necessarily eliminating the underlying cost of providing it.
For voters evaluating competing proposals, understanding those trade-offs is essential.
Beyond domestic policy, Cohen devoted substantial attention to the growing disagreements over Israel within American politics.
His program highlighted a Colorado congressional contest involving progressive candidate Melat Kiros, whose criticism of Israel's military operations and American financial support reflects a broader debate among Democrats.
Kiros described Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide and argued that American taxpayers should not finance the conflict.
The genocide allegation is highly contested, and determining whether military conduct meets the legal definition requires examination of evidence and the applicable international legal standards. Israel disputes the allegation and maintains that its military operations have been directed against Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attacks.
The disagreement extends beyond terminology.
Some progressive politicians have called for restrictions on American military assistance to Israel, arguing that U.S. support should be conditioned on humanitarian protections and compliance with international law.
Others maintain that continued military cooperation is essential to Israel's security, particularly amid threats from Iran and Iranian-backed armed groups.
Cohen approached the issue from a biblical perspective, emphasizing the importance of America's relationship with Israel and citing Genesis 12:3 and Numbers 24:9.
His argument reflected a conviction shared by many Christians that God's promises concerning Israel remain relevant and that the Jewish state's security deserves particular attention.
Not all Christians interpret those passages identically, and there is considerable disagreement over how biblical promises should inform contemporary foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the theological dimension remains significant in American political discussions, especially among evangelical Christians.
The debate over Israel now encompasses more than foreign aid, touching fundamental disagreements about national security, biblical interpretation, and America's responsibilities abroad.
Cohen concluded his imagined journey into 2027 by returning to the choices confronting voters today. His fictional scenarios included expanded government programs, changes to immigration enforcement, judicial restructuring, and reduced American support for Israel.
Those outcomes are not inevitable consequences of any election. They represent one commentator's concerns about the direction of competing policy agendas.
Still, the underlying questions are real. Americans must evaluate what candidates propose, what those proposals would cost, how they would affect constitutional institutions, and whether their foreign policy commitments align with the country's long-term interests.
For Christians, the discussion also invites reflection on the proper relationship between biblical conviction and civic responsibility. Political engagement requires more than reacting to campaign rhetoric. It calls for examining competing claims, understanding the consequences of legislation, and distinguishing theological principles from partisan assumptions.
As election day approaches, voters have an opportunity to consider those questions carefully rather than relying on slogans or imagined futures.
For more reporting and commentary examining politics, faith, and America's relationship with Israel, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
A Virginia pastor is challenging the lawfulness of a proposed state constitutional amendment to codify same-sex marriage and spread gender ideology. The Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC) filed a lawsuit last week in Prince William County Circuit Court on behalf of Pastor Ben Purves of Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, Va.
The Amendment 2 initiative on the ballot in the Cavalier State this November would “(i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law” should the Supreme Court ever overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.
The amendment would repeal the provision of Article I, Section 15-A of the Virginia constitution defining marriage as a “union between one man and one woman,” and would instead say marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness,” explains the FFLC press release.
The legal group explained its reasoning for the lawsuit, stating, “This Complaint does not concern the wisdom or policy merits of the Proposed Amendment. It concerns whether the Proposed Amendment was brought forward to the November 2026 ballot through the process that the Constitution of Virginia requires. It was not. The Proposed Amendment reached the ballot through a process that departed from the mandatory requirements of Article XII, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia through Virginia Code § 30-13.”
It continues, “Virginia Code § 30-13 requires the Clerk of the House of Delegates to have published and distributed copies of a proposed amendment to the clerks of Virginia’s circuit courts, and requires each circuit court clerk to post a copy ‘at the front door of the courthouse’ and make a second copy ‘available for public inspection,’ no later than three months before the intervening general election of members of the House of Delegates. These steps exist to inform the voters before the pivotal House of Delegates election. They were not performed before the November 4, 2025 general election by the Clerk of the House of Delegates or the Circuit Court Clerk or any other Virginia circuit court.”
The complaint asserts that even if the amendment is favored by most voters, it should be considered invalid.
Purves, the plaintiff on the Complaint, told The Washington Stand that it is the responsibility of a pastor to proclaim biblical truth when it comes to every issue, even the polarizing ones.
“It’s my hope that pastors will become more bold in proclaiming the gospel and the truth of God’s word, and not letting it be restricted to the church building or to church members’ homes. We really need to amplify truth in the public square, and if we do not, we will find it increasingly anti-Christian,” Purves asserted.
“Pastors — the shepherds — are called to care for their sheep,” he added. “That means giving their sheep the food of God’s word, and not just some of it, but all of it. And so, when churches are setting aside parts of Scripture and not teaching those parts, and not willing to proclaim those parts of Scripture to the world, they are failing in their duty as shepherds. And when pastors do not stand to protect their flock from wolves that will prey on their church and on the vulnerable in their community, they are failing in their pastoral duty.”
Over 400 pastors have signed a letter Purves helped orchestrate asking Virginians to vote no on Amendment 2, as well as an additional amendment to codify abortion in the Constitution of Virginia. The Pastors of Virginia group is also asking Virginia voters to participate in a day or prayer and fasting for the state on November 3.
“We call upon every voter to oppose these amendments to protect pre-born children, to defend the institution of marriage, and to stand against the destruction of transgender ideology. God created mankind as male and female as a part of God’s good and perfect creation (Gen 1:27). God creates life in the womb, and every child is a blessing (Ps 127, 139). God created the institution of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman which is to be a portrait of Christ’s love for the church (Eph 5:32). Instead of defacing marriage, we must honor it (Heb 13:4),” the group stated.
Any pastor in the state who affirms the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation is eligible to sign the Open Letter from Virginia Pastors to the Commonwealth until voting closes after Election Day.
“To voters who are discouraged and maybe thinking of not voting — you should not lose heart,” Purves implored. “We’re called to be faithful, and we need to stand for truth, even when and if we are a minority. If we only stand for truth and we’re a majority, what does this say about us? So, it’s important for us to do the right thing and vote for the sake of truth.”
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
The riots that were supposedly about French school funding have fanned out across Europe, briefly even surrounding the Colosseum in Rome on Saturday. While more than 1,300 were arrested on Emmanuel Macron’s fiery streets, Greece, Albania, Italy, Belgium, and Spain are racing to contain their own pro-Palestine agitators, dispelling any doubts about the real roots of this unrest. “You might think that Saturday’s chaos was orchestrated by the same students who started the protests,” The Free Press’s Nora Bussigny warns. “But you would be wrong.”
While the frustration over the French education system is real enough, the storyline has been a convenient one for anti-republic factions to hijack, Bussigny insists. After spending more than a year undercover in the country’s anti-Israel movement, she knows the players well. “The convergence of radical leftists with political Islamists, brought together by their shared opposition to Western values and institutions — has become increasingly difficult to ignore, rearing its head from England to Germany to college campuses across the U.S. In other words, what we are seeing in France is only a symptom of a much larger problem.”
By Friday, the city of Paris was bracing for a second wave of terror that had looted and burned its way through iconic landmarks and beautiful old cobblestone streets. Troops stood guard under the Arc de Triomphe, while shops boarded their windows and doors. One local contractor told the AP that people were frantically reaching out for help in protecting their businesses. “I got the call last night,” he said, nodding at the optician’s office where he was working. “The owner seemed desperate. He said I was saving his life.”
Turns out, local merchants weren’t overreacting. On Saturday alone, the country responded to over 75 fires and at least two dozen store break-ins and robberies. David Bahnsen, founder and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group, believes that “behind the unrest is a much deeper economic problem.” He pointed to France’s catastrophic financial situation, noting that “government spending accounts for more than half of France’s economic output, while the country’s national debt is approaching 120% of their gross domestic product.” The irony, the economist told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” is that despite shoveling billions of dollars into social programs, “many French citizens believe they’re getting less in return, and they don’t want government cuts.”
Unfortunately, that’s why socialist governments continue to be a failed experiment. They can’t afford what they promise to provide, and ultimately, the economy collapses under the weight of trying. France is an especially dramatic snapshot, Bahnsen notes, because the debts they’ve racked up can’t be paid, and the only solution — cutting back — is one the people won’t accept.
“That’s a huge problem. And that’s what most people focus on.” But it also crowds out the private sector and future growth, he notes. “Every dollar spent covering government programs is a dollar that can’t go into the productive side of the economy. France made a conscious decision to have a very large social safety net, very large social programs. … But the politicians were doing what the people asked for. [They] said, ‘Give us earlier retirement. Give us pensions you can’t afford.’ And then they complain that the chickens come home to roost.”
Now, outraged by inflation and the cost of living, the French resent the government they’ve chosen. And ironically, this is where the schools did not fail the country’s extreme elements. They may be short-staffed and underfunded, but they’ve still managed to turn out far-left ideologues with “an ultra-progressive ideology of extreme egalitarianism, anti-capitalism, and cultural hostility to France and its historical institutions and identity. That might almost be a blend of European socialism and American woke-ism,” NRO’s John Sullivan observes.
“There are no justifications for this upsurge of violent rebellion, of course — merely angry grievances by groups of discontented people, mainly young, many from immigrant backgrounds (even if born in France),” Sullivan notes, “all persuaded that they are either oppressed or uniquely sensitive to the plight of the oppressed.” Which, many argue, is how it was so easily commandeered by Gaza sympathizers and Muslim opportunists. “[T]he Palestinian banner has become the equivalent of the North Vietnamese flag in the 1970s,” Rich Lowry points out, “a symbol of resistance to the West, and in this case, fierce opposition to Zionism and so-called settler-colonialism.”
As angry as Macron was at President Trump’s suggestion that France’s open-borders policy was ruining the country, the American leader isn’t wrong. “I told Macron, when I first came in, I met him early. I said, ‘You are destroying France. You’re letting people come in that hate your country.’”
Vice President J.D. Vance agreed. “Western liberals imported the third world into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion. They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility,” he posted on X. “They were told it would lead to this and they didn’t listen. I pray that France, a beautiful country of amazing people, will stop this madness before more of its landmarks burn. And I hope Americans are paying attention. This is the future congressional Democrats seek for your country.”
Some French leaders are brave enough to stand against the tide threatening to drag the nation under. Mayor of Nice Éric Ciotti was blunt in his assessment that “Islamo-leftism threatens the Republic. The massive presence of Palestinian flags and community slogans is a terrible reality in these demonstrations, just like the presence of movements close to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
While the rest of the West watches, Americans have plenty of cause for self-reflection. The warning signs are here, as DSA candidates and radical Muslims unite to battle for a foothold in U.S. politics. And while there are similarities between France and America, Bahnsen was careful not to compare the two countries. “I don’t want to diminish the risk going on. And I also don’t want to overstate it. … [But] as a national reality, America has a long way to go until we actually embrace the socialist impulse. And that’s a good thing.” He paused before adding, “But the problem is it moves marginally. It moves incrementally. And that’s what I think we have to resist.”
As troubling as the spiritual markers have been in the U.S., Europe is decades ahead of us in secularism, the economist stresses. “It’s a perfect inverse correlation there: decline of faith has coincided with an embrace of more state. The government [becomes] a sort of Messiah. And of course, we see it here in the States as well — not quite to the same degree, but Europe has proven to be a long-term test case of how a society that abandons Christian principles embraces more statist principles. … It’s not good.”
This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Adapted from my conversation on Rose Unplugged with Derek Maltz, former Acting Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Watch the full episode here: Is China Waging Chemical Warfare on America?
There is something coming for your family. Whether you live in a city or a suburb. Whether your kids are in middle school or college. Whether you think this is someone else's problem — or you've already lived it.
It is the drug crisis pouring across our border. Not one drug. Not one cartel. Not one route. A flood. And it is changing — and ending — American lives every single day.
I want to be clear about something from the start, because the news often focuses on one drug at a time, and that gives us a false sense of the scale of what we're facing.
Yes — fentanyl is the headline. And it should be. It’s the deadliest drug ever to hit this country. It’s synthetic, lab-made, and lethal at just two milligrams — the weight of a few grains of salt.
It's driving the majority of overdose deaths in America. At the peak of this crisis, we were losing more than 70,000 people a year to fentanyl alone. That’s nearly 200 lives every single day.
But fentanyl isn’t coming alone. Methamphetamine, cartel-produced, and ultra-potent, is flooding communities from coast to coast. It's not the meth of 20 years ago. It's cheaper, stronger, and more widely available than ever.
Cocaine trafficking remains massive and increasingly, it's being laced with fentanyl without the user's knowledge.
And now there are emerging threats most Americans have never even heard of: xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer mixed with fentanyl that Narcan can't fully reverse, and nitazenes, a synthetic opioids so powerful they make fentanyl look mild by comparison.
This is not a single-drug crisis. This is a chemical assault on the American people. And it is being orchestrated deliberately by foreign adversaries and transnational criminal networks that don't care how many of us they kill.
Even with a decline of nearly 24% in overdose deaths — and yes, we should acknowledge that progress — we are still talking about roughly 87,000 overdose deaths in a single year. That’s not a statistic. That’s a national emergency.
Drug overdoses remain one of the leading causes of death for American adults. And for every death, there are dozens more lives derailed; families broken, futures stolen, and communities hollowed out.
So where is all of this coming from? Because this is where truth gets complicated and where the political noise gets loudest.
Here is what the evidence shows: The precursor chemicals, the building blocks, are largely manufactured in China. They are shipped to Mexican drug cartels. The cartels synthesize, press, and package the drugs. And then they move them north into the United States.
Now, here is the part that gets lost: the vast majority of these drugs are not being carried across open desert by migrants on foot. They are being driven through legal ports of entry. In passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, and in cargo shipments often by U.S. citizens.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized over 19,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2024 alone. And fentanyl now makes up nearly 90% of all opioid seizures at the border.
Which means this is not just a border wall conversation. It is a technology conversation. An intelligence conversation. A cartel conversation. And a China conversation — because none of this happens without China supplying the chemicals.
This is not just about policy. When a nation loses its sense of purpose, when truth becomes relative, and when emptiness fills the space where meaning used to live, people look for escape.
And what is crossing our border right now is not just a drug. It is a counterfeit answer to a real spiritual hunger. One that ends in destruction.
We need stronger enforcement. Absolutely. We need to go after the cartels and hold China accountable. Without question. But we also need something no government can legislate. We need restored families. Engaged parents. Communities that are awake. And young people who know their worth — not from culture, but from their Creator.
Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Xylazine, Cartels, all weapons of destruction. But the scale of this, the sophistication of the networks, the multiple poisons being unleashed on our families — all of it confirms something I believe with everything in me.
This is not just a policy fight. This isn't just a border fight. This is a spiritual battle. And we need to start treating it that way.
In 1 Peter 5:8 we are told:
Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8, NASB)
Think about that word — devour. Not inconvenience. Not discourage. Devour.
And “be of sober spirit” — not just physically, but clear-minded, alert, and aware. Because the danger isn't always obvious. It doesn't announce itself.
It comes as a pill that looks like medicine. As meth that looks manageable. As cocaine that looks like recreation. As something a friend hands you and says — it's fine.
But Scripture also tells us in John 10:10:
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. (John 10:10, NASB)
Steal innocence, and kill potential. Our families or being destroyed. And if we are honest, with every drug coming across that border, that is exactly what we are watching play out.
Ephesians 6:12 tells us:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12, NASB)
Which means this: if we only fight this battle at the surface level and if we only debate policy and argue about which party deserves the credit or the blame, we will always be reacting. And reacting is not the same as overcoming.
Yes, we need stronger enforcement across every drug, every route, every cartel. Yes, we need to hold China accountable for the chemical warfare they are enabling. Yes, we need the technology and the intelligence to stay ahead of networks that never sleep.
But we also need something that no legislation can provide. We need discernment. We need truth spoken in our homes, in our churches, and our schools. We need families and communities that are not just alarmed but awake. We need to fight a spiritual battle on our knees. Collectively.
I want to speak directly to young people for a moment. I don't care what it was called. I don't care how it was offered or who gave it to you. What's being disguised as relief, escape, or just a good time has a body count.
And I want you to know — really know — that your life has value. Not because of what the culture tells you. Not because of what shows up on your screen. But because you were created on purpose, for a purpose.
And there is nothing, no substance, no moment, no amount of pressure from anyone worth trading that for.
To every parent reading this: the time to lean in is now. Not when you find something. Not when the call comes. Now.
Talk to your kids about all of it — not just fentanyl. Talk about the counterfeit pills made to look like medicine. The meth that doesn't look like meth anymore. The pill some other kid promises will help them get through an exam. The powder hidden in something they never even knew to question.
Not out of fear, but out of love. Because silence is not protection anymore. Awareness is.
Romans 12:21 tells us:
Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21, NASB)
That’s not wishful thinking. That is not passive. That is a call to action.
Darkness may be real. The threat may be sophisticated. The enemy may be relentless. But darkness does not win.
Not when truth is spoken. Not when families are engaged. Not when communities stand up and say — not here. Not our children. Not on our watch.
So yes, this is about drugs, fentanyl, meth, and the poisons being trafficked across our border. It’s also about cartels and chemicals and a fight that is far from over.
For More Information check out my guest’s website; Lost Voices of Fentanyl https://lvof.org
Former President Barack Obama is back on the campaign trail as Americans prepare to vote on November 3, bringing renewed attention to his administration's record on Iran, immigration enforcement, and national security. Meanwhile, political controversies involving Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and congressional candidate Brad Lander are fueling broader questions about government transparency, media accountability, and America's relationship with Israel.
With elections approaching in both the United States and Israel, the consequences of political leadership extend beyond domestic policy. Decisions made in Washington affect American families, international security, and the lives of people facing threats across the Middle East.
On The Daniel Cohen Show, available through Real Life Network, these developments raise a central question: Are political leaders and the media giving Americans the full picture, or are important facts being lost in partisan narratives?
As Obama campaigns for Democratic candidates, his defense of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement has reignited debate over one of his presidency's most consequential foreign policy decisions.
The agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was designed to restrict Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Obama has defended the arrangement as an example of diplomacy preventing a nuclear-armed Iran without military intervention.
Critics, however, argue that the agreement failed to address the broader threat posed by the Iranian regime.
One enduring controversy involves a $1.7 billion settlement paid to Iran in 2016, including an initial $400 million payment delivered in foreign currency. The Obama administration described the settlement as the resolution of a longstanding dispute over military equipment purchased before Iran's 1979 revolution.
Critics questioned the timing of the payment, which coincided with the release of American detainees, and raised concerns that money reaching Tehran could strengthen a government accused of financing terrorist organizations.
The distinction matters. The settlement itself is documented, but claims that specific payments directly financed particular terrorist attacks require evidence beyond the fact that Iran received the funds.
Nevertheless, the underlying concern remains significant.
Iran has supported militant organizations throughout the Middle East, including Hezbollah and Hamas, while continuing to pose security challenges for Israel and American interests.
The nuclear agreement also contained provisions under which certain restrictions would expire over time, prompting critics to question whether it offered a lasting solution.
The debate over Iran is ultimately about whether diplomatic agreements can effectively restrain a hostile regime while protecting Israel and America's national security interests.
For Israelis who have experienced missile attacks and repeated security alerts, these questions are not theoretical.
They affect families who must prepare for emergencies, communities living under the threat of violence, and military personnel responsible for protecting civilians.
Obama's return to the political spotlight has also renewed scrutiny of other controversies from his presidency, including the administration's initial public explanations following the 2012 Benghazi attack and his promises about Americans retaining their health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act.
These episodes remain subjects of political debate, but they also underscore a broader principle: Public officials should be evaluated according to their records, not merely their ability to deliver persuasive speeches.
Immigration enforcement has emerged as another major dividing line between the parties.
The Trump administration has emphasized deportations and border security as central components of its national security strategy. Supporters argue that enforcing immigration law is necessary to protect American communities and maintain confidence in the country's legal system.
Critics have raised concerns about due process, family separation, and the treatment of immigrants during enforcement operations.
The political debate becomes more complicated when considering the record of previous administrations.
During Obama's presidency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted removal operations involving individuals who had entered the country unlawfully. His administration faced criticism from immigrant advocacy organizations for the scale of deportations.
That history complicates claims that immigration enforcement itself is a uniquely recent development.
Policies, priorities, and enforcement methods can differ substantially between administrations, but the federal government's responsibility to administer immigration law has remained.
The discussion also extends to Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whose personal background and immigration history have been the subject of longstanding political allegations.
Recent claims discussed on the program concern her identity, family relationships, and purported federal investigative activity. Such allegations are serious, but the transcript does not independently establish their accuracy.
Claims involving searches, seized documents, or possible criminal violations require confirmation through reliable court records or official statements before being reported as fact.
Public officials should be accountable for their conduct, but allegations must be distinguished from proven wrongdoing.
The same standard applies to the media.
Journalists have a responsibility to investigate legitimate questions involving elected officials without assuming guilt or dismissing allegations solely because of political affiliation.
A trustworthy press should apply consistent standards of evidence and scrutiny, regardless of whether the subject is a Republican or a Democrat.
That principle extends beyond immigration.
Cohen also raised concerns about social media moderation after describing restrictions on his own accounts while reporting on Israel and Hezbollah.
The broader debate over online speech involves competing concerns about misinformation, platform policies, public safety, and freedom of expression.
Private platforms have their own moderation rules, while government restrictions on speech raise distinct constitutional questions.
For Americans, understanding those distinctions is essential to evaluating claims about censorship and protecting meaningful public debate.
The final major issue concerns Israel and the growing political tensions surrounding its military operations and security policies.
New York congressional candidate Brad Lander traveled to the West Bank, where he participated in an olive harvest and was detained by Israeli authorities.
Lander described the incident as an example of the restrictions faced by Palestinians and those supporting them.
Israeli officials, according to the program, offered a different explanation, saying the group entered a restricted security area without the necessary coordination.
These competing accounts illustrate how quickly events in Israel become part of American political campaigns.
For some activists, visits to the West Bank provide opportunities to draw attention to Palestinian experiences and Israeli policies. Critics question whether certain high-profile visits are designed primarily to generate political publicity.
Determining what happened requires examining the circumstances of the detention, the applicable restrictions, and the accounts of those involved.
But political disagreements over Israel should not overshadow the continuing threat of violence.
The program also addressed a shooting attack near Hebron and criticized news coverage that Cohen believed failed to adequately identify the perpetrators or recognize the Israeli soldiers affected.
Reporting on such incidents requires precision. The identities of victims, the circumstances of an attack, and the evidence identifying those responsible should be verified rather than assumed.
The larger concern is how media coverage can shape public understanding of a conflict in which the language used to describe violence often becomes controversial.
For families mourning loved ones, the consequences are immediate and personal.
Israel's soldiers and veterans also face lasting physical and psychological challenges, particularly after prolonged military operations.
Organizations such as Friends of the Israel Defense Forces provide support for soldiers, veterans, wounded personnel, and bereaved families, including assistance related to rehabilitation and mental health.
These needs highlight the human costs of conflict that can be overlooked when public attention centers entirely on political arguments.
For Christians, the debate over Israel also invites reflection on the responsibility to pursue truth and justice.
Proverbs 26:24-26 warns about deception concealed beneath persuasive words, reminding readers that outward appearances do not always reveal a person's true intentions.
The passage should not become a license to assume hidden motives without evidence. Instead, it encourages discernment and a serious commitment to honesty.
That commitment applies equally to politicians, journalists, activists, and voters.
Biblical discernment requires Christians to examine competing claims carefully, reject deception, and refuse to let political loyalty determine what they accept as true.
As Americans prepare for November 3, questions about Iran, immigration, free speech, and Israel remain central to the national conversation.
The challenge is not simply deciding which political leaders are most persuasive. It is determining which claims are supported by evidence, which policies deserve scrutiny, and which principles should guide decisions affecting the nation.
Christians have an opportunity to participate thoughtfully, pray for those in authority, and evaluate public affairs through the lens of Scripture without confusing partisan allegiance with biblical faithfulness.
For continuing coverage of national security, Israel, and the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
Real Life Network will also present America Speaks '26: Election Night Live on Tuesday, November 3, beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern / 5 p.m. Pacific, featuring election results, guests, and analysis from across the United States and Israel.
With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, Minnesota is drawing attention as a potentially consequential battleground in the fight for control of the United States Senate. Questions about government accountability, immigration, national security, and voter turnout are shaping the political debate as candidates make their final appeals.
Former Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes the state could deliver one of the election's biggest surprises. During a conversation on The Daniel Cohen Show, available on Real Life Network, Bachmann discussed Minnesota's political future, the growing appeal of socialism, America's relationship with Israel, and the responsibility of Christians to participate in elections.
The conversation highlighted a broader question facing American voters: How should concerns about government leadership, national security, and biblical convictions influence civic engagement?
Minnesota has traditionally favored Democrats in statewide elections, but Bachmann believes growing dissatisfaction with state leadership could create an opportunity for Republicans in 2026.
The Senate contest between Republican Michele Tafoya and Democrat Peggy Flanagan has become a focal point of that discussion.
Bachmann pointed to allegations of widespread fraud involving publicly funded programs in Minnesota as a major source of voter frustration. High-profile investigations have raised serious questions about financial oversight, the administration of public assistance programs, and whether government officials responded adequately to warning signs.
These investigations have also become politically contentious, with Republicans questioning Democratic leadership and Democrats defending their records while addressing failures in oversight.
The existence of fraud cases does not establish wrongdoing by an entire immigrant community or prove that particular candidates participated in criminal activity. Determining responsibility requires evidence, investigations, and appropriate legal proceedings.
Nevertheless, the political consequences of government oversight failures can extend well beyond the individuals directly involved.
Voters want to know whether public resources are being used responsibly, whether elected officials are accountable, and whether state agencies can identify misconduct before it becomes widespread.
Government accountability depends on protecting taxpayer resources, investigating wrongdoing fairly, and holding responsible individuals accountable regardless of political affiliation.
Bachmann also expressed concern about election administration and mail-in voting. Although she raised questions about the possibility of improper ballot handling, the interview did not provide evidence establishing that such misconduct would occur.
Election integrity is a legitimate public concern, but allegations of fraud should be supported by verifiable facts rather than speculation.
For Minnesota voters, the Senate election ultimately presents competing visions of government leadership, public spending, economic policy, and national priorities.
Bachmann believes turnout will be decisive.
Even a competitive race can produce an unexpected outcome when participation differs from polling expectations. But polling uncertainty alone cannot establish which candidate will win.
The same principle applies nationwide as Americans prepare to elect representatives who will shape federal policy over the next two years.
Beyond Minnesota's political landscape, the discussion turned to national security and the United States' relationship with Israel.
From immigration enforcement to international terrorism, security concerns have become prominent issues in the closing weeks of the midterm campaign.
Bachmann criticized Representative Ilhan Omar and raised allegations concerning her family history and immigration background. These are serious accusations that require independent verification and should not be presented as established facts without substantiating evidence.
The discussion also addressed the broader question of how immigration policy intersects with national security.
Effective immigration enforcement requires appropriate screening, lawful procedures, and the ability to identify genuine security threats. At the same time, individual wrongdoing should not be attributed to entire national, ethnic, or religious communities.
The conversation then shifted to the Middle East, where Bachmann emphasized the importance of the relationship between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
She described their political partnership as a significant opportunity to confront the Iranian regime and its support for militant organizations throughout the region.
Iran's relationship with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas has long complicated regional security and contributed to tensions involving Israel and its neighbors.
For the United States, decisions concerning Iran involve military readiness, diplomatic strategy, economic sanctions, intelligence cooperation, and the protection of American allies.
But Bachmann sees the relationship between America and Israel as more than a matter of international politics.
She believes Scripture establishes an enduring covenant between God and the Jewish people, one that remains relevant to how Christians understand Israel today.
This conviction shaped the interview's discussion of replacement theology, the belief, in some theological formulations, that the church has superseded Israel in God's covenantal purposes.
Bachmann rejected that interpretation, arguing that God's promises to Israel have not been revoked.
She pointed to biblical passages concerning God's covenant with Abraham and the prophetic significance of Israel, including Joel 3.
Within the Christian church, interpretations of these passages differ. Some traditions emphasize a continuing national role for Israel in biblical prophecy, while others understand the covenant promises through their fulfillment in Jesus Christ and His church.
These differences have significant implications for Christian eschatology and the interpretation of biblical prophecy.
The question of Israel's future is not merely political for many Christians; it is closely connected to how they understand God's covenant promises and the fulfillment of Scripture.
At the same time, biblical convictions and contemporary foreign policy require careful consideration. Supporting Israel's security does not mean every action of its government is beyond scrutiny.
Christians can affirm the importance of Israel, oppose antisemitism, and seek the protection of innocent people while thoughtfully evaluating the decisions of political leaders.
The conversation concluded with an appeal for Christians to recognize the significance of their participation in American civic life.
Bachmann expressed concern that many believers have become disengaged from politics, even as debates over education, religious freedom, economic systems, and national identity continue to shape the country.
She specifically criticized the growing appeal of socialism among younger Americans, arguing that public education has contributed to changing attitudes toward free-market economics.
The relationship between education and political ideology is complex, however, and broad claims about what schools teach require supporting evidence.
Nevertheless, the growing debate over socialism reflects genuine disagreements about the role of government, economic opportunity, taxation, and individual responsibility.
These disagreements deserve careful examination rather than automatic dismissal.
For Christians, political engagement also raises questions about how biblical principles should inform decisions at the ballot box.
Bachmann argued that voting is an opportunity Americans should not take for granted. She encouraged churches to help believers recognize the importance of participating in elections and evaluating candidates according to their convictions.
Scripture provides principles that can inform those decisions.
Micah 6:8 emphasizes justice, mercy, and humility. Proverbs 12:22 underscores the importance of truthfulness. First Timothy 2:1-2 instructs believers to pray for those in authority.
These passages do not supply a party platform, but they establish moral responsibilities that extend beyond election season.
Christians should consider whether candidates demonstrate integrity, how proposed policies affect their neighbors, and whether political leaders exercise authority responsibly.
Biblical faithfulness in public life requires more than casting a ballot; it calls for truthfulness, discernment, prayer, and a commitment to justice.
That responsibility also includes recognizing that Christians may disagree about the best policies for achieving legitimate moral goals.
A shared commitment to protecting human life, supporting families, and promoting religious freedom does not necessarily produce identical conclusions about every candidate or legislative proposal.
Political participation should therefore be informed by conviction without allowing partisan identity to replace allegiance to Christ.
With Election Day approaching, voter turnout remains one of the most important factors in determining the makeup of Congress.
Minnesota's Senate contest may attract national attention, but the larger election will influence decisions affecting the economy, national security, foreign policy, and the direction of federal government.
For Christians, the challenge is to participate thoughtfully while remembering that political outcomes are not the ultimate measure of God's faithfulness.
Elections matter. Leadership matters. The responsibility to pursue truth, seek justice, and love one's neighbor remains unchanged regardless of which party controls Washington.
For more election coverage, discussions about Israel, and biblical perspectives on the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
A settlement has been reached in the fight for religious liberty in the case of LifeWise Academy against the Everett Public School District in Washington state. In December 2025, the Christian nonprofit that seeks to evangelize to public school students through a release time program sued the school district after it established various oppressive limitations to its venture.
The settlement will require the Board Everett Public Schools Board of Directors to undergo religious liberty training, make changes to the district’s policies governing religious activities, issue a public written apology for its actions visible for six months, and pay $275,000 in attorney’s fees, according to an October 13 press release by First Liberty Institute.
Holly Randall, counsel at First Liberty Institute, the firm that defended LifeWise, detailed the ministry’s road to justice during a Friday appearance on “Washington Watch.”
“[The LifeWise] program allows students to attend Bible education classes on a voluntary basis during school hours, provided that they take place off school property. So, it all happens sort of pursuant to a Supreme Court decision from 1952. This is long been the law,” Randall said. “The program at Everett was operating successfully, but then the school started implementing different burdensome restrictions and sort of obstacles to its operation. So, they implemented a permission slip process that was incredibly burdensome for parents.”
Randall shared that the district also prohibited LifeWise from participating in community affairs with other organizations.
“And it required students to pack up their Bible and other religious literature they were given at LifeWise in sealed packages to take back to school, and they were unable to access them during class even if it was an appropriate free reading time. So, they were just adding challenges to the program that we saw as sort of unconstitutional obstacles that the school district was putting in LifeWise’s way,” Randall elaborated.
She further explained that just because a student is on public school property doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to religious liberties. “You don’t shed your constitutional rights when you enter the schoolhouse gate. That’s another long settled Supreme Court law. … The school was restricting the exercise of students and parents’ constitutional rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”
In April 2026, a federal judge in Washington issued a preliminary injunction against Everett schools, a ruling that was good news for LifeWise. “So, that’s how we’ve arrived at where we’re at now, which is the district acknowledging it’s probably wise to settle this and eliminate some of those burdens that are happening to the LifeWise program,” Randall clarified.
Randall went on to recall one of the most remarkable aspects of the case was the Everett school board’s unfriendliness towards LifeWise. “The judge’s order on the preliminary injunction was that the statements board members were making while at board meetings were expressing hostility toward LifeWise. And then they were taking actions that reflected that hostility.”
“The apology that the school district is being required to make, [and] the attorneys’ fees they’re being required to pay are really a reflection that school board members can’t just say whatever they want from the dais, express that hostility, take hostile actions, and get away with it. So, we’re hoping that this sends a message to board members across the country that they need to be careful when they’re speaking about religious organizations and treat them equally, not with hostility.”
Randall concluded by observing that the students who participate in LifeWise are the true heroes of the story.
“The students that attend that program are really the brave ones in this situation,” asserted Randall. “They are the type of students we want to be able to bring more Bible education to and expand their access. … The impact of a student in elementary, middle, or high school, hearing the word of God can only lead to life change and good.”
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Election Day 2026 is less than two weeks away.
By now, campaigns are entering their final stretch, political advertising is intensifying, and attention is beginning to shift from what might happen on November 3 to what Americans will actually see when 2026 election results begin coming in.
There is still time to prepare.
Before Election Day arrives, finish researching the candidates and measures on your ballot, make sure you understand the issues at stake, and know where to find authoritative election information for your jurisdiction.
Then think ahead to Election Night itself.
Results will begin arriving from across the country at different times, major races may develop quickly, and some contests may remain unresolved well after Election Night ends. Knowing what to expect can help you follow the results without getting lost in the constant stream of numbers, projections, reactions, and commentary.
If there are still names or measures on your ballot that you know little about, now is the time to research them.
National headlines may be dominated by control of Congress and prominent statewide races, but your ballot may also include state legislators, judges, county or city officials, school boards, and ballot initiatives.
Return to the questions that matter:
By this point in the election cycle, voters are surrounded by persuasive messaging. Going back to original sources, public records, full interviews, policy proposals, and reliable reporting can help separate useful information from the final rush of campaign rhetoric.
The national political conversation includes the economy, immigration, healthcare, education, abortion, public safety, foreign policy, government spending, technology, and many other concerns.
But not every office has authority over every issue.
Before November 3, connect the issues you care about with the candidates and offices that can actually influence them.
A congressional candidate and a school board candidate may both talk about education, but their responsibilities are very different. A governor, state legislator, mayor, and U.S. senator can each affect public policy in different ways.
That context can make the difference between simply following political debate and understanding the choices in front of you.
The final days before an election can generate a remarkable amount of information, and not all of it deserves equal trust.
Old videos may resurface without context. Unverified claims can spread quickly on social media. Campaigns may make last-minute accusations against opponents. Commentary can sometimes be mistaken for reporting.
Slow down before accepting or sharing something simply because it confirms what you already believe.
Look for original statements. Read beyond headlines. Compare reporting from credible sources. Pay attention to when information was published and whether new facts have emerged since then.
Christians in particular should value truth more than partisan advantage. Proverbs 12:22 says, “Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who deal truthfully are His delight” (NKJV). Election season does not make accuracy less important.
Once voting concludes around the country, election reporting shifts rapidly from campaigns to results.
You will begin seeing vote totals, percentage reporting figures, maps, and race calls. But those numbers require context.
An early lead does not necessarily determine who will ultimately win a race. Different jurisdictions report results at different speeds, and the portions of the vote reported first may not resemble those reported later.
That is one reason reputable election-news organizations do not simply call a race because one candidate happens to be ahead.
The Associated Press, for example, says it declares a winner only when its analysts determine that the trailing candidate no longer has a path to victory. Some races can be called relatively quickly; closely contested races may take days or, occasionally, longer.
So on Election Night 2026, pay attention to more than the percentage of votes counted. Listen for explanations of where reported votes are coming from, how much remains outstanding, and why a race has or has not been called.
Election Night creates an expectation of instant answers, but elections do not always cooperate with television schedules.
Some races will become clear early in the evening. Others may remain uncertain as additional results are reported. Particularly close contests can require more time before a reliable winner can be identified.
That does not necessarily mean anything unusual has happened.
The United States does not have one centralized national vote-counting system. Elections are administered at the state and local level, and reporting practices differ across jurisdictions.
That means patience is sometimes part of following election results responsibly.
A responsible news source should be willing to say “too early to call” rather than turn uncertainty into speculation.
Individual races matter, but Election Night 2026 will also tell a broader story.
As results accumulate, the evening gradually moves from individual contests toward a national picture.
That broader context is one reason thoughtful election coverage matters. Numbers tell you who is ahead. Good reporting also helps explain what those results mean.
Political outcomes matter because government decisions affect real people, families, churches, communities, and institutions.
But Christians can care deeply about elections without treating politics as the source of their hope.
Whatever happens on November 3, God remains sovereign. The Gospel remains true. The responsibility to love your neighbor, speak truth, pray for leaders, serve your community, and faithfully follow Christ does not change when political control changes.
That perspective can be especially valuable on Election Night, when political coverage often encourages viewers to treat every development as an emergency or every victory and defeat as permanent.
Stay informed. Pay attention. Care about what happens. But keep politics in its proper place.
When the results begin coming in on Tuesday, November 3, Real Life Network will bring viewers America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live.
Coverage begins at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT and will include live election results, updates, commentary, conversation, and biblical perspective as major races unfold across the country.
Pastor Jack Hibbs, Daniel Cohen, and other Real Life Network voices will help viewers follow the evening’s developments and consider the larger issues behind the results.
RLN is free to watch, and creating an account ahead of Election Night means you can simply sign in and follow the coverage when November 3 arrives.
The campaigns will soon end. Then America will begin hearing from the voters.
Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates and join Real Life Network live on November 3 for Election Night coverage beginning at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT.
Violent unrest in France, political divisions in Michigan, and deadly attacks against Christians in Nigeria are raising urgent questions about religious freedom, national security, and the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. Although these developments are unfolding in different parts of the world, they share a common concern: what happens when violence, extremism, and political instability threaten the institutions people depend on?
With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, Americans are also considering how immigration policy, public safety, religious liberty, and foreign affairs could shape the nation's future.
For Christians, these conversations involve more than political preferences. They raise questions about discernment, the protection of innocent life, and the responsibilities that accompany citizenship.
As these issues receive attention on The Daniel Cohen Show, available through Real Life Network, the biblical image of a watchman provides a framework for understanding the importance of recognizing danger and responding wisely.
Recent reports and footage of unrest in France have brought renewed attention to the country's challenges involving public safety, immigration, social integration, and political extremism.
Images discussed during the unrest include damaged businesses, confrontations between demonstrators and police, and destruction of public property. Such scenes raise serious concerns about the government's ability to maintain order while protecting the rights of peaceful demonstrators and ordinary citizens.
France has experienced devastating Islamist terrorist attacks over the past decade.
In January 2015, gunmen attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. Later that year, coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris, including the massacre at the Bataclan concert hall, killed 130 people.
In July 2016, a terrorist drove a truck into crowds celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, killing 86 people. That same month, two attackers murdered Catholic priest Jacques Hamel during a church service in Normandy.
The murder of schoolteacher Samuel Paty in 2020 further exposed the dangers posed by violent extremism and threats against freedom of expression.
These attacks remain significant reminders of the consequences of radicalization and failures to prevent terrorism.
However, understanding contemporary unrest requires distinguishing between peaceful political demonstrations, criminal violence, and ideologically motivated terrorism. The presence of religious or political symbols at a protest does not establish that every participant supports violence.
Protecting a nation's security requires confronting violent extremism without abandoning the religious freedoms and individual rights that make a free society worth defending.
For France, these questions are particularly important because its population includes people from many religious and cultural backgrounds. Government leaders face the difficult responsibility of maintaining public order while preserving freedom of conscience and equal protection under the law.
The biblical principle of responsible leadership offers an important perspective.
Romans 13 describes civil authority as bearing responsibility for restraining wrongdoing. Government is not simply an administrative institution. Its decisions have consequences for the safety and well-being of the people entrusted to its care.
The failures of political leaders deserve scrutiny, especially when innocent people suffer. Yet that scrutiny must remain grounded in truth rather than treating entire religious communities as responsible for the actions of extremists.
Across the Atlantic, similar concerns about national security, political leadership, and public trust are influencing the 2026 midterm elections.
Michigan's Senate contest between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has become a focal point for debates involving foreign policy, Israel, healthcare, and the direction of the federal government.
Rogers, a former congressman and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has emphasized his national security experience. El-Sayed, a physician and former public health official, has focused heavily on affordability, healthcare, and economic concerns.
The candidates represent different approaches to the responsibilities of government.
Their disagreements have also prompted scrutiny of their political statements and positions concerning the Middle East.
Questions have been raised about past Muslim Brotherhood associations attributed to members of El-Sayed's family. Such claims warrant careful examination, but a relative's political history does not independently establish a candidate's personal beliefs, affiliations, or wrongdoing.
Voters should distinguish documented evidence from allegations and evaluate candidates according to their own records, statements, and proposed policies.
That standard applies equally to every candidate, regardless of political party or religious identity.
Meanwhile, some longtime Democratic voters have publicly expressed support for Rogers. Former Pontiac City Council member Melanie Rutherford has described reconsidering her traditional party allegiance after examining the candidates and their priorities.
Other Michigan Democrats have raised concerns about healthcare proposals, particularly the implications of a Medicare for All system for existing private insurance arrangements.
These disagreements illustrate how political coalitions can change when voters place greater emphasis on individual policies than longstanding party loyalties.
They also demonstrate why national security cannot be separated entirely from domestic policy. Senators influence defense spending, intelligence oversight, immigration legislation, and the nation's relationships with allies.
The debate over Israel remains especially consequential.
Former President Barack Obama's criticism of Israeli policy and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense of the Jewish people's historical connection to Israel reflect deeply contested questions about territory, national identity, security, and peace.
Jewish historical and religious ties to the land extend back thousands of years. At the same time, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves competing national claims and a history of displacement, warfare, and unsuccessful diplomatic efforts.
Responsible analysis should recognize that complexity while unequivocally condemning terrorism and attacks against civilians.
Voters should demand clarity from candidates on national security, religious freedom, and foreign policy while refusing to substitute accusations or political slogans for verifiable evidence.
Proverbs 18:17 reminds readers that the first account of a dispute may appear convincing until another examines it. That principle is particularly valuable during election season, when political advertisements and selective reporting can obscure important context.
While Americans debate their political future, Christians in other parts of the world face threats far more immediate than an election result.
Nigeria continues to experience devastating violence involving armed militant groups, communal conflicts, and attacks against vulnerable villages.
Reports highlighted by International Christian Concern describe deadly attacks on Christian communities in Plateau State, including the killing of a pastor and numerous other residents.
The human cost extends beyond casualty figures.
Families lose loved ones, churches lose their leaders, and entire communities confront the possibility of further violence. Survivors may be forced to leave their homes, abandon farmland, or live with the uncertainty of future attacks.
Some attacks have been attributed to armed Fulani militants, while the wider violence in Nigeria involves overlapping religious, ethnic, criminal, and land-related tensions. Not all Fulani people are militants, and the circumstances of individual attacks require careful investigation.
Nevertheless, violence directed against Christians because of their faith demands international attention.
The suffering of these communities should challenge believers elsewhere to consider how they respond to persecution.
Ezekiel 33 describes the responsibility of a watchman who sees danger approaching and sounds a warning. The passage emphasizes the seriousness of recognizing a threat and responding before lives are lost.
That biblical image speaks to the importance of vigilance, but it also requires wisdom.
Christians must be careful not to confuse fear with discernment or assume that every political controversy represents the same kind of danger.
Scripture calls believers to exercise sound judgment, seek justice, defend the vulnerable, and speak truthfully.
The biblical command to love one's neighbor does not disappear when that neighbor belongs to a different religious or political community.
Nor does love require ignoring genuine threats.
Christian discernment means recognizing real danger, defending innocent people, and responding with courage rather than allowing fear or hostility to determine our actions.
For Americans, the approaching midterms provide an opportunity to consider these responsibilities within a constitutional system that allows citizens to participate in selecting their leaders.
Political engagement can be one expression of responsible citizenship, but it must never become the measure of someone's faithfulness to Christ.
No candidate or political party can provide ultimate security. Governments remain accountable for their actions, and Christians remain accountable to God for how they conduct themselves.
That responsibility includes prayer for persecuted believers, concern for victims of terrorism, thoughtful examination of political claims, and a commitment to religious liberty for all people.
France's struggles with public order, Michigan's debates over national security, and Nigeria's ongoing violence against Christian communities are different situations requiring different responses. Yet each illustrates why truth, responsible leadership, and the protection of human life matter.
The challenge is not merely to recognize warning signs. It is to respond with wisdom, justice, and faithfulness.
For more reporting and biblical perspectives on international developments, religious freedom, and the 2026 midterm elections, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
With Election Day approaching on November 3, Americans are facing decisions that extend far beyond which political party controls Congress. Immigration enforcement, national security, religious freedom, education, and the cost of living are all shaping the national conversation. Yet the growing focus on polling numbers and campaign predictions can distract from the policies that will ultimately affect American families.
Recent early-voting trends and voter-registration changes have raised questions about conventional expectations for the midterm elections. But political momentum is difficult to measure, and no polling advantage guarantees an election result.
The significance of the 2026 midterms lies not simply in which party gains seats, but in the policies that elected officials will have the authority to advance or challenge.
For continued coverage of the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Election Day 2026 is less than a month away, and the political conversation is intensifying.
Campaign ads are multiplying. Candidates are making their closing arguments. Social media is filling with clips, claims, endorsements, and reactions. But understanding the 2026 midterm elections requires looking beyond the daily campaign noise to the issues voters are actually being asked to consider.
Recent polling shows economic concerns, particularly affordability and the cost of living, remain especially prominent. But the November 3 election also comes amid ongoing debates about immigration, healthcare, public safety, education, abortion, foreign policy, government spending, artificial intelligence, and other questions that affect Americans differently depending on where they live.
The challenge is not simply identifying which issues are receiving attention. It is understanding how those issues connect to the candidates, offices, and measures on your own ballot.
Here are some of the major conversations to follow as Election Day 2026 approaches.
Stay informed as November 3 approaches. Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates from Real Life Network and follow RLN for news and coverage leading into Election Day 2026.
For many Americans, the economy remains the most immediate political concern.
Housing costs, grocery prices, energy expenses, healthcare, interest rates, taxes, and job opportunities all affect household budgets. Recent national polling has found that economic issues are among the topics voters most want congressional candidates to address, with affordability receiving particular attention.
But “the economy” can mean many things during an election campaign.
One candidate may emphasize taxes. Another may focus on government spending, tariffs, housing, wages, energy policy, or regulation. State and local candidates may have authority over different economic questions than members of Congress.
As you hear competing claims, ask what specific policy is being proposed, which level of government controls it, what evidence supports the argument, and what tradeoffs may be involved.
Immigration remains an important issue in the 2026 elections, even as voter attention has shifted toward affordability and other economic concerns.
The debate includes border security, deportation and enforcement policies, asylum, legal immigration, the workforce, federal-state responsibilities, and the treatment of people already living in the United States.
Republican and Democratic candidates often approach these questions differently, but positions can also vary considerably within the same party.
Instead of relying only on campaign language, look at what candidates specifically support. Are they addressing border enforcement, legal immigration, employment rules, asylum policy, or some combination? What authority would the office they are seeking actually have over those questions?
Broad slogans can conceal important policy differences.
Healthcare continues to be both a national and household issue.
Voters may hear debates involving insurance premiums, the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid, prescription drugs, hospital costs, federal subsidies, and the role of government in healthcare.
Candidates may agree that medical care costs too much while offering very different explanations for why and very different proposals for addressing it.
Healthcare can also intersect with state elections because states make significant decisions involving Medicaid, insurance regulation, public health, and medical policy.
When evaluating campaign claims, look beyond promises to lower costs and ask how a proposed change would work, who would be affected, and how it would be funded.
Public safety is another issue that can look very different depending on the race.
Federal candidates may discuss immigration enforcement, gun laws, federal law enforcement, drug trafficking, or national crime policy. State and local candidates may focus on policing, prosecution, sentencing, homelessness, drug policy, or funding for first responders.
Those distinctions matter. A city council member, county prosecutor, governor, and U.S. senator do not have the same responsibilities. Before evaluating a candidate’s promises about crime or public safety, determine what the office can realistically influence.
Local crime statistics and policies may also provide a more useful picture of conditions in your community than national political rhetoric.
Education remains a significant issue in many state and local elections. Debates can involve academic standards, school funding, parental involvement, curriculum, school choice, teacher recruitment, student achievement, sports policies, religious expression, and the role of state and federal government in education.
For Christian families, these questions can carry particular significance because they touch on parental responsibility, religious liberty, the formation of children, and competing understandings of human identity.
But education policy is highly decentralized. A position debated nationally may actually be decided by a state legislature, governor, local school board, or district administrator. Before assuming a national talking point applies directly to your community, identify who makes the relevant decision.
Abortion remains a significant issue in American elections, particularly because much of the legal and policy debate now takes place at the state level.
Voters may encounter candidates with sharply different positions on abortion restrictions, exceptions, funding, access, parental involvement, and related healthcare questions. Some states may also have ballot measures addressing abortion policy directly.
For Christian voters, questions surrounding unborn life carry deep moral significance. Other voters approach the issue through different legal, medical, or individual-rights frameworks.
Research what candidates and ballot measures would actually change under existing law rather than relying solely on campaign descriptions from either side.
International events are also influencing the 2026 political conversation.
Wars and conflicts abroad, relations with China and other global powers, U.S. military involvement, defense spending, trade, alliances, Israel and the Middle East, and America’s role overseas are all subjects candidates may address.
Foreign policy can also connect directly to domestic concerns. International conflicts may affect energy prices, trade, government spending, military families, and the broader economy.
Members of Congress have meaningful responsibilities involving military authorization, funding, sanctions, and foreign policy oversight, while presidents retain substantial executive authority.
As candidates discuss international events, consider not only the desired outcome but also what powers the office actually possesses.
Artificial intelligence has become a more visible political issue in 2026. Questions include job displacement, privacy, misinformation, data-center construction, energy consumption, regulation, national security, and America’s competitiveness in emerging technologies.
Some communities are encountering these debates locally as new data centers and infrastructure projects raise questions about electricity use, water, zoning, and development.
AI may not rank as highly as the economy or immigration for many voters, but it illustrates why election research should extend beyond the most familiar political topics. New technologies can quickly create policy questions at the federal, state, and local levels.
The issues receiving the most attention nationally will not necessarily be the most important issues on every ballot.
A congressional candidate may be debating foreign policy while your state is considering a major tax measure. A governor’s race may center on education or housing. Your local races may involve public safety, development, school policy, or government spending.
That is why the most useful question as Election Day 2026 approaches is not simply, What issues are dominating the news?
Ask: What decisions will the people and measures on my ballot actually affect?
Then research accordingly.
Read candidates’ own positions, but compare them with voting records, public statements, primary documents, and reliable reporting. Look at arguments from more than one perspective. Distinguish facts from predictions and campaign claims from independent evidence.
For Christians, this is also an opportunity to consider public issues through a biblical worldview while recognizing that applying broad biblical principles to specific policy choices often requires careful thought.
The final weeks before November 3 will bring more campaign claims, breaking news, debates, and political commentary.
Real Life Network offers news and current-events programming designed to help viewers follow important developments through a biblical worldview, including RLN News, The Daniel Cohen Show, Rose Unplugged, Cure America, and other programs addressing faith, culture, and public life.
As Election Day approaches, RLN will also be preparing for America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live, bringing together live election results, updates, and conversation from races across the country.
The goal is not simply to follow who wins and loses. It is to understand the issues shaping those results and why they matter.
Stay informed as November 3 approaches. Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates from Real Life Network and follow RLN for news and coverage leading into Election Day 2026.
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.
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.
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.
While domestic political debates dominate election coverage, threats from overseas continue to affect American security.
Iran's relationships with regional armed groups, including Hezbollah and the Houthis, remain significant concerns for the United States and its Middle Eastern partners.
The Houthis have demonstrated their ability to threaten commercial shipping and regional infrastructure through missile and drone attacks. Their activities raise questions about the security of international transportation routes and the potential consequences of escalating regional conflict.
An attack against civilian aviation infrastructure, regardless of the perpetrator, demonstrates why such threats demand serious attention.
Airports are not simply strategic facilities. They are gathering places for families, workers, travelers, and children whose safety depends upon effective security measures.
The same concerns apply to attempted attacks against commercial aircraft.
An alleged attempted hijacking involving a flight bound for Israel has renewed questions about airline security, radicalization, and the ability of investigators to recognize warning signs before violence occurs.
Claims about an attacker's motivations, foreign connections, or possible accomplices require confirmation through official investigations. But the underlying security concern is clear.
Protecting civilian transportation requires intelligence cooperation, thorough investigations, and appropriate safeguards against credible threats.
Confronting terrorism requires moral clarity about violence against civilians and factual precision about who is responsible for carrying it out.
That distinction is especially important when discussing Iran.
The Iranian government has supported organizations responsible for attacks against civilians and American interests. Its activities deserve scrutiny, particularly when regional conflicts threaten to draw the United States into additional military commitments.
Yet attributing every action of an Iranian-aligned group directly to Tehran requires evidence about the specific operation. Distinguishing support, influence, and operational control is essential to responsible analysis.
Foreign policy decisions also carry consequences for American families.
Military intervention, economic sanctions, intelligence operations, and defensive partnerships each involve risks and responsibilities. Congressional leaders help shape those decisions through legislation, appropriations, and oversight.
The approaching elections therefore involve more than competing campaign messages.
They concern the responsibilities entrusted to public officials and the standards by which their decisions should be evaluated.
For Christians, those standards begin with a consistent understanding of truth, justice, and human dignity. Protecting the innocent, holding wrongdoers accountable, and refusing to excuse violence should not depend upon political convenience.
The sanctity of life matters before birth, after birth, and throughout every stage of human existence. Justice matters for victims and defendants alike. National security matters because governments bear a responsibility to protect the people entrusted to their care.
Those principles deserve serious consideration regardless of which political party holds power.
Continue exploring the intersection of biblical truth, American politics, Israel, and national security through The Daniel Cohen Show, available free on Real Life Network.
If voters are trying to imagine what the nation would look like under the socialist policies of a Democratic majority in Congress, look no farther than California.
Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and the Democratic supermajority in both chambers of the state legislature offer an extensive list of policies flowing from the same socialist and Marxist ideology being championed by the ascendant wing of the Democratic Party.
The latest example is AB 1803, signed by Governor Newsom last week. Authored by Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal (D), the law requires employers with five or more employees to add training on hate speech to the growing list of California’s harassment-training laws.
Lowenthal said, “California must make meaningful progress to train Californians on the danger of hate speech not only in the workplaces, but in society as a whole.”
The law describes speech covered by the training as speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against people based on protected characteristics.
And what are those protected characteristics? They include religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and reproductive health decision-making — which includes abortion.
There are others, but those are enough to raise serious questions for Christians and religious organizations.
First, there is no clear legal definition of hate speech. Whatever the intent, the effect is to give the term enormous elasticity. Who decides when a deeply held religious conviction crosses the line from disagreement into “humiliation” or “vilification” and is then defined as hate speech?
Second, California law does not make sufficiently clear how this new mandate applies to churches and religious ministries. That ambiguity itself should concern anyone who values religious freedom, because the protected categories include subjects on which biblical Christianity makes unmistakable moral and theological claims.
Jesus said in Matthew 19 that the Creator “made them male and female,” and then described marriage in terms of a man and a woman. Does teaching those words humiliate someone who rejects the biblical understanding of sex and marriage?
What about Jesus’s words in John 14: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”? Christianity is inherently exclusive in its truth claims. Could that someday be deemed vilifying toward another religion?
This is why California’s law should concern the church and everyone else, for that matter. When state officials declare the state needs to train society on what is appropriate speech, all of society is in trouble. Frankly, the state of California should not be instructing the church — the church should be instructing the government on what is right and wrong.
For Christians, this is an Acts 4 moment. When Peter and John were ordered not to speak or teach in Jesus’s name, they answered: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.”
California is not merely a laboratory for the Left; it is a warning to the rest of America. The question for voters is whether California’s experiment stops at the state line, or comes to Washington. And the question for the church is even more fundamental: when government demands that we compromise biblical truth, will we have the courage of Peter and John to stand firm and speak it?
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
National races dominate election coverage, but some of the decisions that affect your daily life may appear much farther down the ballot.
The 2026 midterm elections on November 3 will determine control of the U.S. House and affect the makeup of the Senate, but voters across the country will also encounter state legislative races, governors’ contests, county and city offices, judges, school boards, and ballot measures.
That is why researching the 2026 ballot should involve more than recognizing a few names from national television.
If you are beginning to ask, “What’s on my ballot in 2026?”, the next step is to understand the different kinds of races and measures you may encounter and know what questions to ask about each one.
Most voters hear far more about Congress than they do about county government, school boards, judges, or local ballot initiatives.
That imbalance can make the bottom half of a ballot feel unfamiliar.
Before Election Day, take time to review the ballot information published for your jurisdiction and identify every race and measure that will require a decision. Instead of trying to research everything at once, make a list and work through it category by category.
Depending on where you live, that list may include:
Some may receive extensive news coverage. Others may receive almost none. Lack of national attention does not make a race unimportant.
Candidate research becomes much more useful when you understand the responsibilities of the position being sought.
A candidate for Congress will deal with very different questions from a city council member. A governor has different authority from a state legislator. School board members, county officials, judges, and local prosecutors each operate within their own responsibilities.
Before comparing candidates, ask:
What authority does this office actually have?
That simple question can cut through a surprising amount of campaign rhetoric.
Candidates sometimes make promises involving issues their office has little power to change. Understanding the role itself helps voters evaluate whether campaign claims are realistic and whether the issues being emphasized actually belong within that office’s responsibilities.
Campaign websites are useful because they tell you what candidates want voters to know about them. They should not be your only source, however.
Compare campaign statements with interviews, public records, reliable local reporting, debate appearances, previous votes when applicable, and other primary-source material.
Useful questions include:
Party affiliation can provide some information about a candidate’s general political alignment, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, or another affiliation. But it does not substitute for researching the individual candidate.
Two candidates from the same party can differ substantially on priorities, policies, governing style, or experience.
Local elections often receive less attention than congressional races, even though state and local officials can make decisions that affect people directly.
State legislators may vote on taxes, education, criminal law, business regulation, healthcare policy, and state spending. Local officials can influence public safety, development, transportation, housing, budgets, and other community priorities.
School boards may make decisions involving curriculum, district policies, budgets, and administration.
That makes local elections in 2026 worth researching with the same seriousness as races that generate national headlines.
Local journalism can be particularly valuable here because local reporters often cover candidate forums, controversies, voting records, and community concerns that never reach national media.
Candidates are not the only part of the November 3 election.
Many voters will also be asked to decide ballot measures involving state or local law. These could include constitutional amendments, taxes, bonds, public spending, criminal justice questions, government structure, education, or other policy matters.
Ballot-measure campaigns often reduce complicated proposals to memorable slogans.
Go deeper.
Read the actual proposal or an official summary. Understand what changes if it passes and what remains in place if it does not. Look at arguments from both supporters and opponents, but also distinguish campaign claims from what the measure itself would legally do.
A useful research checklist is:
What does the measure change?
Who or what would be affected?
What would it cost?
How would it be implemented?
Am I willing to pay increased taxes for this measure?
What are supporters arguing?
What are opponents arguing?
Which claims can be independently verified?
The wording may take a little more time to understand, but that time can be well spent.
By the final weeks of an election, voters can be surrounded by campaign ads, fundraising emails, social posts, endorsements, commentary, and viral videos.
Those sources may contain useful information, but they also have a purpose.
A campaign ad exists to persuade you. So does a political action committee advertisement. An endorsement tells you what another person or organization wants you to conclude.
That does not make those materials worthless. It simply means they should be recognized for what they are.
Whenever possible, compare persuasive claims against original documents, direct quotations, voting records, full interviews, official reports, and reporting from multiple sources.
Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (NKJV). That principle is especially useful during an election season.
National political conversations can sometimes obscure what an election means closer to home.
A question about education, public safety, taxation, housing, religious liberty, healthcare, or economic policy may look different depending on the state, district, or community involved.
As you research state and local elections, ask how the major issues being discussed connect to the actual offices and measures on your ballot. Which decisions are made federally? Which belong to your state? Which are controlled locally?
Understanding that distinction makes political research more useful and helps prevent national rhetoric from overshadowing the decisions voters are actually being asked to consider.
For Christian voters, becoming informed is part of taking civic responsibility seriously.
That does not require assuming that every believer will make identical political choices. It does mean approaching candidates and policies thoughtfully rather than allowing a party label, celebrity endorsement, social media clip, or campaign advertisement to make the decision for you.
Research what candidates actually believe and have done. Examine policy proposals carefully. Consider how the issues intersect with biblical convictions about human dignity, justice, truth, freedom, family, stewardship, and care for others.
And recognize the difference between biblical principles and political messaging that simply borrows Christian terminology.
Discernment requires more than hearing what you already agree with.
The closer Election Day gets, the louder the political conversation will become.
Researching early gives you time to move at a different pace.
Start with the races and measures that will affect your own community. Understand what each office does. Compare candidates. Examine ballot measures. Check campaign claims against reliable information. Then continue following the larger national stories shaping the 2026 midterms.
Local knowledge and national awareness belong together.
Real Life Network will continue following the news, cultural conversations, and major issues shaping the 2026 elections as November 3 approaches.
Then on Election Night, America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live will bring viewers live results, updates, conversation, and biblical perspective on races and issues from across the country.
Stay informed locally and nationally. Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates from Real Life Network as Election Day 2026 approaches.
The economy matters. Groceries, gas prices, housing costs, and the pressure on American families deserve serious attention. But national security belongs in that conversation, too. The decisions made in Washington affect more than household budgets. They shape the country's ability to confront terrorism, protect religious communities, secure its borders, and respond to threats abroad.
Those connections deserve closer examination. Through The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network, the intersection of faith, national security, Israel, and American politics remains central to understanding the headlines.
The approaching November 3 midterms raise questions that go well beyond which party controls Congress. Who sets national security priorities? How should America respond to Iran and its terrorist proxies? What responsibilities do elected officials have when antisemitism and political violence reach American communities?
National security is not an abstract debate reserved for Washington. Its consequences can reach neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and ordinary families.
Iran remains central to the discussion about American national security and the Middle East. Its support for armed groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, has made its regional influence a continuing concern for the United States and Israel.
Yet political disagreements over Iran and Israel often become tangled in arguments about military assistance, international law, and America's responsibilities overseas.
Michigan's Senate contest illustrates those competing priorities.
Abdul El-Sayed has argued against unconditional American military assistance to foreign governments, including Israel. In interviews, his position has emphasized applying international law consistently and restricting weapons transfers to governments accused of violating it.
That approach raises legitimate questions about American foreign policy. Military assistance is not an unlimited obligation, and elected officials have a responsibility to scrutinize how taxpayer money is spent.
But the discussion cannot stop there.
Israel faces rocket and missile threats from hostile armed groups and regional adversaries. Defensive systems such as Iron Dome exist to intercept incoming projectiles and protect civilian populations. Any proposal to restrict military assistance therefore deserves careful examination of its potential consequences for defensive capabilities as well as offensive operations.
There is also an important distinction between criticizing a government's military decisions and excusing terrorism directed against its citizens.
The March attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, brought that distinction much closer to home. A vehicle carrying incendiary materials was driven into a synagogue complex that also serves children and families. The incident prompted renewed concerns about antisemitic violence and the reach of conflicts originating thousands of miles away.
Political leaders can disagree about Israel's government, military operations, and American foreign assistance. Those disagreements do not diminish the obligation to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians and religious institutions.
No disagreement over foreign policy can justify threatening Jewish families or treating American religious communities as extensions of a foreign government.
The same principle must apply to every community. A synagogue, church, mosque, or school should never become a target because of anger over events elsewhere.
The connection between national security and congressional elections is more substantial than campaign rhetoric might suggest.
Congress controls federal appropriations, establishes statutory authorities, conducts oversight, and plays a central role in shaping the agencies responsible for national defense and domestic security. The Senate also exercises its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations requiring confirmation.
Those responsibilities make congressional debates over homeland security, intelligence gathering, immigration enforcement, and counterterrorism consequential.
An alleged ISIS-inspired plot involving the Mall of America in Minnesota offers an example of the threats federal investigators seek to identify before violence occurs.
According to the account presented by federal authorities, an 18-year-old suspect had communicated about supporting ISIS and allegedly considered carrying out an attack in the United States after plans to travel overseas did not materialize. The allegations require the usual distinction between prosecutors' claims and facts established in court.
But the broader issue remains significant: preventing terrorism requires investigative resources, intelligence cooperation, appropriate legal authorities, and effective oversight.
Protecting the public also requires precision.
Terrorist organizations are responsible for their own violence. Their actions must not become an excuse to assign collective guilt to immigrants, Muslims, or particular ethnic communities. Effective counterterrorism depends upon identifying actual threats rather than confusing religious identity or national origin with criminal conduct.
That is why national security policy requires more than slogans about being tough or compassionate.
The public deserves to understand how candidates would approach terrorism investigations, border security, intelligence oversight, civil liberties, and the constitutional limits of government authority.
Those questions belong alongside debates about inflation, healthcare, education, and taxation.
Three years after the Hamas-led October 7 attack, the anniversary remains a painful occasion for Jewish communities around the world.
Approximately 1,200 people were killed in the attack, and 251 were taken hostage. The consequences have extended far beyond Israel, including heightened security concerns and incidents of antisemitism in the United States.
New York City's response to the anniversary illustrates how difficult the public conversation has become.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani's remarks acknowledging the suffering caused by October 7 while criticizing Israel's subsequent military actions became a point of contention among activists with sharply different expectations.
The controversy reflects a larger problem in contemporary politics: expressions of sympathy, criticism, and disagreement are increasingly measured against demands for complete ideological agreement.
Recognizing the suffering of Israeli victims does not require ignoring Palestinian civilian suffering. Likewise, expressing concern for Palestinians does not require minimizing the October 7 atrocities or excusing antisemitism.
Both truths can be maintained without contradiction.
Political movements become less capable of honest debate when every disagreement is treated as betrayal. Acknowledging suffering should not depend upon whether the victims belong to a preferred political or religious community.
For Christians, Scripture establishes a higher standard than political loyalty. Human beings bear God's image, and the obligation to speak truthfully does not disappear when truth becomes inconvenient to a favored party or cause.
Proverbs 18:17 reminds readers that the first account of a dispute may sound persuasive until it is examined. That principle applies to viral videos, campaign statements, accusations of extremism, and claims about political opponents.
Christian discernment requires consistency: condemn terrorism without qualification, reject antisemitism without hesitation, and examine political claims without surrendering judgment to party loyalty.
The approaching midterms will generate enormous attention around polling, turnout, and campaign strategies. Those subjects are part of the political process, but they should not obscure the governing responsibilities attached to the offices being contested.
A Senate vote can affect national security appointments. A congressional appropriation can determine resources available to federal agencies. Legislative oversight can expose failures or strengthen accountability.
Understanding those responsibilities provides a more useful framework than treating every political development as a contest between personalities.
The same seriousness belongs in discussions about Israel, Iran, and religious freedom. American foreign policy involves real tradeoffs, and domestic security decisions can affect both public safety and constitutional liberties.
No political party possesses a monopoly on wisdom, and no candidate should be exempt from difficult questions.
The standard should remain consistent: evidence before accusations, clarity before slogans, and responsibility before political convenience.
Follow the intersection of biblical truth, Israel, national security, and American current events through The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network
After months of flooding the zone with glum predictions for Republicans, there’s been a quiet but meaningful shift in major media headlines. Left-leaning outlets desperate to make the GOP’s demise a self-fulfilling prophecy seem to be subtly hedging their bets against another polling embarrassment. In the last handful of days, even the big dogs — The New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek — are conceding that maybe the election forecasts aren’t as lopsided as they’ve been leading voters to believe.
Suddenly, readers are clicking on stories that paint a very different picture of the apocalyptic landscape for Republicans they’d come to expect. Articles like “Democratic Optimism in Six Senate Races May Be a Mirage,” “3 Bright Spots for the G.O.P.,” and “How Much Can Republicans Outrun Trump’s Approval?” are popping up in the same pages that have urged Americans to don galoshes for the Blue Tsunami. And while there certainly are very troubling signs for Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) party, one lesson everyone should have learned by now is that polls are an incredibly flawed measure of public opinion.
In the modern age, Republicans have consistently outperformed the industry’s numbers in presidential and midterm elections. Pollsters have frantically tried to solve this puzzle, especially after a string of national humiliations. After a lot of head-scratching, two theories for this unpredictability revolve around the GOP. “First, Republicans are becoming more distrustful of institutions and society, and that may be extending to how they feel about pollsters. Second, suburban Republican college graduates are more likely to fear professional sanction for their views and are therefore self-censoring more, including in surveys,” FiveThirtyEight’s Emily Ekins suggests. Most experts estimate that conservatives underpoll somewhere between 3-5% — a massive swing for anyone trying to prophecy close races.
Over the last handful of days, the media seems to be making an intentional effort to temper their excitement, noting that as optimistic as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) may be, “history offers a warning to Democrats, as polls in recent elections underestimated Republicans in key states. Control of the Senate could come down to just a handful of races where polls show razor-thin margins.” In places like Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas, Newsweek warns, Democrats appear to have a polling edge. “But Republicans have outperformed polling averages in many of those same states over the past few elections. Polling errors are not necessarily repeated from cycle to cycle. But a similar pro-Republican polling error this cycle would not bode well for Democrats’ chances of flipping the Senate.”
Watch live coverage of election night on Real Life Network.
Frankly, it’s “impossible to know for sure” what the polling error could look like this year, Syracuse Political Science Professor Grant Davis Reeher acknowledged. “There are some pretty big known unknowns in this election, which could throw off polls,” he said. “A primary one is turnout. Polls must make educated guesses about who is most likely to vote. It’s a little trickier in midterms.”
National Review’s Jim Geraghty, who hasn’t exactly been a glass-is-half-full prognosticator, offered what he called “the cheeriest midterm take for Republicans you’re going to find,” urging readers to second-guess the excitement surrounding Democrats in cherry-red Kansas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Florida. Despite the media’s insistence that GOP candidates are in trouble, the polling doesn’t necessarily bear that out. “There’s good reason to not believe the hype; we’ve seen this sort of narrative before.”
He ticks off the numbers for each key race, along with historical trends, dismantling the idea that conservatives are in trouble. “The lesson of this is not that all the polls are always wrong, or that every prediction of an upset Democratic win is always wrong,” Geraghty cautions. “But there’s an extremely familiar narrative of ‘this Democrat really has a shot in a deep red state!’ that rarely pans out; when it does, it’s usually because of a spectacularly flawed Republican candidate.” Americans should be wary of a blue wave, he writes, if only because “certain left-of-center media voices always tell them there will be a blue wave every November.”
An unlikely source echoes NR’s guardedness: The New York Times. Despite what pundits say, “there is also quite a bit of good news for Republicans,” Ruth Igielnik wrote late last month. For starters, “Republican Senate candidates are running ahead of the party. … Each of [them] is outrunning President Trump’s popularity in their states, sometimes by double digits. … And in each of the races, Republican candidates are winning some voters who otherwise say they want Democrats to control the Senate. Taken together, these are signs that in these competitive, Democratic-leaning states, Republicans have nominated strong candidates who appeal beyond their base.”
Then, of course, there’s the Left’s ugly infighting. “As Democrats are divided,” the Times points out, “Republicans are united. … We asked Democrats across the country if they felt the party was united or divided. About half said the party was united, and half said divided. Those numbers are nearly identical to a survey we ran in 2016. Republicans, on the other hand, are feeling very unified. In our most recent national survey, 70 percent of Republicans said they felt the party was united. That is a dramatic departure from 10 years ago. In 2016, more than 80 percent of Republicans said they thought the party was divided.”
Over at The Washington Post, Scott Clement reiterates that a “poll of two key House districts shows good signs for Democrats, but no tsunami.”
As for the bluster that even Hispanics are abandoning the GOP, Rasmussen Reports soundly beats back that narrative. In results released Monday, Hispanic voters favor Republicans by a 50 to 42% margin over Democrats. “The poll also indicates a tightening battle for control of Congress, as the Democrats’ lead over Republicans decreased for the second week in a row, according to the company. Overall, voters said if the election was held today 47 percent of likely voters would vote for the Democrat candidate, while 44 percent would vote for the Republican. Four percent of voters said another party’s candidate and just 4 percent were undecided.” In other words, Republicans have slashed the Democrats’ lead in half since just mid-September, “particularly with independent voters.”
But as encouraging as those signs are, leadership is clear-eyed about the hill they have to climb this November. “Now listen, this is going to be a very close election,” Speaker Johnson underscored Tuesday. His Senate counterpart, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), has been cautiously optimistic about his side of the Capitol. “I think we can keep the majority,” he told Politico this week. “I think all of these races are margin of error, at least the ones that we have to win. And historically, at least if you look at polls, we tend to outperform them.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) made that same point in a conversation with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” When Cook Political Report, a widely respected organization, moved more seats to the toss-up or Democratic-leaning column, the House’s second-in-command wasn’t worried. In his mind, there’s more to the story. “You know, the polling really is interesting when you dig into it. You’re seeing an undersampling of Republicans, and we’re digging into some of these. Let’s be clear too. There are a lot of close races, not just Republican races.” He pointed to a few states like New Hampshire where GOP candidates are making a dent in Democratic areas too. “There [are] about 35 seats across the country that are truly swing districts,” Scalise observed. “Twenty of them are held by Republicans that are close right now, but 15 are held by Democrats that are also close, that we have a real chance to flip. And so, turnout is going to be a big factor. Who really does show up?”
The GOP has another secret weapon this election — in large part thanks to President Trump and Speaker Johnson — and that’s campaign cash. As Perkins highlighted, conservatives “have a strong edge on the fundraising to get their message through in these final days.” Scalise nodded. “We really do. You know, it’s rare that we outraise Democrats in a lot of these seats. We have now. And again, I think people are seeing what’s at stake, and they’re donating money.”
The media, he thinks, “[is] counting on Republicans, especially traditional conservative voters, to just stay home. And I don’t think that’s going to happen, because I think more and more people are seeing this sharp contrast [between the two parties].” With the rise of the Democratic Socialists, Scalise warns, “This isn’t like two candidates [who] are similar. This is common sense versus crazy. And some of these candidates … [don’t just want] to defund the police — they want to disarm the police. They actually advocate for taking guns away from police officers. You were a police officer. Could you imagine approaching a criminal who’s got a gun and saying, ‘Hey, let’s have a conversation and try to talk this out?’ He shoots you, and it’s over. This is insanity. And that’s beyond crazy. But if people stay home ... [these radicals win]. And that’s why people can’t stay home.”
At the end of the day, Scalise insisted, Democrats are trotting out polls “to make it look like they’re doing better than they are, because they want to depress conservative voters. Because if conservative voters stay home, guess what? Socialists will actually win. They can’t win if you show up and vote on November 3rd.”
That’s right, Perkins stressed. “The only poll that really counts is Election Day when people turn out and vote.”
Watch live coverage of election night on Real Life Network.
This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
.webp)