“My vote won’t make a difference. Why bother?” Because we still can.

I keep thinking about my ancestors. Our family history reaches back to the 1500s in what is now Germany. Eventually, members of that family left everything familiar and traveled to America.

The people on the ballot are applying for a job. If you owned a business, would you hire this person?

I cannot quote their conversations, but I imagine someone finally saying, “Wir müssen nicht so leben.” We don’t have to live this way. Taxes, control, and oppression had made staying unbearable. They had little say in the system governing their lives, so they crossed an ocean and accepted the dangers of a frontier for the chance to work, build, and keep the fruits of their labor. They expected hardship. They wanted a chance.

I cannot imagine looking those people in the eye and saying, “I have a voice in choosing who holds authority over my liberty, safety, and money. I just decided not to use it.” Yet election fatigue tempts us to do exactly that. We get disgusted, tune out, or decide one vote won’t count. I cannot control an election’s outcome, but I am responsible for using the voice I have.

That is stewardship. And part of stewardship means examining the ballot. Government must protect life and property, including infrastructure, national security, and fair commerce. Officials need clear responsibilities, limits on their power, and consequences when they abuse it.

Start with the term “public servant.” How many abuse both words? They serve, all right — themselves. And when the public asks questions, plain English suddenly becomes a foreign language.

Consider two recent examples. At a July Senate hearing, Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times. He had the constitutional right to do so, of course. That does not make the spectacle reassuring.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), meanwhile, rejected the allegation as “insane” that her former husband was her brother. But when asked whether she was related to her former husband, she answered, “Not to my knowledge.” A federal court filing also identified her as “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi” — a designation the filing did not explain and that Omar disputes. What does it mean? The public deserves a straightforward explanation, supported by evidence.

Before defending either official, ask whether you would accept the same conduct from someone you opposed. Public scrutiny comes with public service. Demand answers, including from those on your own side.

Trump may be the first president in our lifetime so public that he scarcely needs a press secretary. Sometimes I wish he would use one more. But that is another column.

Four questions help me evaluate the people asking for my vote.

Have they built anything?

A business, a farm, a household — what have they been responsible for? Have they ever met a payroll? When Friday comes, employees need their checks. A speech about good intentions won’t cover them. Experience alone does not qualify a candidate, but I want evidence that the person understands work, responsibility, and consequences.

RELATED: The GOP’s favorite business model: Lose, beg, repeat

Id-work/Getty Images

Would they return my wallet?

Intact and without expecting anything in return. Would you trust this person with your property or to help your family in an emergency? Does the candidate’s conduct support the promises? If neither candidate inspires confidence, compare their records. Which one would need less watching?

Do they help people get on their feet?

Are public officials helping people become independent or dependent? A Center for Immigration Studies analysis of 2014-2023 census survey data estimated that 81% of Minnesota households headed by Somali immigrants received cash assistance, food assistance, or Medicaid. That figure alone cannot tell us which recipients work, how long they need help, or whether programs are succeeding.

Those are questions for the officials spending public money. Are families gaining the ability to support themselves? Is independence even the goal? People who cannot provide for themselves because of age, disability, or sickness need help.

But unable and unwilling are different things. Compassion requires us to examine what happens to the people we claim to help. Stewardship requires us to examine those claiming to help them with our money.

RELATED: Pray for the country. Then do your part.

Imagedepotpro/Getty Images

Will they protect life and property?

For me, that begins with unborn life and includes opposing medical gender interventions for children. It also means enforcing consequences against those who harm people or take what belongs to others. Examine candidates’ records on border security, bail, and sanctuary policies. Who was protected? Who paid the price? What did the official do when something went wrong? Apply the standard regardless of race, religion, wealth, connections, or party.

Compare what candidates promised with what they have actually done. Invite a neighbor to do the same. The people on the ballot are applying for a job. If you owned a business, would you hire this person? Would you bring this person in as a consultant?

Then vote.

My ancestors came here because they had so little voice in the decisions governing their lives. They accepted enormous risks for an opportunity their descendants now enjoy. I cannot promise them I will always choose wisely. But I will vote.

Because I still can.

​Midterm elections, Voting, America, Taxes, Stewardship, Anthony fauci, Senate hearing, Gop, Public officials, Compassion, Medicaid, Census, Opinion & analysis 

On the October 21 episode of “Call Her Daddy” — the number-one podcast listened to by American women — host Alex Cooper and guest Sophia Bush discussed divorce while talking about Bush’s past relationships and current marriage to former women’s national soccer team player Ashlyn Harris.

“We can get really, really in our heads about ‘oh my God, I feel like I’m, maybe I shouldn’t leave this marriage because can I even get better?’ And the answer is always yes,” said Cooper.

Bush agreed and added, “The answer is always yes. And this idea that it’s too late or you’re too old or who are you to want more? That’s patriarchy. That is crazy. We don’t need it.”

Josh Howerton, Blaze TV host and pastor of Lakepointe Church, believes “Alex Cooper might be worse for women than Andrew Tate is for men.”

Howerton admits that the nonchalance with which the two women discuss divorce makes him “[get] a little worked up.”

“They don’t got to counsel the man, the children, or the wife who has their life absolutely cratered because you just got to sit on a podcast and say what you thought would go viral,” he says.

He cautions young women to avoid the “Call Her Daddy” podcast.

“I want to love you enough to tell you the actual truth, and I’m telling you right now, inputs create outcomes in your life, and if that’s your input, you’re going to have some real crappy outcomes,” he warns.

Howerton points out that Sophia Bush has been married three times. “One of those marriages lasted five months. Great job. … Her second marriage lasted 13 months. … And her third quote-unquote ‘marriage’ is to a chick,” he says.

He stresses the importance of choosing role models wisely.

“The women that young women need to be listening to, they’re not on podcasts; they’re not on TikTok; they’re not putting out four Instagram reels per day. You know what they’re busy doing? Raising their kids. … Serving at their local church,” he says.

Howerton also notes that the duo’s proposition that a woman, regardless of age, can always find a better partner is “a lie” statistically.

“In general, your best chance to attract and keep a good husband … is when you’re a little younger,” he says. “So they’re giving actually damaging advice to women. It doesn’t play like out like that in the real world.”

“Listening to stuff is how you end up a single lonely spinster cat lady with nobody to visit on the holidays and nobody to visit you in the nursing home.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

“Live Free with Josh Howerton” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms. Join BlazeTV+ and start watching Josh today at blazetv.com/JOSH. Use promo code JOSH to get $20 off your subscription.

​Call her daddy, Josh howerton, Alex cooper, Feminism, Blazetv show 

Progressive Christians have long found support for their politics in the Bible. Often, the argument begins with what Scripture doesn’t explicitly condemn: Jesus never mentioned gay marriage or abortion, for example. From there, they appeal to Christ’s compassion for the poor, the stranger, and those rejected by society to justify positions on contemporary issues ranging from immigration reform to gun control.

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico takes a different approach. A seminary-trained Christian, Talarico has argued that the Virgin Mary’s consent to bear Jesus supports abortion rights and that God is “nonbinary.”

The Jesus revealed in Scripture cannot be reduced to the portions of His teaching that satisfy a contemporary ideology.

Talarico isn’t merely arguing that Christianity is compatible with progressive politics. He’s making the more ambitious claim that Scripture itself supports particular progressive positions.

With November’s midterm elections approaching, Talarico’s campaign raises a question that extends well beyond Texas: Are we allowing Scripture to shape our understanding of politics, or are we allowing politics to reshape our understanding of Scripture?

According to your word

Take two of Talarico’s public arguments. During a July 2025 appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, he treated Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel as a model of consent in support of abortion rights. “God asks for Mary’s consent,” Talarico said, arguing that the story demonstrates that “creation has to be done with consent.”

But that is not what Luke records. Gabriel does not ask Mary whether she wishes to become pregnant. He announces what will happen. Mary asks how it can happen, and after Gabriel explains, she responds with willing submission to God’s word: “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). The passage does not establish a doctrine of abortion. Questions of unborn human life require Scripture’s broader teaching on creation, human dignity, and the image of God.

Separately, Talarico has described God as “nonbinary.” He made the remark during a 2021 debate in the Texas House, arguing that God is “both masculine and feminine and everything in between.” Talarico has since acknowledged that the language was deliberately provocative and said his underlying point was that God cannot be defined by human categories.

Christian theology has long affirmed that God transcends human biological distinctions. But that is not the same as reading a contemporary category of gender identity back into God’s revealed nature.

Christ of convenience

Faithful biblical interpretation begins with the text, its historical context, and the author’s intended meaning — not with a political conclusion in search of scriptural support. When a political figure invokes Scripture to establish the moral authority of a campaign stance, that use of the text deserves careful examination on its own biblical merits.

These concerns are not limited to one candidate. We live in a culture that increasingly judges religious beliefs by their compatibility with prevailing social and political convictions. Teachings that affirm popular positions get attention; those that challenge them are treated as inconvenient and often silenced. It is easier to float with the current than to swim against it for the sake of biblical consistency. And when the church simply drifts downstream, it risks reflecting the culture instead of witnessing to it.

That risk often shows up in a selective portrait of Jesus. A politically convenient Jesus may talk frequently about love while rarely confronting sin. He may offer grace without repentance, mercy without judgment, or justice detached from righteousness. His words are celebrated when they support a preferred social vision and neglected when they challenge it.

The Jesus revealed in Scripture cannot be reduced to the portions of His teaching that satisfy a contemporary ideology. He extends mercy while commanding a departure from sin. His love does not require the abandonment of truth, and His grace does not eliminate the necessity of repentance.

James puts the issue more starkly: “You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

RELATED: 5 times Christians lost debates with atheists — and what they did wrong

Mark Sullivan/ullstein bild/Getty Images

Usurping authority

When Scripture is adjusted, softened, or selectively applied so that it no longer conflicts with a preferred political outcome, interpretation becomes accommodation.

Christianity becomes a political instrument when Scripture is cited to confer divine legitimacy on a policy position while discouraging honest examination of what the text actually teaches. Religious language can make an argument appear morally unquestionable even when the connection between passage and interpretation remains contested.

Talarico’s statements illustrate the problem. Whatever one thinks of his politics, the relevant theological question is whether his interpretations faithfully communicate what God has revealed. The same standard must apply across the political spectrum. No party, candidate, or movement possesses the authority to determine what Christianity means.

The problem is made worse by the speed at which theological claims now travel through podcasts, television, social media, and campaigns. A fragmentary interpretation can quickly be received as settled teaching by audiences that have never examined the passage themselves. Christians have a responsibility to distinguish what Scripture says from what others claim it says.

The controversy surrounding Talarico will eventually pass, as will the election that elevated his arguments. The underlying question will remain: Will the church measure its convictions against Scripture, or will it allow political culture to decide which parts of Christianity are acceptable?

Jesus Christ does not need to be reinvented for the political moment. He does not need to be reshaped to accommodate an ideology, repackaged to win an election, or stripped of the truths that make His teaching uncomfortable.

Anyone who invokes Christian teaching publicly assumes a responsibility of spiritual stewardship. We are not called to make Scripture more politically useful. We are called to communicate it faithfully.

America does not need a Jesus fashioned in the image of its politics. It needs the truth of Christ faithfully proclaimed.

​Gender identity, Social media, Christian living, James talarico, Virgin mary, Abortion, Texas, Midterms, Lifestyle, Faith