Politics gets messy when your values and your ballot don’t line up. We dive straight into Virginia’s statewide races to unpack a real voter’s dilemma: a controversial AG candidate whose private texts ignited a public storm, a lieutenant governor race clouded by identity-over-policy branding, and a base deciding whether to split tickets, write in, or hold their nose. Along the way, we tackle the questions that keep serious voters up at night: When does conscience say “no,” and when does prudence say “lesser evil”? How much power does each office actually wield, and how should that change your vote?

We also zoom out to the system that produces these choices. If a party keeps offering candidates misaligned with its own voters, the answer isn’t apathy—it’s leadership. We share a practical blueprint for taking back party machinery at the precinct level, recruiting early, and building a bench so the next four-year cycle looks different. Because ballots are cast in November, but candidates are built in March meetings, county committees, and quiet planning rooms where rules and platforms are forged.

For a needed dose of good news, we spotlight a brand’s swift course correction: Cracker Barrel tried to abandon its core identity, faced a backlash, and reversed. It’s a reminder that institutions—business or political—survive by listening, not lecturing. We close by framing border security statistics that claim historic reductions, modeling how to interrogate outcomes without falling for easy headlines. If you care about faith-informed citizenship, electoral strategy, and practical steps that actually change results, this conversation gives you tools and the courage to use them. If it resonates, subscribe, share with a friend, and tell us: where do you draw your voting line?

Support the show

Ever wondered whether America’s promise of religious liberty was designed to be wide open—or tethered to a shared moral code? We tackle a pointed listener question about the founders’ intent and explore why the early American consensus protected the rights of conscience while expecting public behavior to align with Judeo-Christian ethics. That balance—pluralism with guardrails—helped secure inalienable rights under a common rule of law without policing private theology.

We dig into John Adams’s claim that the “general principles of Christianity” united the generation of independence, then look at early state constitutions and their broad theistic oaths for office. The thread is accountability: leaders and citizens who believe they’ll answer to God tend to tell the truth, keep their word, and respect others’ rights. From there, we draw lines around pluralism: a neighbor’s faith is welcome, but practices that infringe on life, liberty, or equal justice are not. It’s the Declaration’s architecture in action—rights from God, government to secure them, law to restrain harm.

Then we pivot to the present with the high-stakes governor’s race in Virginia to show how worldview drives policy—and why short bursts of mobilization aren’t enough. If you’re tired of the one-step-forward, two-steps-back cycle, this conversation lays out a practical playbook: recruit strong candidates early, train year-round teams, shore up election processes, and cultivate civic discipleship that restores moral clarity on issues culture calls “political.” Small, steady work between election days is how communities build durable freedom.

If this resonates, share the episode with a friend. Your voice helps shape a freer, wiser public square.

Support the show

If you’ve ever looked at a general election ballot and wondered, “Why are these my only choices?” this conversation is a map back to the moment where better options are made. We’re on the road ahead of early primaries, working with pastors, meeting potential candidates, and pushing past the noise so voters can actually hear the truth before the smear machine defines it for them.

We dig into why the recruiting phase matters so much, how big money and early ads try to frame candidates long before most people are paying attention, and what kind of backbone it takes to run and serve in today’s polarized climate. Then we tackle the big claim that “we shouldn’t legislate morality” and flip it on its head: every law already reflects someone’s moral code. The real question is whose values will guide issues like life, courts, public safety, and education—and why Christians shouldn’t be the only people told to leave their convictions at the door. Along the way, we draw from history—Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower—to show how faith can inform freedom without flirting with theocracy.

We also unpack a timely Supreme Court case out of Colorado that touches counseling, speech, and viewpoint discrimination. Should the state be able to punish a Christian counselor for offering a biologically grounded or faith-based perspective that a client seeks? The legal winds aren’t as predictable as headlines suggest, and court dynamics can shift late in the game—remember the Obamacare ruling pivot. Finally, we zoom back out to crime and constitutional authority, asking whether leaders care more about outcomes than optics when cities reject help that measurably reduces violence.

If you care about better candidates, clearer arguments, and policies that actually work, hit play and join us. Share with someone who cares about faith and public life, and send us your toughest questions—we’ll tackle them on air.

Support the show