Three big races in FL and WI on April 1 that have major national implications. Is MAGA just a once every 4-year movement? Or can we get out the vote on a random Tuesday in April, too? 

Welcome to Politics Lifesaved, thank you for being here. We are on the eve, as I record this, of two big elections, well three actually. Two in Florida, one is to replace the congressional seat left by Matt Gaetz, the other is to replace the congressional seat left by Mike Waltz, who is now the National Security Advisor. Mike Waltz one is getting most of the attention because this is the seat that Trump won by 33 points. No, Trump won by 30, Mike Waltz won by 33.

And who knows what's going to happen tomorrow, but the media has characterized this as a close race. And every headline is about how the Republicans are worried. Well, the Democrats did outspend 10 to 1 for this race. I thought of it because we're talking to Randy Fiend and I told him this. It's like the Democrats have, they're playing risk and they're losing. They haven't been on

their front foot for since November. So this is like all they got left. So it's like they're playing a game of risk and all their armies are in one country and they're just going for broke in one place. I think we're going to put everything we can in the 6th congressional district of Florida. Now what's really interesting about this race, well I'll tell you one thing about Randy, there's been media reports that he hasn't taken this race seriously enough because it's such a safe seat,

has always been such a safe seat. And I don't listen to anything the lamestream ever says, but this one probably is right. I guess some Republicans met with him and said, hey get your act together here because you couldn't actually lose this thing.

Because, and I think that's probably right because a couple weeks ago we talked to him about something totally different, just something about they were doing in Florida, and he was just the guy to talk to, like he wrote the bill in Florida

that we were talking about. And it was near the end of the conversation. It just happened to come up and he's like, oh yeah, I'm actually running for that seat. I was like, oh, geez, son of a gun, wow. When is it?

He's like, oh, a couple weeks from now. He's like, oh, but don't worry, it's just a, yeah, Trump won it by 33 points or something. I was like, oh, okay, yeah, well, good luck with that. And that was the end of the conversation. We talked to him last week and he was voterandyfine.com,

voterandyfine.com, voterandyfine.com the whole time. So there's definitely some urgency now in his step, no question about that. The other big race, we got the Matt Gaetz one, I don't really know the scene in that one, that one's getting no attention.

We're actually talking to the Republican on that one tomorrow, but I haven't heard a peep about that. I don't know if the Democrats are trying to get that one too or maybe they're doing it more quietly. Don't know. The other big race tomorrow though is the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Now there's a ballot amendment in Wisconsin which require an ID to vote and there are a bunch of school board

races but the big one is the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The reason this is a big deal is not only all the criminal justice stuff of course but if the Democrat wins they have said that they will redraw the district lines, the congressional district lines, and draw out two of the Republicans that currently have two seats. One of them, they would redraw the lines to add more of Madison, and the other, they would redraw the lines, I think, to add more of Milwaukee, so that they're now Democrat seats instead of

Republican seats, the way they're written right now. Apparently, they did this the last time a progressive won, or when they originally took over control of the courts a couple years ago. I think it was 2021. And they did this, they redrew the state lines for the state house and the state senate to favor the Democrats. And they've said, they've said out loud, they're going to do this for the congressional seats

as well. So that alone right there could change the entire makeup of the house, just this one Supreme Court race, which is why Trump and Elon have spent so much time and money there. So tomorrow we'll see if people show up. My big point I've been making is that we cannot just be a once every four year people. And maybe it's even worse than that.

Maybe it's just a vote for Trump movement. That would be so lame. That'd be so pathetic. We can't just do that. It's going to be more than just, because Trump's not going to be on the ballot anymore. Or maybe one more time. But not right. Probably not. So if we're just a vote for Trump party, then that's it. That's the end of the party.

There's no more party, no more chances to vote for Trump. But MAGA has got to be something bigger than Trump. I think Trump wants MAGA to be bigger than he wants his legacy to move on beyond him. So it has to be bigger than Trump. And we have to be more than once every four year people. We have to be midterm voters.

We have to be primary voters. You wonder why there's such terrible candidates. Well, no one voted in the primary. And we have to be April 1st, 2025 voters as well. And if we're not, then we don't deserve to win. But we have big things happening, exciting things

happening. And people who are in the more desperate situation, which is what the Democrats are right now, they have a little more zeal to vote. And we think we could just sit back. We're still in a victory parade from from back November. Like, oh, it's unbelievable.

Every day there's something great happening. We just sit back and then it's gone. The opportunity to keep doing all these things is gone. And from a political standpoint, if Republicans lose the midterms, then it's just, that's it.

Like, there's just impeachments for the last two years of Trump's term. That's the end of it. So we need huge wins and we need Randy Fine to win by 30 points. He needs to win by 30 points. Here's the last point and then we'll move to the Bible.

There's, I keep getting this number, there's 30, I don't know if this is exactly right, but there's something around 30 Republican congressmen who are in districts that Kamala won. Don't quote me on the number. There's a bunch of moderate Republicans who are in blue districts or very close districts. And they're scared to vote for MAGA stuff because they think they're going to lose the next election if they do.

And I've been trying to make the argument, no, Trump is running on 80-20 issues. Everything he's doing is 80-20. Like voter ID to vote, that's an 80-20 issue. So don't be scared because the media or the Democrats are telling you that that's so controversial. It's not. 80-20, it's like men and women's sports, like a 90-10 issue. Trump only does 80-20 issues.

He was asked back in daylight savings time, whenever that was, a couple weeks ago, what he thinks we should do. And he said, listen, some people like it earlier, some people like it later. It's 50-50. I'm not going to get involved. He doesn't want 50-50 issues. He wants 80-20 issues. And that's all he's doing. And then moderate Republicans need to know that. These are 80-20 issues that he's fighting for. And you need to stand on the side of the 80 and don't be scared. But if Randy Fine only wins by six points in a plus 30

Republican district, that's gonna send a message to a lot of the moderates, moderate Republicans, uh-oh I can't go all in as mag as I want or as I thought or as we want. So this has to be a huge win. So if you know anyone in Florida and these two districts, make sure they go vote and certainly anyone in Wisconsin as well. Now, that being said, I've got a couple of scriptures to share here.

This is such an unsatisfying answer when we talk about how to win elections.

It's a big question.

How do we win elections? It takes money, a ton of money, so much money, ridiculous insane amounts of money. Takes knowing the right people, connections, good timing, got to hit it right. It oftentimes takes a strong person on the top of the ticket to get you over the finish line. There's a lot of reasons why you can lose an election.

So you know, what does it take? It takes a lot. But the thing that's said the least is it takes God. I know we talked about this a week or two ago, but more and more scriptures keep popping up about the consequences of disobeying God. For a nation.

First Chronicles nine. So all Israel was recorded by genealogies and indeed they were inscribed in the book of the kings of Israel. But Judah was carried away captive to Babylon because of their unfaithfulness." It's right there. It's clear. Well, why were they taken away by captive to Babylon?

Because the Babylonians had stronger military apparatuses? No. No. It's not what it says. Wow, it's because of the geopolitical tensions of the moment. No.

Why were they carried away captive? Because of their unfaithfulness. But what about the weather conditions during the battle?

No.

God could overcome anything if God if they remained faithful to God God would have protected them against anything doesn't matter how many empires would have come their way but because they remained unfaithful anyone would have taken them over we get so caught up in the intrigues of the country this country that country who's gonna win this battle that war, this election, that election. God's in control of all of it. We do our best, but God's in control of it all. Now the very next chapter is the

death of Saul. The first king of Israel started off with so much potential, but this is how it ended. The battle became fierce against Saul. It's 1 Chronicles 10. The archers hit him and he was wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and abuse me. But his armor-bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid.

Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword and died. So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together. Why? Why did that happen? Well, you see, Saul was... No.

There's no, you see. Read verse 13. So Saul died for his lack of political acumen at the given moment. He didn't have enough money. He didn't have enough... No, no. Saul died for his unfaithfulness.

Why was Judah taken over by Babylon? Unfaithfulness. Very next chapter. Why is Saul dead? His unfaithfulness, for which he committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium

for guidance. But he did not inquire the Lord. Therefore he, God, killed him and turned the kingdom over to David, the son of Jesse.

Who killed Saul? Is Israel? Therefore he, capital H, therefore he killed him. Real quick on the consulting a medium. I saw a political commentator.

I don't know this person enough.

I don't want to call him out by name right now. But they were on some other show and she was talking about consulting a medium. I'm not that I think she's the word. I got that.

That's not it.

Stay away from that stuff. Leviticus 1931. I say I say that's not it meaning. This the conservative movement can't move in that direction. We can't be moving in that way. As conservatives as a conservative movement.

Leviticus 19.31 says, Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God. That's what Saul did. He consulted a medium for God. So what do we consult?

Instead, seek first the kingdom. Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." That's Matthew 6, right before that. Therefore do not worry, saying, what shall we eat? What shall we drink? What shall we wear? Who will win the next election? For after all these things the Gentiles seek, I added that election one, for your Heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But first, seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and

all these things shall be added to you. This of course doesn't mean do nothing. No one ever says such a thing. I don't know of anywhere in the Bible, correct me if I'm wrong, if it ever says to sit back and do nothing. But also know in the end, God will do whatever he wants. Look at the kingdoms he raised and the kingdoms he fell in just a single sentence.

We need to do what we can to win our elections. Whether they're on November 5th every four years, midterm elections, or a random Tuesday in April of an odd-numbered year. We've got to do everything we can to win every election we can. Every day. Every day.

Seek first, but we can do it. The website is MikeSlater.Locals.com. We put the transcript and this episode commercial free up on the website MikeSlater.Locals.com. We put the transcript and this episode commercial free up on the website MikeSlater.Locals.com. This episode commercial free up on the website Mike Slater dot locals dot com.

Should someone on food stamps be allowed to buy soda? HHS might ban people on SNAP from buying soda. There is also a bill in TX that bans people on SNAP from buying soda, candy, cookies and chips. It seems obvious to me, but more importantly, what does the Bible say about it?

Hello, welcome to Politics by Faith. Thank you for being here. The last couple of days on the radio we talked about food stamps and soda. Three different things happening. In the federal level, there is a move by Health and Human Services to not allow people on SNAP, that's the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to be able to buy soda. SNAP, by the way, if you go to the website, it says, SNAP provides food benefits, so it is not food, to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget. Real groceries, like food is what we're looking for here. So they can afford the nutritious food, so it is not nutritious, essential to health and well-being. So HHS is probably going to come out and say you can't use food stamps to buy soda. Apparently WIC, women, infant, and children, that type of food stamp you're already not allowed to do, but they're going to expand that restriction to SNAP. Now we talked to a Texas state representative about a Texas bill that expands that to, you can't buy soda, cookies, candy, or chips. So they're expanding it out to junk food. I would like to propose, and we have not done this yet, I'll do it on Monday show, I think, see how things go this weekend, but I'd like to expand that to all fast food. That's my nature, that's my instinct. But maybe that'll change based off this conversation here on this podcast, we'll see. Let's just start, let's just stick with junk food. We'll stick with junk food for now. To me, this is so obvious. And on the radio, I had trouble making a steel man for it. It's so obvious that you should not be able to spend my money on junk food when the premise of it is nutrition. So we took some calls. I called for people to only call in if you're against the ban. And there were a couple good arguments. No one changed my mind, but there's some good arguments and then after the show I went down I talked to my wife and so wife what do you think should people on food stamps be allowed to buy soda and She said yes now

My wife is as conservative as they come she's from small town East, Tennessee, right? It's in her bones. She will say things that are so conservative. I'm like you should do the show you should Do a segment or there's like the whole three hours. She's like, oh, I couldn't. I was like, no, you did better than me. So I was like, okay, so don't question her conservatism here in this point. So I said, why? Why should people on food stamps be able to buy soda with the food stamps? And by the way, they could still spend, it's not like if you're on welfare, you're not allowed to buy soda. You can just buy it with your own money. And it's not like you're not allowed to drink soda. Like if you go to a birthday party and you drink a soda you're getting Arrested like you could still drink it. Just can't buy it with the food stamp money I said why should people be allowed to and she said because they're people too And she felt bad for them not being able to buy soda And I said, but it's our money. She said it doesn't matter. They're people too and I made the joke on the radio that this is why women should not be allowed to vote. Now, listen, I'm not going to make that joke here.

Okay? I'm not going to make that joke. It's not appropriate. It's not an appropriate joke to make. So, we then got into a conversation on this chart. The chart here that Mike Lee sent out, Senator Mike Lee from Utah. And he said, how does one explain this? And it's a chart that has voters' opinions of, in a bunch of different groups of people, or people or groups. Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Elon Musk, Doge, Republican Party, Zelensky, DEI, and the Democratic Party. Voters' opinions of. And it breaks it up into four different groups. White men with no college degree, white men with a college degree, white women with no college degree, and white women with a college degree. The difference between white men with no college degree and white women with a college degree is so enormous on every single one of these things. It's insane. These people are in totally different planets. A white man with no degree and a white woman with a college degree live on different planets. Their opinion of Donald Trump, white men with no degree plus 41. White women with a college degree, negative 38. I would love to see 10 white men with no degree and 10 white women with a college degree in the same room together. I don't know what happens there. How does that politically function? It can't, yet we all live in the same country. White women, excuse me, let's do DEI. White men with no degree, negative 40, view on DEI. White women with a college degree, plus 31. And it's like that with every single one of these. So what explains this? I've heard analyses like this before and I think this one is well-worded so let me share it here. The person says the answer to this is very simple.

Now let me just say if you heard me make this analysis on SiriusXM, I did like a like a bit with it. I made it like a bit more dramatic. Yeah I'm just gonna read it straight here. We're serious business here. No goofing off like we do on the radio. We're serious business. The answer to this is very simple. Women are a standard deviation higher in trait agreeableness and trait neuroticism than men. And the bit I did here was, Whoa, women, listen, you're upset because I called you neurotic. I didn't call you neurotic. I did, but I called you agreeable too, and you weren't happy about that now you're upset about being called neurotic let me explain it that was it but no more bits no more bit neuroticism is a personality trait that gives one the tendency to experience emotions such as anxiety worry fear anger frustration envy jealousy guilt and loneliness now it's for know about this is these are not insults these can be channeled for good and can be used, these can be tools that can be used properly or when used properly are good. People with high neuroticism can have a higher risk awareness, they can have higher self-awareness and a neuroticism has like a really bad connotation, you're neurotic, it's like, okay, well, this can actually be good. People higher in this characteristic can be more creative, they can have a higher drive for achievement and more relevant here though, they can have more compassion. Due to their heightened sensitivity to emotions, neurotic individuals may develop a strong capacity for understanding and caring for others.

This is biological, mostly immutable. Both of these traits, agreeableness and neuroticism, when channeled properly in the right direction, are very useful. Back to this person. He said their compassion like a woman's compassion and politeness directed towards their in-group kids family friends and their neuroticism Channeled into hyper vigilance into making this group happy and cooperative. This is a wonderful thing It's an amazing thing. It's a society building thing. It's a family building thing a society bill. It's essential and wonderful and God-given Here's here's what breaks down. College convinces women to redirect these traits away from their tribe, family, kids, and friends, into higher order, the higher order tribe of society. I would also argue that women today are not having kids or families at the age that they used to. Back in the day, you're a 26 year old woman, you have three kids by now. And today, you're a 26 year old woman and you just graduated college. And you have nowhere to channel that innate, God-given, biological impulse inside of you. So instead of channeling it to your kids, you don't have any, or your husband, you don't have one yet, like other women in the past would have at that age, you then channel it to Ukraine and all minorities everywhere with Black Lives Matter and Zelensky and DEI and your hatred of Trump because he hates whatever, Mexicans.

So you take this agreeableness and these other characteristics that women have a higher standard deviation of and you channel it in the wrong direction. This is why, I don't know if you saw this, but the other day Tommy Lahren, who's a very activist conservative, I think it was Danica Patrick, they were talking about how you shouldn't misgender trans people because it's mean. Okay, so it's like, well, right, but we gotta be nice, right, we gotta be nice, avoid conflict, and we gotta protect, right? These are wonderful things when focused in your group, right, we want everyone to be nice to each other in our group, we wanna avoid conflict in our group. We want to help each other in our groups. But it can be very easily hijacked. Those tendencies can be hijacked and turned into a very leftist political ideology. And when you send your young daughter into a pit of vipers that is our university system, that often is the end result. Does that make sense? I think that analysis, that secular cultural analysis, I believe is right. So when I ask should people on food stamps be able to buy soda, I say, no, of course not. But a college-educated woman will say yes, because there are people too. Now, the final joke I made on the radio is that this is why some people say women shouldn't be allowed to vote. And I say that's wrong. It's wrong, and it's way too far. Women should only be counted as 3 5ths of a person when it comes to voting. And it would be a compromise. We'll call it the 3 5ths compromise But again, that's not a funny joke. I'm not gonna make that here. We're very serious Now the question is and this is the point of this podcast What does the Bible say? Don't care what I think Don't care what white college-educated women think Okay, what their feelings are. I don't care what my instinct is. What does the Bible say? Let's first start with a curveball. Let me quote this from John Calvin. I have this little book here called A Guide to Christian Living. Chapter 6, actually this is section 6 of chapter called, chapter 2, Denying Self, the Key to Christian Living. We are not our own, we are the Lord's.

Okay, let me skip over to number six. Love to the unlovely. So that we do not grow weary in well-doing, as might otherwise happen at any time, we should also remember that what Paul goes on to say, love is patient and is not easily irritated. The Lord requires us to do good to all. He makes no exception, even though most people are unworthy if we judge them on their merits. Like, if I may, someone on food stamps. Scripture, however, forestalls us, warning us to pay no attention to human worth in itself, but rather to consider the image of God which is in all of us, and which deserves all our respect and affection, especially should we acknowledge it among God's servants in the faith, because it is being renewed and restored in them by the Spirit of Christ. If someone then turns up who needs our help, we have no reason to refuse our aid. What if we claim that he is a stranger? Well, we're reminded that the Lord has stamped him with a mark which should be familiar to us. We are thus urged not to despise our own flesh. Calvin then quotes Isaiah 58 7. It's a very interesting moment in Scripture. God's people are asking, why do our prayers go unanswered? Why are you not answering our prayers, God? And God exposes the shallow worship of His people. And verse 6 says, Is this not the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bonds of wickedness? To undo the heavy burdens? To let the oppressed go free in that you break every yoke? So you're saying, stop oppressing each other. What are you doing? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry? And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out, when you see the naked, that you cover him and not hide yourself from your own flesh? Your own flesh here means your fellow man. Let me go back to John Calvin. What if we maintain that the man is worthless and beneath contempt? The Lord replies that he has honored him by causing his own image to shine within him. What if we say we owe him nothing? The Lord tells us that he has put him as a substitute in his own place. We are to think of him as the one for whose sake God has bestowed his blessings on us.

Whoa. We are to think of this person as the one for whose sake God has bestowed his blessings on us. Wow.

What if we think he is not worth lifting a finger for? We should hazard our lives and goods on account of God's image, which we are meant to see in him. Even supposing the man deserved nothing from us, that's no reason to stop loving Him or offering assistance and support. For if we argue that He deserves only ill of us, God might well ask what ill He Himself has done us, He to whom we owe every good thing. For when He commands us to forgive men their sins against us, God lays those sins to His own charge. John Calvin says this is the only way we can attain what is not only difficult for human nature but totally abhorrent to us. That is namely loving those who hate us, repaying good with evil, and praying for those who slander us. This I repeat we can attain if we are careful not to dwell on the evil which men do, but rather to look upon the image of God which they bear, and whose worth and dignity can and should move us to love them and to bury their faults, which might otherwise repel us."

Wow. So does that mean we should give soda to every poor person?

What I'm now, I'm gonna put it. Now, how do you, how can you maintain that and the sections of the Bible that talk about responsibility and personal responsibility? Interesting. Galatians 6, 2 and 5. Galatians 6, 2 says, Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. I love that line. You think you're something? You're not. Stop thinking so much of yourself. Go and seek to carry the burdens of others. Now, this is very different. This does not say that people should expect others to carry their burdens. That's self-focus. It doesn't mean, I have a burden, you carry it. That's self-focus. But we instead should go seek to carry other people's burdens. That's other focus. That's the point. This is John 13. This is a new commandment I give to you that you love one another, as I've loved you, that you also love one another. By this, all will know that you are my disciples if you've loved for one another. So that's Galatians 6, 2. Go seek out other people's burdens. Galatians 6, 5 says, For each one shall bear his own load. Hold on. But we're carrying other people. Now we're own. There's no contradiction here. Bearing your own load means everyone will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14.10 says, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we all will stand before God's judgment seat. So that is about your final accountability to God. Okay, great Slater, now I feel even more convicted. I guess we'll just let everyone eat junk food all the time. Here, take my money, buy some snicker bars with it. Hold on.

The Bible also speaks about responsibility. 2 Thessalonians 3 10 For even when we were with you, Paul says, we gave you this command, if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busy bodies. For such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. Plenty of Proverbs on this. Proverbs 10, 4 says, A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. Many, many scriptures and Proverbs in particular about working hard. I would also say it feels natural that if you, on a personal level, if you feel called to help someone, you give them money to pay for their rent, but then they go around and they spend it on junk food. Or let's say you give money for healthy food for their kids and they go and they spend it on candy. I think you would feel betrayed at that. We're also called to be wise stewards of our money. And giving is wonderful, but if you know that the money is not used for a noble purpose or a wise purpose, are you still called to give aimlessly? Are you still called to give something that will cause harm? What is the balance? Hopefully I shared some convicting things here as well, but what is the balance between giving and being a wise steward of your money to help someone else in a way that they can then help themselves? I'll end with this. Leviticus, there's a couple sections about reaping your field, right? You harvest your field, but you leave the edges alone so that the poor and the foreigner can gather for themselves. Now the idea though is they have to go gather. The Bible doesn't say, hey, harvest your entire field and then give 10% of it away to the poor and the foreigner. The Bible says, harvest everything except the edges. It's very generous to leave this for other people. Leave it for others. But then there's also a call from the other side of the equation to provide something for this arrangement as well. You have to also engage in the harvesting for your own good.

I feel like I didn't give as much of a convicting answer on this topic like maybe I do on other ones. Help me with it. Slaterradio at gmail.com is my personal email. Slaterradio at gmail.com. How do you think through this? And now having worked through some of these scriptures here, how would you answer this question? Should someone on food stamps be allowed to buy soda? Really curious your take now. Slaterradio at gmail.com. Also Slaterradio on Instagram and Twitter to give me your answer on this one. We'll talk more about it on Monday's SiriusXM show as well. Slater Radio on Twitter and Instagram. And we also post all this on my website MikeSlater.Locals.com and you can leave a comment down there as well. and you can leave a comment down there as well. MikeSlater.Locals.com

The Signal controversy has passed. The Democrats hope they can get Trump on something more substantial in the future, but the story provides us a few good reminders 

Hey, welcome to Politics by Faith. Thank you for being here. The Signal app story of the last few days. It's all pretty silly. It was a mistake, a bizarre one, putting the wrong guy in a group chat with all the highest national security people.

And whoever put that list together, put in the wrong name, put the wrong contact in it. And of all the people, apparently they meant to put the U S trade representative, I think his name is Josh Greer, but instead they put in. Of all people, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, the person in the country who hates Trump more than maybe anyone, they put that guy in the chat same initials JG oh you kidding me just bizarre so he saw the

chat and you know exposed it now of course he should have excused himself like uh I'm not supposed to be in here these are all the highest national security people in the country class if the information is all classified I'm not eligible I'm not able legally allowed to see any of this stuff guys I got to go but of course he didn't do that because he's a hack and just like as we say in the show pagan is gonna peg hacks gonna hack so there's no

surprise that he didn't I like David our Sonny's take here though he said it's hard for me to get annoyed any journalist getting a legit story. Tom Wolf said reporting wasn't a skill but an attitude. I have the right to get information from you to which I'm not entitled. That's what Jeffrey Goldberg is it was information that he was not entitled to but he wasn't going to excuse himself. Jeffrey Goldberg sees

himself as a spy in enemy Nazi occupied territory. He thinks he's an American soldier behind enemy lines, spying on Hitler and his Nazis. So this was his chance and he was not going to excuse himself. And then he was going to go and write an article about it, of course. Proverbs 11.13 says, a tail-bearer, I like that word, it means a gossip, a gossip or a tail-bearer, reveals secrets.

But he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter. The gossip loves the power that comes from revealing secrets that they're not supposed to share, not supposed to know. It's power that they use for their own advancement. But again, Pagan's got a peg. Some life lessons for all of us out of this story. That's what we do in the show. We take the news of the day and then we run it through a biblical lens, try to learn something from it. So a couple life lessons. First a practical one. Never put anything in

writing that you don't want on Facebook for everyone to see. It's a rule of thumb. Never put anything in a text that you would not want published in the newspaper. Fortunately for the Trump administration there was nothing in these texts that made anyone look bad. Nothing, nothing improper, immoral, nothing against the president, nothing incriminating. Notice the story wasn't what was in the text. The story is the fact that it's just by a freak accident. Now some people say

there's something nefarious going on here. I don't need to go there. No need for me to go down conspiracy theory lane. I trust the Trump administration to be hyper-vigilant against the deep state. I think they know better than anyone ever. So if there is anything nefarious about how this guy Jeffrey Goldberg got in the chat in the first place, I trust them to be able to root that out.

I don't need to go there. I'm just going to go with freak accident. That's the story, not the content of the messages itself. Of course, beyond, you know, is it classified? What's classified? Is it appropriate to be on signal versus some other messaging means?

Stuff like that, of course. But it's not like anything that was said in the texts was immoral. But still, nice warning for all of us to not send a text or email that you don't want sent out to the world. It's funny, on the radio, someone sent me an email about this story, about sending a text to the wrong person.

They sent me an email and they accidentally sent that email to the wrong address. They sent it to a co-worker named Missy and the headline of the email was war plans!

Exclamation point.

So poor Missy got this email that was meant for me about war plans. The irony there is pretty great. So they got me thinking. I was right on the radio. I got the email in the middle of the show. I said, hey, has anyone ever sent a text message to the wrong person before we got all these calls from people who have

done that in pretty funny ways now let's do a biblical lesson that's just a practical lesson biblical lesson got me thinking about betrayal there was no betrayal from the people on this text right the betrayal was from the enemy who got inside the camp but still worth talking about how there are wicked people out there who are looking to do evil things and Wanting to harm you and people who are doing good

You'll hear people today say they think they're very smart. They'll say oh, you know we used to in the past We used to just disagree with each other politically, but now If we disagree it's because the other side is evil And I hear that that person is trying to be very oh, yeah kumbaya. And yes, our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the power of the dark world,

and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. And those spiritual forces lead people to do wicked things. Maybe in the past there were just some political differences. Should we raise taxes by one percent or lower than by one percent? Okay, like that we can disagree that's not what we're dealing with right here there are indeed spiritual forces that are leading people to do wicked things it's a very progressive worldview that says oh you know people are good and we just have slight disagreements if we could just

get along if we talk about the dish no well we're not born good and you really the wicked. Psalm 64. David said, hear my voice, oh God, in my meditation. Preserve my life from fear of the enemy. This word is often translated dread, dread of the enemy. It's more debilitating. It's a more crippling word here. Dread of the enemy. Hide me from the secret plots of the wicked, from the rebellion of the workers of iniquity, who sharpen their tongue like a sword and bend their bows to shoot their arrows bitter words that they may shoot in secret at the

blameless suddenly they shoot at him and do not fear a lot they're so confident they don't fear anything the wicked here they encourage but I thought there was no such that we all just get along we just have slight disagreements while the Bible says otherwise they and the wicked encourage themselves in an evil manner. They talk of laying snares secretly. They say, who will see them? They devise iniquities. We have perfected a shrewd scheme. Both the inward thought and the heart of men are

deep." I love that line, that they're deep. Meaning like, there's a bottomless supply of evil deeds. This is John Trapp in the 1600s. He said they searched the devil's skull for new inventions and he's ready enough to lend them his seven heads to plot and his ten horns to push at good people. But God shall shoot at them with an arrow. Suddenly they shall be wounded. So he, God, will make them stumble over their tongue. All who see them shall flee away. All men shall fear and shall declare the work of God, for they shall wisely consider his doing. The righteous shall be glad in the Lord and

trust in him, and all the upright in heart shall glory." That's it. That's the end of Psalm 64. So, the lesson for us here, be righteous, trust in him, people Be righteous. Trust in Him. People will try to take you out. Trust in Him.

Be upright in heart. Upright in heart. What a wonderful turn of phrase. It means to be sincere, to be honest, to be morally pure. Albert Barnes, who was a theologian in the early 1800s, he says, And all the upright in heart shall glory, shall rejoice, shall feel that they have cause for trust and triumph. The good, the pure, the

righteous, the godly will always rejoice in everything which tends to show that God is just and true and holy. For all their own hope of security and salvation rests upon the fact that the God in whom they trust is a righteous God. We need to 1st Peter 5 8 be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour. This adversary may be anywhere. Leave it in your signal chat. Psalm 12 8 says, those who freely strut about when

what is vile is honored by the human race. That's not us. We need to be upright in heart and trust in God at all times. Mike Slater dot Locals dot com for transcript and commercial free. Mike Slater dot Locals dot com for transcript and commercial free. Mike Slater dot Locals dot com.