Who Can Be Trusted With Power?

Hot Topic Bold Talk | Trusted With Power

 

As the political landscape in America grows increasingly polarized, citizens face a fundamental question that goes far beyond political party labels: who can be trusted with power? Power inevitably reveals what leaders truly value, whether they tell inconvenient truths, and how they treat those who cannot protect themselves. In this episode, we take an honest look at character, conscience, and moral accountability in public office. We examine how Texas State Representative and Presbyterian seminarian James Talarico, alongside Rev. Adam Hamilton, founder of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, are presenting a public vision of faith rooted in service and compassion rather than political domination. We also address the dangers of Christian nationalism, the responsibility of financial and environmental stewardship, and why true democracy requires holding leaders on all sides to the exact same moral standard.

 

Episode Summary Points:

  • The Core Question of Power: Power reveals a leader’s true character, showing whether they tell inconvenient truths, protect the vulnerable, and treat public office as a public service rather than permission to control.
  • James Talarico’s Faith in Action: Texas Senate candidate James Talarico presents a vision of faith centered on love, compassion, and pluralism, refusing to surrender Christian language to political domination.
  • The Dangers of Christian Nationalism: Fusing a single religious identity with government authority threatens democratic values and marginalizes citizens of differing beliefs.
  • Protecting Vulnerable Minorities: Public policy should not be weaponized for cultural resentment or used to humiliate marginalized groups, as seen in recent Kansas legislation affecting transgender citizens.
  • Adam Hamilton’s Model of Service: Kansas Senate candidate Rev. Adam Hamilton advocates for “country before party, service above self, and people over politics,” demonstrating how faith can build bridges rather than division.
  • Non-Partisan Accountability: Citizens must hold leaders on both sides of the political aisle to the same ethical standards rather than excusing misconduct out of party loyalty.
  • Dark Money and Transparency: Hidden political spending erodes public trust in democracy and creates the perception of a system bought by powerful interests.
  • Stewardship for Future Generations: Rescinding environmental protections like the 2001 Roadless Rule and allowing the national debt to reach $40 trillion reflect a failure of long-term moral stewardship owed to future generations.

—

Watch the episode here

 

 

Listen to the podcast here

 

Who Can Be Trusted With Power?

Faith, Character, Conscience, And The Leaders America Needs

Introduction: Who Can Be Trusted With Power

I want to talk to you about episode 190 which is titled, Who Can Be Trusted with Power? The subtitle is, Faith, Character, Conscience, and the Leaders America and What We Need from Them. I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I’ve been bothered by a lot of things that have been happening. I decided on a way to address that. That’s what I’m going to do in this episode. As an introduction. I’d say there’s been a consequent question I’ve been thinking about more and more as I watch what is happening in America.

it is not as simply who is a Republican or who is a Democrat? It is not even who calls himself a Christian. The real question is, who can be trusted with power? That may be one of the most important questions Americans can ask before the 2026 elections as far as I’m concerned, because power reveals who people give someone enough power and eventually, we discover what matters to them. We discover whether they tell the truth when the truth is inconvenient. We discover whether they protect people who can protect themselves.

We also discover whether they respect people who are different from them. We can discover whether they can challenge their own political trials. Eventually, we discover whether they understand public office as a service. Public office is a service or as permission to control. I am giving you a quick look at what is happening in America with those questions. I want to apply all the things that I’ve thought about to test to Donald Trump. I want to apply to Republican Senators. I want to apply it to democratic leaders. I want to apply it to James Talarico and Adam Hamilton.

I have chosen them, the two of those for very specific reasons, which you will see. I want us to apply it to ourselves as voters when I start mentioning the tests that we need to go through. We can truly believe that our democracy will not fail since we demand a character from our opponents as well as ourselves in our side to be truthful and courageous to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. Now, I want to talk about James Talarico.

James Talarico: Faith That Refuses To Surrender Love To Political Power

It caught my attention about faith that refuses to surrender love to political power, is the best way I can describe him. Faith that refuses to surrender love to political power. James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in Texas, interests me because he is doing something unusual in modern Democratic politics. He is speaking unapologetically about his own Christianity while refusing to hand ownership of Christianity to the religious right.

 

Hot Topic Bold Talk | Trusted With Power

 

Talarico is a Texas state representative and a Presbyterian seminarian. His public message centers on the command to love one’s neighbor, on the dignity of people pushed to the margins, and on the danger of using governmental power to elevate one religious tradition over everybody else. That’s what I think is challenging. The Texas Senate contest has become, in part, a clash between two sharply different public visions of Christianity. It’s opponent that may give no evidence of having a religious background or understanding value structures.

His view of Christianity is fascinating and it’s fascinating to look at and have a much better understanding of it. Talarico’s formulation is straightforward, “Faith cannot be separated from how we treat the immigrant, the outcast and the poor.” What makes Talarico worth examining is not simply that I agree with much of what he says. It is that he is willing to take the language most often used against progressives. Scripture, Christianity, morality, family and faith, he uses those things and asks all of us whether those words have been emptied of real meaning when they are detached from compassion.

He also appears willing to absorb the political cost of that argument with the Christian right. Republicans have attacked his statements about God, gender, abortion and transgender people as evidence that his theology is radical or unfaithful to historic Christianity. Those are real disagreements. Conservative Christians have every right to make their case. Talarico has not responded by hiding his faith or pretending those statements never existed.

When a Republican campaign committee circulated a clip of him identifying Christ with people facing deportation, lost benefits and government abuse, he reshared it rather than running from it. That matters to me. Courage is not measured by saying what your supporters already applaud and hear. Courage is measured by whether you will keep saying what you believe when your opponents discover that it can be used against you. That’s the power and the courage that he exhibits.

Talarico is not merely a social-media phenomenon. He defeated a nationally known opponent in the Democratic primary after building a substantial field of people that supported him. His campaign raised more than $20 million from roughly 13,000 individual contributors through late February, and approximately 28,000 people had signed up to volunteer during the primary. His message has been described as a politics of love, combined with an economic argument that the central divide in America is often not left versus right, but concentrated power versus ordinary people that he values.

 

Public office is a service, not permission to control.

 

The politics of love in our present political culture does sound radical. We have become accustomed in my mind to politicians demonstrating strength by identifying someone Americans should fear and therefore, hate. It could be immigrants, transgender people, liberals, conservatives, government employees, college professors or journalists. People in rural America. People who pray differently or who don’t pray at all.

Someone always has to become the enemy. Talarico is asking whether there might be another kind of political strength. The strength required to love people you don’t understand. The strength required to protect people who cannot help you politically. The strength required to refuse hatred even when hatred is effective. Texas is still difficult territory for a Democrat. No serious analysis should pretend otherwise. Talarico has made the race competitive enough to force a real argument about what Texas values are and who gets to define them.

Politics and polls will change but recent polling has demonstrated that this is a genuine contest. The deeper point is that a candidate openly talking about progressive Christianity, pluralism, economic fairness and love of neighbor is not being laughed off the stage in Texas. To me, diversity is an extremely important thing because we have such a diversified state. We have various beliefs. His pluralism appeals to me. I do not need James Talarico to be perfect. I don’t think that’s reasonable for any person that’s running for office.

I have to add. Have him as human as he could possibly be. I do this now. I need him to be accountable and I think that’s what he will do. If he wins power and becomes arrogant, evasive, corrupt, cruel or captive to his own party, then I’m going to hold the same standard that I would for anybody that is Republican. He is forcing an overdue conversation. Christianity is not demonstrated by how successfully Christians can dominate their neighbors. That’s not what I think Christianity is.

Christian Nationalism: When Conviction Becomes Control

It is demonstrated, at least in the Christianity I recognize in the teachings of Jesus, of what love requires of all of us and that is to appreciate and support the neighbor who is vulnerable, the unpopular, foreign, poor, frightened, and they may be simply different from me. Christian nationalism has become a conviction that has become in control. That is why Christian nationalism concerns me. The problem is not that Christians bring faith into public life. Of course, they do. Every citizen brings moral convictions into public life. There’s no question about it or they bring no moral convictions into public life.

 

Courage is not measured by saying what your supporters already applaud and hear. Courage is whether you will keep saying what you believe when your opponents discover that it can be used against you.

 

The problem begins when one religious identity becomes fused with national belonging and government power. When the state is asked to privilege one tradition, impose one theology, and treat disagreement as evidence that somebody is less real as an American. Authenticity seems to be in real question with so many people that currently serve. I do not want a secular government that is hostile to religion. I’m not saying that. I want a constitutional government strong enough to protect religion precisely because it refuses to establish one religious faction as the owner of this country.

That’s what I want. I want us to realize that one religious faction is not to have power that can dominate so many people. That’s what has happened. Now, to me, when we look at it, Talarico critics say his progressive theology bans Christianity to fit Democratic politics. That criticism deserves to be heard because it points toward a danger on the left as well as the right. Faith can become captive to any political party. The Texas Trinity sounds conservative progressive. The test is whether faith has enough independence to challenge the political tribe that wants to use it. It is very evident on the Republican side.

Kansas: What Happens When A Vulnerable Minority Becomes A Political Target?

The political tribe is not being challenged. Now, I want to give you an example of something that is shocking to me and it’s disturbing. Kansas has done something with the vulnerable minority that they are using as a political target. They’ve been using it all along. Kansas gives us a painful example of how a culture war argument can become the force of law. In 2026, the Kansas legislature enacted a house substitute for a Senate Bill 244 over the governor’s of Kansas veto.

The measure regulates sex-designated multiple-occupancy spaces in public buildings. It creates enforcement mechanisms. It defines gender for statutory purposes in terms of biological sex at birth, and directs state agencies to invalidate or reissue certain driver’s licenses and birth certificates when the recorded sex or gender does not conform to the state of how they were born. They have to understand something. I have a PhD in Counseling Psychology. I spend a lot of years looking at what happens to people when they cannot identify with their gender.

I’ve seen so many find gender identity to be a saving race in something that moves them forward. Here’s something I know. Supporters describe these measures as though it’s protecting privacy, safety and biological distinctions. We know that Christian nationals are very historical in removing us to the very past in looking at things. They are interpreting the Bible historically in very conservative ways. There is a real question that I think we can’t avoid. What does it mean that the state turns the daily existence of a small minority into a subject for identification rules, penalties, records correction and public enforcement.

 

Christianity is not demonstrated by how successfully Christians can dominate their neighbors. It is demonstrated by what love requires of all of us: to appreciate and support the neighbor who is vulnerable.

 

When that happens, I have a lot of concern. Transgender Americans are not abstractions. They are neighbors. They are children and parents. They are coworkers, veterans, and teachers. They are citizens of the United States. They are human beings. A free society can have difficult disagreements about sports, medicine, schools, prisons, privacy and sex-based protections. Disagreement does not require humiliation, and that is what’s happening.

Public policy does not have to become a weapon of cultural resentment. Power should be most careful when it is directed at people who have the least ability to answer back. The character of a government is revealed not only by how it treats the majority. It is revealed by what it is willing to do with unpopular minorities.

Adam Hamilton: Can Faith Build Bridges Instead Of Walls?

I want to go to Adam Hamilton. He’s a Democrat running in Kansas. He is building his campaign on, “Faith Build Bridges Instead of Walls..” Kansas gives us another story when they talk about Adam Hamilton that seems to belong with the story of James Talaricos. The Rev. Adam Hamilton is now the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in Kansas. Kansas has not elected a Democratic US senator since 1932. Think about that, nearly a century.

Hamilton is not a career politician. He founded the Church of the Resurrection in 1990 with four people. Over more than three decades, it’s grown into the largest United Methodist congregation in the United States, with roughly 24,000 members according to his political campaign biography. He has written more than 30 books and spent much of his adult life leading an institution whose members include Republicans, Democrats and independents.

That history matters. Building and sustaining a large congregation is not the same thing as winning an election. It requires a different kind of discipline. You have to listen to people who don’t agree with you. You have to navigate conflict. You have to explain moral convictions without expelling everyone who sees the world differently. What would Washington look like if our leaders understood that if you have to return week after week to a community that cannot function, if every disagreement becomes a war and that is what’s happening in our country.

 

A free society can have difficult disagreements about policy, but disagreement does not require humiliation. Public policy does not have to become a weapon of cultural resentment.

 

Hamilton says he entered this race because something felt profoundly wrong about the mean-spiritedness and polarization he saw in Washington, because he believed decisions being made there were hurting people. I can support that statement. His campaign describes him as an independent-minded Democrat committed to service above self, country before party, and people over politics. Those are campaign claims.

However, as you read more about it, you can see that he means what he says. However, we need to test him, not just admire him. I find it remarkable that those words themselves now sound almost revolutionary. Service about self, country before party, and people over politics. It’s fascinating that the country before party and people over politics. Why should that be revolutionary? Shouldn’t that be the minimum qualification for public service?

Hamilton initially explored running as an independent. After having a number of conversations, he decided that he would run in the Democratic primary. That does not prove that he’s independent or Democrat. It makes his candidacy harder to reduce to lifelong partisan identity because of the way he runs his church. His campaign has also demonstrated unusual strength for a Democrat in Kansas. It’s amazing to me what he has been able to do in order to have people support him and look at what’s possible.

He has raised $3.7 million in the quarter before the primary compared with roughly $610,000 for Republican incumbent Roger Marshall. After Hamilton won the Democratic primary, major political forecasters moved the race from their safest Republican category to likely Republican. They’re saying that Hamilton is doing something. Marshall remains the favored. We should say that clearly but Hamilton has accomplished something significant even before the election takes place.

In a state with nearly a century of Republican Senate victories, he has caused people to reconsider what they thought was politically possible and perhaps that tells us something. Maybe Americans are not as permanently divided into political tribes as politicians and consultants sometimes assume. Maybe people are willing to listen when someone speaks to them as human beings instead of political demographics. Maybe there are conservatives who can listen to a Democrat. Maybe there are Democrats who can listen to a Republican.

 

Service above self, country before party, and people over politics shouldn’t be revolutionary—it should be the minimum qualification for public service.

 

Maybe there are Christians who are tired of seeing Christianity used primarily as a political weapon. Maybe there are Americans who are simply exhausted by cruelty. Hamilton says he wants to demonstrate what it looks like for a Christian to carry faith into political life and to public life without abandoning the separation of church and state. Again, I am not turning Adam Hamilton into a saint.

If elected, he should be watched, questioned and held accountable like every other senator. His candidacy raises the same challenge as Talarico. Can Christianity enter politics without becoming an excuse to dominate? Can faith allow someone to be more responsible for the welfare of people who disagree with him? Those are the questions worth asking. I want to be extra careful here. I am not presenting James Talarico or Adam Hamilton as saints. That would undermine everything I’m saying in this episode.

Being a seminarian does not make Talarico trustworthy. Being a pastor does not make Hamilton trustworthy. Quoting scripture does not make anyone trustworthy. Donald Trump has been surrounded by religious leaders and yet, look at the massive corruption that is happening as he’s been president in the United States. Members of Congress quote the Bible. Yet, many are incapable of letting go of their party affiliation and loyalty to Trump.

Political movements of every kind can borrow sacred language. The question is not what religious language a leader uses. The question is, what does that leader do when power is placed in their hands? If Talarico became a United States Senator, I want to know. Will he tell the truth when a Democratic president wants his silence? Will he challenge the democratic leadership when he believes in his wrong? Will he say no to wealthy donors? Will he admit publicly when he makes a mistake? Will he defend the constitutional rights of Republicans he strongly opposes?

Will he risk re-election rather than betray a principality claim that is sacred? I want to ask Adam Hamilton exactly the same questions. Will he put Kansas ahead of democratic leadership when the two conflict? Will he continue listening after he no longer needs someone’s vote? Will humility talk about surviving the power and prestige of being a United States Senator? Will he stand alone if consciousness requires him to? Those are not difficult questions. Those are questions that every one of us need to be asking ourselves and asking the people that we have decided to support.

 

When loyalty becomes a substitute for judgment, democracy suffers.

 

When Loyalty Becomes Blindness

What the danger is, when loyalty becomes blinded. The same moral test applies that I’ve given you about Talarico and Hamilton needs to apply to the congress. I have watched Republican Senators repeatedly expressed concerns about actions of Trump’s Administration and then struggled to exercise the independence that constitutional oversight requires. There’s nothing wrong with giving the president of your party a fair hearing.

There is something terribly wrong when loyalty becomes a substitute for judgment. Senators do not take an oath to Donald Trump. They do not take an oath to the Republican party. Their constitutional responsibility is much larger than either of those statements. This principle must apply equally to democrats. If a democratic president abuses power, democratic senators should resist. If a democratic administration lies, evades lawful oversight, rewards donors or attacks constitutional restraints, democrats should not excuse it because the offender belongs to their side.

One of the most dangerous things in modern American politics is that our side’s misconduct must be tolerated because the other side is much worse. Think about that. We tolerate our side’s misconduct because we make it about the other side. They’re much worse. If every abuse can be justified because defeating the enemy is more important. Eventually, there are no principles that exist. There is only power. Once that happens, party loyalty has consumed democratic accountability.

Money And Influence: Democracy Needs Visibility

Now, I want to talk about money and influence. Democracy, to me, needs to be very visible. Money presents another test of power. We use the phrase dark money to political spending in which the original sources of funding can be difficult or impossible for voters to identify where it’s coming from. I’m not arguing that every wealthy donor is corrupt. I am not arguing that every independent political organization is illegitimate. People in organizations have constitutional rights. The question for me is, though, a very simple one. How can enormous political influence be invisible to the citizens whose government is being influenced?

A democracy should make corruption difficult. Disclosure should be the norm. Public service should matter more than accessing or purchasing an election throughout. When political leaders weaken those expectations, citizens understandably begin to suspect that America has two political systems. One of the systems is that the ordinary voter is allowed to see what is happening in the political arena. The other is powerful people who hide and yet buy elections. That suspicion is corrosive to democracy. Not allowing transparency is corrosive to democracy.

 

Arithmetic does not care at all which party wins an election. Leaders sometimes have to tell citizens things we don’t want to hear—that is another form of courage.

 

Stewardship: Forests, Debt And People We Will Never Meet

Now, to me, stewardship also includes forest, debt and people. We will never meet. There’s two other stories I want us to look at that are very relevant to what I’m saying about the Trump Administration and effort. He has made the decision to rescind the 2001 roadless rule and has made American national debt reaching $40 trillion. I believe that both actions share moral questions. What do we owe to people who are not even here yet? Who has not been born yet? The roadless rule has protected tens of thousands of acres of natural forest land from most road construction and timber harvesting.

The Trump Administration argues that resending would give local forest managers greater flexibility for welfare reduction, forest health and timber protection. Notice the last thing, timber production. There’s a lot of groups that are going to benefit from it. Environmental organizations argue that removing law could expose undeveloped forest, watersheds, wildlife habitat, habitats and recreation lands to lasting damage. Recently people can have a dialogue about forest management if they’re reasonable. Underneath that policy discussion is a question about stewardship.

Do we treat public lands as something held in trust for generations or simply as resources available to satisfy today’s political and economic priorities? A forest has value even when nobody is cutting it. Clean water has value. Wildlife has Value. Beauty has value. Generations of Americans who have not even been born yet have interest even though they cannot vote in this election. We need to remember our responsibility to the generations that are going to come after us. The national debt presents a very different but equally serious stewardship problem.

Americans’ growing national debt has now reached $40 trillion. That did not begin with Trump. However, he has forgotten the promise he made to lure the debt. It would be dishonest to blame it entirely on one party. That gets under tax decisions, defense spending, social programs, emergency responses, interest cost. and the unwillingness of both parties to make difficult financial choices has produced $40 trillion as our national debt. Republicans must be willing to acknowledge that tax cuts cost money.

The Country Is Not Frozen

Again, republicans must be clear and acknowledge that tax cuts cause money. Democrats must be willing to acknowledge that government programs cost money. Both parties must acknowledge something politicians hate admitting. Arithmetic does not care at all which party wins in an election. We have a $40 trillion debt. Seriously, leaders sometimes have to tell citizens things we don’t want to hear. That is another form of courage. Now, the country is frozen. My frustration with American politics is real. I’m sure there are some of you that find yourself in the same position.

 

Power does not create character; power reveals character. We decide what conduct we reward, what conduct we excuse, and whether truth still matters when it hurts our side.

 

I do not want this episode to end in despair. The emergence of Canada’s such as Talarico and Hamilton does not prove that the democratic wave is coming. It does not prove voters have suddenly rejected Trumpism. It certainly does not prove democrats have solved their own problems but it proves something. What it proves is that political categories are movable. Talarico won a primary against a nationally prominent candidate while offering a very different view of political style.

Hamilton entered a race almost nobody expected a democrat to contest seriously and help more professional forecasters toward getting clear that there is some competition going on in Kansas. Elsewhere, candidates and voters are producing surprises. Citizens, like you and me, still have agency. That is where my hope lies. Not believing that one political party will magically save America. My obligation and believing that Americans can demand better people from every party, we can reward courage. We can reward competence, decency, compassion, independence, and integrity.

The Test I Want Us To Use

We can refuse to reward cruelty simply because the cruel person happens to wear our team’s uniform. The test I want us to use is the following. Before you vote for somebody, don’t begin and end with the letter of the political party they belong to that is attached to that person’s name. Ask harder questions. Does this person tell the truth when the truth is costly? Does this person demonstrate compassion without turning compassion into performance?

Can this person make a mistake and change course? Does this person respect people who disagree with them? Does this person protect vulnerable people rather than exploit them? Does this person understand that political opponents are still fellow citizens? Will the person who defends constitutional limits, when these limits frustrate their own agenda? Can this person say no to a president, a donor, a party leader, a movement, or even a cheering crowd? Perhaps the most revealing question of all, what is this person done when doing the right thing carried a personal cost?

Democrats Must Pass The Test Too

That may tell us more about character than a 100 campaign advertisement. Democrats must pass the same task given. This cannot become another excuse to say that democrats are automatically good and republicans are bad. If Talarico misuses power, he needs to be held accountable. If Adam Hamilton who wins and abandons principles, he campaigns on, hold him accountable. If Democrats hide corruption, expose it. If Democratic leaders put the party ahead of the country, challenge them. If a Republican demonstrates courage and integrity, acknowledge it.

A conservative stands against his own political tribe because conscience demands it, respect the courage required to do that even when you disagree with that person’s policies. Character cannot matter only when it belongs to someone on our side. Otherwise, it is not a character we value. It’s a conservative stance against his own political tribe because consciousness demands it. There have been some of those that have lost elections but they have stood and we need to stay there and respect the courage they did have even though I disagree with the policies that they inherited.

Christianity Does Not Need Political Domination

Character cannot matter only when it belongs to someone on the other side. Otherwise, it is not a character we value. It is tribalism. Christianity does not need political dominance. I return finally to fate. Christianity survived for nearly 2,000 years without the Republican party. It will survive without the Democratic party. Jesus did not ask his followers to dominate a legislature. He asked them considerably harder things. I’ve been taught through Christianity that Jesus talked about loving your neighbor. Caring for the poor, welcoming people that have a different point of views as yours. Forgiving, show mercy, and love even your enemies.

Who Can Be Trusted With Power?

Those commands are difficult because they require something from us rather than merely giving us 30 over someone else. That is a reason I worry about Christian nationalism. When Christianity becomes a primary, it means of acquiring government power. Something essential is in danger of being lost. Faith should transform the person possessing power. It should not merely provide that person with justification for possessing more of it. Who can be trusted with power? Americans do not need perfect politicians. There aren’t any in any way.

We’re all human beings. We do not need politicians to agree with us about everything. That is not what a democracy is built on. We need human beings with enough character to understand that public policy is borrowed power. The presidency belongs to the people. A senate seat belongs to the people and congressional district belongs to the people. A governorship belongs to the people. These are entrusted temporarily to individuals who are supposed to serve us. Perhaps, we have spent too much time asking, who can win? Who can defeat the other party? Who can dominate the news? Who can raise the most money? Who can make the other side angry?

I want us to ask a different question in 2026. Who can be trusted with power? For me, James Talarico and Adam Hamilton are worth watching because they are asking Americans to imagine a faith as service rather than domination. Politics is something larger than humiliation. They will have to prove themselves. Every leader does. Democracy ultimately depends, not on finding faultless people, rather it finds citizens who know what character looks like. Who insist that power remains accountable and who are willing to withdraw their trust when their little proves unworthy of having that power.

Power does not create character. Power reveals the character of each human being. Perhaps, that means the responsibility does not belong only to the people running for office. It belongs to every one of us. We decide what conduct we will reward. We decide what conduct we excuse. We decide whether character matters more than party. We decide whether cruelty is strength. We decide whether truth still matters when the truth hurts our sign and openly through our votes, our voices and our willingness to hold leaders accountable. We decide who would be trusted with power. That is our power. That is our responsibility and that is how Democracy protects itself. Thank you so much for tuning in to this show.

 

Important Links

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *