On Christmas Day 1863, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote the poem we now know as the song “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.” Earlier in the year, Longfellow had unsuccessfully pressured his son, Charles, not to join the Union Army. On Christmas Day, Longfellow learned his beloved son had been critically wounded at the Battle of New Hope Church. “I heard the bells on Christmas Day / Their old, familiar carols play, / and wild and sweet / The words repeat / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!” “And thought how, as the day had come, / The belfries of all Christendom / Had rolled along / The unbroken song / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!” Longfellow’s life had been one of tragedy. His first wife died in childbirth. His second wife, Frances, whom he adored, burned to death in an accident. Someone dropped a lit candle on the dress she was wearing. It went up in flames, killing her. Now, Longfellow’s son’s fate was unknown on a battlefield. In a letter dated March 14, 1863, Charles informed his father that he had joined the Union Army, where he would quickly get promoted to lieutenant. “I have tried hard to resist the temptation of going without your leave but I cannot any longer,” Charles wrote. “I feel it to be my first duty to do what I can for my country and I would willingly lay down my life for it if it would be of any good.” As Longfellow wrote on Christmas morning, feeling overwhelmed, worrying about his son and the Confederacy seemingly on the verge of winning the war, his poem turned dark. “Then from each black, accursed mouth / The cannon thundered in the South, / And with the sound / The carols drowned / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!” “It was as if an earthquake rent / The hearth-stones of a continent, / And made forlorn / The households born / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!” “And in despair I bowed my head; / ‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said; /‘For hate is strong, And mocks the song / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!’” This year seems genuinely insane. We have an armada surrounding Venezuela. Jews fear for their lives even in the United States. Violence seems to be everywhere. People are hating their neighbors instead of loving them. Some Americans worry about Washington. Others worry about making ends meet. Everyone seems to be filled with anxiety. Despair comes easily at Christmas as we all idolize a perfect Christmas memory we live perpetually to duplicate and never quite can. This Christmas, as I write this, my wife, with stage 4 lung cancer, is battling the flu. My kids are sick. Bills are due. Presents must be ordered, even still, and wrapped. Balancing work and family and travel is wearing me out. Two thousand years ago, a couple had to travel from their home in Nazareth to the town of Bethlehem. With no rooms available due to local crowding, the very pregnant wife gave birth in a food trough in a barn to the King of all creation. God, who wandered the desert with the Israelites, came to the planet fully man, born in a barn. He wants a relationship so badly with us, he did that, lived a perfect life, died as if he were a criminal, then conquered death for us. We do not get to escape the troubles of the world. But God came into the world, experienced those troubles as we do, and conquered death. This world is the worst we will ever have it. Eternity calls. We just have to have the courage to make it through this world, as he did. Longfellow knew that. On Christmas Day 1863, under the weight of worry and grief, he concluded his poem thusly, “Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: / ‘God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; / The Wrong shall fail, / The Right prevail, / With peace on earth, good-will to men.’” Merry Christmas. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post It Will Be OK appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Within a single week, the governors of Illinois and New York both announced their support for physician-assisted suicide legislation. In Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, signed a bill legalizing the practice Dec. 12. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, announced Dec. 17 that she has reached an agreement with the state legislature and will sign the Medical Aid in Dying Act in January 2026. With these developments, Illinois and New York join 11 other states and Washington, D.C., that have already authorized physician-assisted suicide. Hochul explained her decision in a personal essay published shortly before her Wednesday press conference. She noted that bodily autonomy ultimately shaped her thinking about the bill: “I have come to this as a matter of individual choice that does not have to be about shortening life but rather about shortening death,” Hochul, who identifies as Catholic, also framed her reasoning in theological terms, saying she reflected on what she has learned about God. “I was taught that God is merciful and compassionate, and so must we be,” she wrote. “This includes permitting a merciful option to those facing the unimaginable and searching for comfort in their final months in this life.” In her press release, Hochul emphasized the bill’s guardrails. Once signed, the law will allow “medical aid in dying” for terminally ill adults with less than six months to live. Additional restrictions include a mandatory five-day waiting period between the prescription and dispensing of the lethal medication. Individuals requesting euthanasia must make an oral request and undergo a mental health evaluation by a psychologist or psychiatrist. Anyone who stands to benefit financially from the patient’s death is barred from serving as a witness to the request. The bill also requires an in-person medical evaluation and permits religiously affiliated hospice providers to opt out of providing physician-assisted suicide. The safeguards in New York’s bill closely resemble those adopted in Illinois. The Illinois law, signed by Pritzker last week, allows adults 18 and older to request end-of-life medication if they have an illness with a prognosis of six months or less. The law requires confirmation of a terminal diagnosis by two physicians, mandates both an oral and written request for the medication, and stipulates that the drugs must be self-administered. It also requires that individuals seeking medical assistance in dying receive information about all end-of-life care options, including hospice, palliative care, and pain management. In both Illinois and New York, lawmakers have emphasized the safeguards built into their physician-assisted suicide laws. Each bill limits “medical aid in dying” to adults with terminal diagnoses. Yet even The New York Times, in its coverage of New York’s proposal, acknowledged that other countries with similar laws have significantly broadened them over time. Canada offers a striking example. When it first legalized “medical assistance in dying” in 2016, eligibility was limited to those with terminal conditions. But in 2021, the law was amended so that a patient’s death no longer needed to be “reasonably foreseeable.” The results were predictable: in 2023, 15,300 Canadians died by assisted suicide, accounting for 4.7% of all deaths nationwide. And in 2027, Canada is scheduled to expand eligibility even further to include individuals “suffering solely from a mental illness.” The Netherlands also offers a cautionary example of how physician-assisted suicide laws can expand over time. In 2002, it became the first nation to formally legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Under the original law, adults experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement were eligible, and minors ages 12-16 could also request euthanasia with parental consent. Although children under 12 were not included in the law, a 2004 medical protocol (the Groningen Protocol) created guidelines under which physicians could end the lives of infants with severe, untreatable conditions without facing prosecution. Over time, Dutch practice also broadened to include patients whose suffering is primarily psychiatric, and courts affirmed that mental illness can meet the legal standard of “unbearable suffering.” In 2020, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that euthanasia may be performed on patients with advanced dementia based on a previously written advance directive, even if the patient can no longer express a current wish to die. In 2023, the government announced plans to expand euthanasia eligibility to include terminally ill children between the ages of 1 and 12. In short, lawmakers in Illinois and New York will champion their new laws and defend them by pointing to the safeguards they have put in place. But history shows that such guardrails rarely hold. In countries that have adopted physician-assisted suicide, restrictions requiring terminal diagnoses are eventually loosened, distinctions between physical suffering and psychiatric suffering disappear, and protections for minors are removed over time. Ultimately, these restrictions cannot last because a worldview rooted in radical bodily autonomy eventually demands the elimination of every constraint on personal choice. But even if the broader culture rejects the existence of objective moral truth, Christians must insist that some actions are morally wrong by their very nature. It is always sinful to take an innocent human life, even when a person requests it. Christian ethics affirms that God is the author of life (Genesis 1:26) and explicitly forbids murder (Exodus 20:13). Assisted or not, intentionally ending an innocent human life is murder, and God condemns it. In 1996, the Southern Baptist Convention warned that “American society seems to be embracing the culture of death.” Its resolution criticized physician-assisted suicide and urged doctors, nurses, and churches to prioritize the emotional, psychological, and spiritual care of suffering patients, with the goal of relieving “the sense of isolation and abandonment some dying patients feel.” Both Pritzker and Hochul noted that stories of profound suffering motivated their push for physician-assisted suicide. In the months and years ahead, Christians must be prepared to articulate why the culture of death is destructive and contrary to true human flourishing. A Center for Biblical Worldview report released in October found that 54% of churchgoers desire additional biblical teaching on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Notably, this topic generated the lowest interest among all areas surveyed. Yet as the Illinois and New York laws take effect in 2026, it is more important than ever for Christians to defend a biblical ethic of life and to explain clearly why every human being, from conception to natural death, is valuable and worthy of respect, dignity, and protection. Originally published by The Washington Stand We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Culture of Death Advances With Euthanasia Legalization in Illinois and New York appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As a leftist Muslim immigrant from Somalia, radical Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is wonderfully blessed with a diversity, equity, and inclusion press. She is perennially assumed to be a victim of racism, sexism, and xenophobia whenever she is criticized, and especially when she’s verbally targeted by President Donald Trump. At the end of a typically syrupy interview with Esme Murphy from the local CBS station WCCO in Minneapolis on Sunday, Omar claimed her 19-year-old son Adnan Hirsi was pulled over by Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. “Yesterday, after he made a stop at Target, he did get pulled over by ICE agents, and once he was able to produce his passport ID, they did let him go,” Omar asserted. She said her son “always carries” his passport with him, because she tells him ICE agents “are racially profiling, they are looking for young men who look Somali that they think are undocumented.” The CBS anchor didn’t question any of this. The station later reported that ICE’s acting Director Todd Lyons said the agency has ‘absolutely zero record of its officers or agents pulling over Congresswoman Omar’s son” and accused her of trying to “unfairly demonize our law enforcement officers.” On Wednesday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer oozed all over Omar on “The Situation Room.” Blitzer turned to her accusations against ICE. “I know that the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has become very personal for you, even though you’re a member of Congress. You have said that federal immigration agents actually pulled over your son on Saturday and asked him to prove his citizenship. He is, of course, a U.S. citizen, as are you.” But at least Blitzer made one soft offering of a rebuttal: “The Department of Homeland Security says—and I’m quoting them—‘ICE has absolutely zero record of its officers or agents pulling over Congresswoman Omar’s son’ and have accused you of seeking to—quote—‘demonize ICE as part of a P.R. stunt,’ their words. What do you say to that?” Omar presented “zero record” of her son’s supposed stop, just some word-salad demonization of ICE. “Well, if ICE is saying that they have documentation of every single person that they have pulled over in Minneapolis, we would love to see that record … they have not been able to provide a single information.” Blitzer just moved on. She didn’t have to give CNN “a single information” to back up her claims. The burden of proof is entirely on ICE. They’re guilty until they prove their innocence. Instead, Blitzer turned back to Trump’s taunts. “When President Trump attacked you again a few days later during a separate event in Pennsylvania, his statements were actually met with cheers from the crowd, and many of them were shouting, ‘Send her back,’ their words, ‘Send her back.’ What goes through your mind when you hear that kind—and do you fear at all for your safety?” These interviewers just put the ball on the tee. “Please denounce Trump’s words as dangerous and creepy.” Omar proclaimed, “Somali Americans are here to stay,” and Blitzer agreed: “As they should be. They’re U.S. citizens. Almost all of them are now U.S. citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens.” Omar said that “nearly 60% [were] born in the United States.” Blitzer added: “And they’re very good U.S. citizens, to be sure.” Blitzer made no mention of more than $1 billion in welfare fraud in Minnesota, largely committed by Somali Americans, nor Trump’s claims that Omar married her brother for a few years. That would violate their corporate intent to stay “woke.” COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Ilhan Omar Can Accuse ICE With No Proof appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a Wall Street Journal interview a few days ago, President Donald Trump was circumspect regarding his party’s prospects in the 2026 congressional elections. Although no one doubts the president’s supreme confidence that he is doing the right things for the country (“I’ve created the greatest economy in history”), he acknowledged “that he couldn’t predict if that would translate into political gains for Republicans next fall.” The party of the sitting president has picked up congressional seats in midterm elections only twice since World War II: Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002. And the case of Bush was far from business as usual. The election followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Patriotism was surging, with Bush’s approval peaking at 90%, and by the 2002 elections, it still was above 60%. Trump’s latest approval rating by Gallup is down to 36%. But the case of President Ronald Reagan shows that, although sticking to principles may create some early turbulence, eventually the right path pays off. Reagan’s approval rating, per Gallup, was down to 36% in the second year of his presidency. Currently, per Gallup, the percent expressing “satisfaction with the way things are going” in the country is 23%. In November 1982, at the time of the midterm elections in Reagan’s first term, satisfaction stood at 24%. In those 1982 elections, Democrats picked up one Senate seat and 26 seats in the House. But by the time of the presidential election two years later, November 1984, Reagan’s approval was over 60% and he won the presidential election in a landslide, capturing 49 of 50 states. The state of the economy when Reagan took office in 1981—double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates—was decidedly worse than now. However, the overall challenges that Trump faces today are, I believe, greater. Today, federal debt stands at almost 100% of gross domestic product. In 1981, it was less than 25%. In 1980, per Statista, 18.4% of our babies were born to unmarried women. By 2008, it hit 40%, and it has remained steady since. Per USAFacts, in 1980, the percent of U.S. households headed by a married couple was 60.8%. In 2022, this was down to 46.8%. In 1980, the main security threat facing the U.S. was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a security threat but not an economic threat. Today, the U.S. faces both Russia under Vladimir Putin and the enormous economic and security threat from China. In addition, we must deal with the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism. Per the World Bank, U.S. defense spending in 1980, at the time of Reagan’s election, stood at 5.2% of gross domestic product. Reagan got this up to 6.8% by 1982. Per Statista, projected defense spending in 2025 stands at 3.2% of GDP, hovering around a historic low. Social Security and Medicare, our two largest entitlement programs, which together account for some 45% of the federal budget, are broke. Per their trustees, Social Security will have insufficient funds to pay benefits by 2034, and Medicare Hospital Insurance funding will fall short in 2033. The world has changed dramatically since Social Security was signed into law in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. What firm does business today like it did 50-plus years ago? These programs need thorough modernization. Politicians may not want to talk about it. But citizens know there is something wrong. Although the road of change was rocky at first, Reagan’s unwavering commitment to the USA as “the land of the free and home of the brave” won the day. Today we have historically outsized challenges. It’s obvious that America’s socialists—the Democratic Party—is the wrong address. If we are going to have a future, we need bold, courageous leadership today. Republicans are the only address. To our good fortune, we have great leaders like Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Capitol Hill. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Republicans Will Win In 2026 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Persecution of Christians in Nigeria is not driven solely by religion, according to Pastor Brad Brandon.   While religion plays a direct role, socio-economic issues are a significant factor contributing to the bloodshed, says Brandon, founder and CEO of Across Nigeria, a Christian organization with the mission of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the people of Nigeria and supporting persecuted Christians in the African nation.   It is estimated that more than 50,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria since 2009, and about 7,000 in the first half of 2025 alone.   A Missionary Calling   A decade ago, Brandon was pastoring a church in Connecticut when he realized his relationship with God “had become very stale.”   “I cried out to Him and just said, ‘God, I don’t want this anymore. I want to be back close with you and have that side-by-side walk with you again,’” Brandon tells The Daily Signal he recalls praying.   Shortly thereafter, Brandon got involved with Christian missions work in Nigeria. When he traveled to the African nation in 2016, he gave God the credit for leading him to a Fulani Muslim village, which became the start of Across Nigeria.   Brad Brandon stands with a man in Nigeria. (Courtesy of Across Nigeria) Brandon has dedicated much of the past 10 years of his life to serving Christians in Nigeria and building relationships with Fulani Muslims, giving him unique insight into current tensions between Christians and Fulani Muslims.   Why Fulani Muslims Are Attacking Christians   While Boko Haram and the Islamic State—West Africa are driven by their radical Islamic ideology to persecute Christians in Nigeria, many Fulani Muslims are in conflict with Christians over issues of farming and ranching.   “Although there are some militarized radical Fulani Muslims who are ideological in their beliefs and in their actions, I would say many of the Fulani Muslims are in conflict with the Christians … [because of a] lack of good grazing ground for their cattle,” he said.   Boko Haram and the Islamic State are terrorist groups, both of which have a strong presence in Nigeria, but the Fulani Muslims are an ethnic group in Northern Nigeria and are responsible for a great deal of the current violence being carried out against Christians.   “They raise cattle,” Brandon said of the Nigerian Fulani Muslims. “The Christians do farming [and] especially during the dry season, you’ll see an increase in the violence. When the cattle are looking for food, they’ll wander onto a farmer’s crops [and] destroy the crops. The farmer comes out, chases the cattle away, the Fulani come back and retaliate, and before you know it, hundreds of Christians are killed.”  Stopping the Fulani Violence   While the socio-economic issues do not justify the violence from the Fulani Muslims “it gives us an insight into how we can solve the problem,” the Christian missionary said.   “We’re helping those communities with wells, with medical care, with schools, because we want to increase their socio-economic position so that their young people aren’t drawn into radical ideologies and terrorism,” he explained.   To date, Across Nigeria has built eight schools serving over 4,000 students primarily in Fulani Muslims communities. Violence has dropped by 60% to 70% in every area where a school has been built, Brandon said.   One of the solutions to the tensions in Nigeria between Christians and Fulani Muslim is a ranching system that would include fences for cattle, which Brandon says is not a perfect plan, but does have “some good points to it.”   ‘Christian Lives Are Expendable’  Brandon also places responsibility at the feet of the Nigerian government for allowing the persecution to continue.   About 25 years ago, Christians and Fulani Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side, Brandon explained. But because the “Nigerian government has been silent on the issue of Christians being killed,” Brandon says, the message to “the Fulani is that when we have a problem, Christian lives are expendable, and we’re not going to get in trouble for killing them.”   Additionally, Brandon say he believes that the instability in northern Nigeria is viewed as a benefit to and by the Nigerian government.   “It allows them to retain power,” he said the government. “It allows them to be able to do things in the north that they couldn’t do if it was stabilized.” Trump in Action   The persecution of Christians in Nigeria has gained international attention, including from President Donald Trump, who at the end of October announced he was designating Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern.   Trump has also directed members of Congress to look into the issue of Christian persecution in Nigeria and report back to him.   “I’m appreciative of President Trump for drawing attention to this,” Brandon said, adding that “there hasn’t been a president in recent history that has done anything about this.”   When President Joe Biden entered the White House, he removed Nigeria from the Country of Particular Concern list despite the fact that persecution of Christians was taking place at the time.   Trump put Nigeria on the list of countries of Particular Concern during his first term, “so he’s always had his finger on the pulse of what’s happening in Nigeria,” the missionary said.   The post Little-Known Issue Contributing to Deadly Muslim Attacks on Christians in Nigeria   appeared first on The Daily Signal.