A shutdown that no one seems to feel is a political story begging for a plot twist. We sit down with Congressman Barry Loudermilk to unpack why this standoff looks different, how a “clean” continuing resolution became a flashpoint, and what happens when SNAP deadlines collide with Senate filibuster math. The headline isn’t just funding—it’s leverage. When policy riders hitch a ride on short-term spending, the real fight shifts to who controls the agenda months from now and who gets blamed when the lights stay on but trust runs out.

From there we move to the border and a bold claim: treat fentanyl trafficking like an invasion. Barry argues that if a boat carried a nuclear device, we’d intercept it without hesitation; fentanyl kills at a mass scale and funds hostile networks, so interdiction should be just as decisive. That stance raises big questions about presidential authority, authorizations for force, and the risk of escalation. Venezuela enters the frame as both a regime under pressure and a linchpin in the illicit economy, with hints that interdiction is working if offers to trade gold for relief are real. Any deal, he warns, must be verified relentlessly or it’s just a pause button for traffickers.

We close with new angles on January 6. Previously hidden intelligence points to expectations of Antifa embedding, alongside revelations that more than 200 FBI agents were present after the breach—facts not disclosed to courts or defense teams even as some agents contributed to prosecutions. That gap raises serious discovery and credibility issues. The core question becomes unavoidable: with so much intelligence, why wasn’t the Capitol secured? Accountability should land on every actor who failed—violent offenders, yes, but also officials who misled Congress or withheld material facts.

If you care about how budgets shape borders, how borders shape overdose deaths, and how transparency shapes trust, this conversation connects the dots. Share with a friend who follows policy closely, and send us your questions—we may feature it on a future show.

Support the show

A privately funded White House expansion shouldn’t be a five-alarm fire, yet the headlines say otherwise. We dig into the facts behind a proposed East Wing ballroom, why capacity and ceremony matter for diplomacy, and how the people’s house has changed many times before. From Monroe’s portico and Taft’s Oval Office to Truman’s steel-reinforced rebuild, the White House has always evolved to meet new demands. That history matters when judging what’s preservation, what’s progress, and what’s political theater.

We also unpack the spending narrative. Why did taxpayer-funded upgrades in recent years generate little pushback while private dollars for additional capacity spark outrage now? The contrast exposes how media framing shapes public perception. Beyond décor, we focus on function: hosting Congress, governors, and foreign delegations requires space, security, and a setting that reflects American leadership. Scale isn’t vanity when it elevates statecraft and strengthens our diplomatic posture.

Then we turn to the shutdown. With appropriations stalled, a private donor stepped in with $130 million to keep military pay flowing—an extraordinary moment that spotlights priorities and process. We explain how shutdowns reprioritize spending by statute, why defense often remains protected, and how omnibus bills muddy accountability. The founders required Army funding to be renewed every two years for a reason. Clean, single-subject appropriations would put choices on the record and reduce crisis politics.

We close by previewing an upcoming conversation on Venezuela and drug smuggling, connecting national security, executive authority, and fiscal stewardship. If you value clear history, honest budgeting, and practical leadership, this conversation is for you. Follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review with your take: preservation, progress, or both?

Support the show

What if our culture’s hottest causes are colliding with the Bible’s clearest assignments? We dive into the contested space where faith meets public life and ask a sharper question: who did God actually task with justice, mercy, and protection—and what happens when we hand those duties to the wrong institution?

We start by mapping jurisdiction. Romans 13 gives government the sword to punish evil and defend the innocent; Scripture gives charity to individuals, families, and the church. That simple divide changes everything about social justice. From the Tower of Babel’s bricks to the image of living stones, we push back on one-size-fits-all systems that flatten human dignity. Then we zoom out to the 613 biblical laws and the Ten Commandments—the tenor of God’s law—to ground public priorities: acknowledge God, protect innocent life, and safeguard property against theft and coveting.

With that foundation, we test modern claims. On poverty, we compare government delivery rates with private charity and surface research connecting higher state welfare with declining church engagement. We highlight a local, relational model of aid that mirrors biblical gleaning: mercy with dignity, participation, and paths out of poverty. On the environment, we separate wise stewardship from policies that elevate creation over people. We examine shifting climate projections and the staggering tradeoffs of spending hundreds of billions for marginal temperature changes while clean water could save millions now.

Throughout, we explain why life and marriage remain top-tier issues—not because other concerns are trivial, but because God’s priorities shape how we order everything else. The takeaway is a roadmap for engaged believers: keep compassion high, keep government within its lane, and keep biblical hierarchy at the center of voting and civic action.

Support the show