The Michael Knowles Show - Is Jesus A Socialist? Heated DEBATE With Michael Knowles

Episode Date: August 22, 2026

Is Socialism Compatible With Christianity? Heated DEBATE With Michael Knowles - - - Today's Sponsor: PureTalk - At just $15 a month for your first three months on ANY plan... now’s a great time to choose PureTalk. Simply go to https://PureTalk.com/KNOWLES to claim this offer. - - - DailyWire: Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dailywire.com/subscribe 🎆 🇺🇸 Our America 250 SALE is back! Get 3-Months of DailyWire for just $17.76 📜 Becoming a Daily Wire member allows you to see all of our content ad-free. 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 🍿 Run Hide Fight: Infidels will premiere on The Daily Wire, Wednesday September 16th. 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 📗 My book "Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/ReasonsToVoteForDemocrats 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There is a principle at work in Medicare that should bother you. The people advising you on your plan are often incentivized to recommend what pays you the most, not what fits you the best. Most people make this decision once and never revisit it, even though plans change every single year. Millions are locked into coverage that no longer makes sense for them. They don't even know it. Chapter is structured differently. They're independent. The only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide. Not a selection. Every plan. They look at your doctors, your prescriptions, your priorities, and they tell you the truth. If you're on the right plan, they will say so. If you're not, they'll help you switch. No pressure. no sales pitch. People who have found new plans through Chapter have saved over $1,100 a year on average. Go to DailyWry.com slash chapter. It's free. It takes under 20 minutes. You'll walk away actually knowing whether your plan fits your life, which is more than the system was designed to give you. Big banks don't want to fund your business, but Cardiff does. My name's William Stern. In 2004, I founded Cardiff to make funding faster and easier for small businesses. In less than five minutes, your business could qualify for up to $500,000 deposited same day, and there's zero impact to your personal credit. Get started by going to cardiff.co slash daily wire. Again, that's cardiff.com

daily wire. Cardiff, borrow better. When we want to talk as Christians, we have to learn to stop talking in secular categories and definitions of words and understand things like freedom and property and rights Christianly. We know definitively that the Lord Jesus was not a socialist because he was successful at feeding people. I don't know a single socialist that thinks that people can't own things. There's a big difference between owning a toothbrush and owning the factory that makes the toothbrushes. It's not a guy who needs to brush his teeth. It's a guy who wants to swipe a whole handful so we can go resell it at a bodega or a flea market.

There it is. You guys always hate on poor people, man. As socialists take over the Democrat Party and keep winning these primaries and now very likely might be in some of the biggest offices in government after the midterm elections, the Democrats are doing something a little different than they previously have. In years past, they have run against Christianity. They've run against those Bible thumping bitter clingers. They've derided Christians. This year, though, they're trying something a little different. They're trying to run on Christianity or rather run on Christianity. socialism as Christianity. You're seeing this from AOC, Abdul al-Sayyad, of course, James Talariko. So, listen, I'm not a theologian. I'm but a humble cigar salesman. So I've brought in some gentlemen who can help me parse this question. Is our Lord a socialist? Does Christianity demand socialism to help me understand it? I have Pastor Doug Wilson, whom I just saw not that long ago out there in Moscow, Idaho. Returning to the show, we have Father Gerald Murray.

We have Colton Barnaby, who is a Philadelphia-based writer, raised in a oneness, holiness, Pentecostal family, third-gen preacher's kid, attended Oral Roberts University. And we have also returning to the show, Brian Recker, Brian Recker, who was on bar fight and who wrote a book about how hell doesn't exist, a book that I enjoyed reading, though don't enjoy generally and don't agree with, but it was a good experience to read it and talk to him. So anyway, gentlemen, you all have very different views on this. Can we begin, before I speak to any of you, with this clip from James Talariko, James Talariko, who's campaigned on God being non-binary.

James Talariko said he's learned more about his faith from Muslims than from Christians, but he says he's a Christian, and he says that our Lord is a socialist. It's very strange every time I think about it that the most popular figure in our country, particularly on the conservative right, is this, you know, socialist anarchist from ancient Palestine. Socialist anarchist from ancient Palestine. Quite a description of our Lord. I will allow my mackerel snapping papist tendencies to win out in this conversation by turning first to Father Murray. Father, is our Lord a socialist? Certainly not. That's a mischaracterization and it's a

facile attempt to use Christianity to endorse a movement, which basically denies the freedom of individuals, it puts them at the behest of the government, and it makes all of their work not their own. It makes it simply earning money in order to hand over to somebody else who decide what he's going to do with it. So no, Jesus certainly is not a socialist. That's a false characterization. Okay, Doug, let's get a little ecumenical cross-religious dialogue going here. I know you have many disputes with the Catholic faith. However, on this question, when it comes to the supposed socialism of Christ, where do you stand? I stand right where, right with what you just heard. We know definitively that the Lord Jesus was not a socialist because he was successful at feeding people.

That's simple enough, you know, right pithy into the point. Colton, is Jesus a socialist? Yeah, I'm actually to, you know, the surprise of a lot of people going to agree with my dear brothers here. Jesus was not a socialist. It's a bit anachronistic to say something like that, right? The kingdom of God is not socialism. It's bigger and it's actually far more radical than any economic system we're ever going to come up with. I think there are forms of socialism that Christians should reject, like when socialism becomes totalitarian or treats people as expendable or makes atheism a requirement, the church has been right to do that in the past, but it's a big tradition. And I think there's a lot about our Lord and what he teaches and what he commands of us and how. to live that aligns in ways with something like socialism or forms of socialism that exist, certainly. Okay. Well, all right. That's a 50-50.

We'll delve into some of the particulars of that in a second. But first, I just, I assume, Brian, you know, we seem to have a quorum here and we, there's consensus. So obviously you would agree that it is completely insane and anachronistic and absurd to call Christ a socialist, right? I would say that Jesus was not a socialist then, but he probably, probably would be now, and I think that Christians now should be socialists, because Jesus' message was the kingdom of God, which is not just a message that puts a demand on individual hearts.

It's a call to build the world that works for the least of these. This is not just a spiritual message. It had material implications rooted in the Jubilee, which was a law that demanded the redistribution of wealth, specifically provide for vulnerable people. And so based on that, I do believe that Jesus would be building the kind of community that today would have him labeled as a Marxist and kicked out of Doug's church. Okay, so that's a more, it's a subtler take than I was expecting from you, Brian, but it's a good one. So you say, no, it's absurd, it's anachronistic to call Jesus a socialist. He was not a socialist, but now he would be.

Now, of course, using the conditional when we're talking about the resurrected son of God, the word eternally begotten of the father seems a little strange to me because he is, you know, God in the burning bush says, I am that I am, and Christ says before Abraham was I am. But I guess it leads to this question, which is you say Jesus was one thing, but now he would be a different thing. So does God change? No, I was simply referring to the fact that socialism in many ways is a historical progression reacting to capitalism. And capitalism did not exist at the time. What existed at the time were patron-client relationships and an empire under Caesar's control. And Jesus absolutely critiqued that empire and critiqued all domination systems and invited his

followers to experience a countercultural, radically egalitarian community, which again would not have been labeled socialism then because socialism did not exist. But today, in our world, I think socialism is a good approximation for the kind of thing that we should be striving for. A world that doesn't just work for the top 1 percent, does not just work for people that already have the power, does not just perpetuate the status quo, but actually works for the poor, the vulnerable, the people that are being cast out. Well, it's a fair point that capitalism even is a kind of a new thing. Capitalism is a term actually promoted by Karl Marx himself. So yeah, okay, that's kind of new. But Father, I seem to recall many, many popes saying that socialism is evil, saying that it is a wicked

confederacy that seeks to steal the very gospel itself. That was either one of the piouses or Leo the 13th. Leo the 13th wrote about this at great length. We know that even the kind of liberal Pope, John the 23rd, said that a Christian cannot subscribe even to a moderate form of socialism. So to To Brian's point that the economy has changed, the political structures have changed, and so now a Christian must respond to new needs and new political economy by embracing socialism. Were the popes wrong? No, the popes were right, and it's a bad answer. And to say that in America, the poor aren't taken care of is ridiculous.

If you want to find a place where the poor are not being taken care of, go to North Korea and Cuba, two of the prime examples of socialist countries on the planet. And of course, why is socialism wrong? Because God created man free. And freedom includes the ability to use your energy and your intelligence to produce gain and benefits. So whether it's farming or writing books or serving at tables, you get paid for that. Whose money is that? It belongs to the person who earns it. The government has no right. And Jesus never said the government has a right to compel you to hand over all your earnings so that the government can dole it out according to what they think is the right thing. So socialism is basically a parody of Christianity. Christianity is based

on voluntary charity. When you give money according to your conscience and according, of course, of the message of Christ, which is to take care of the poor. It's not where the government comes in and says, you're evil because you earn too much. We're going to make you good by taking it away. Yeah. You know, the church takes 10 percent and the mob takes 10 percent and the government takes 40 percent or 50% sometimes. It seems like something's a little bit out of whack. Obviously, you have seen the rise of socialism, though. In some evangelical churches, you've seen a little bit of an embrace of a kind of, it's going a little bit squishy. The mainline Protestant churches have really given over to a lot of leftism. And I'm very sorry to say, there are a lot of lay Catholics

and maybe even some Catholic bishops who are a little bit too friendly, it seems to me, with socialism. Doug, what's your perspective from Idaho? Yeah, my perspective is the central duty of the church in this hour is to fight the commies. And it's not because compassion, generosity, open-handedness are wrong. They're obviously Christian. Basically, an overflow of generosity, and James tells us that pure and undefiled religion is to visit the widow and the orphan in their affliction. So Christians should be very much about

ministering to the downtrodden. But that is, as the father said, that is a voluntary thing. It is a, it needs to be a gift. It's not to be coerced out of you at the point of a gun. So if the government comes to you and says, this is for the kids, let me take your stuff, that kind of coercion is necessary in the socialist system. And in a Christian system, it's going to be voluntary and it's going to be encouraged and it's going to be blessed. A number of years ago, Arthur Brooks wrote a great book called Who Really Cares. And he went into a state-by-state analysis of private donations, everything from reading to kids at the library, to blood donations, to philanthropic donations, to find out which state was the most generous state in the union. And the answer, surprisingly to many, was

Mississippi. Mississippi was number one. Not so surprising to people of my mind, numbers 49 and 50 were Massachusetts and Connecticut. If you are relying on the government to do your loving for you, you're going to get the kind of love that you get at the DMV. Yeah, you hear these guys like Abdul El-Sayyad or Tala RICO or even the more radicals. DSA candidates who are running right now. And what they'll say is, you know, look, man, we just want to give people health care. What's wrong with you right-wing Christians? You know, we just want to give people health care. And they don't mention that, you know, they want to impose radical social engineering. They want to trans the kids. They want to take away property. You look at even Scott Galloway,

who's a left-wing business professor, Scott Galloway, who supported Zoran Mamdani in New York. Zohran Mamdani, the socialist. He comes in, he says, we're going to have a pietta tear tax. We're only going to tax the very wealthiest on their second or third homes. And then Scott Galloway found himself the victim of this because Mamdani turned from just looking at 31,000 people he was going to tax to almost a million New Yorkers. And then he doxed them. At a time of rising political violence, he gave out these people's addresses. Clearly there was something a little bit darker than just giving health care to the poor. So to Colton and Brian, you know, obviously to Doug's point, there are a lot of ways to help the poor and church does a lot of it. Why do we need some government bureaucrat to go out, especially when he's going to go docs people and impose a lot of radical social policy?

Well, I'll simply say that when Jesus, the kingdom of God again, that's the Basilia of God or the empire of God. This is a political notion that Jesus was talking about. And in Matthew 25, this commonly cited passage where Jesus gives the most explicit description of how God judges, something that many people miss is that it's not just individuals that are gathered, it's actually nations that are gathered for judgment. And the criteria by which the nations, in other words, the communities that we create, the criteria by which they're judged is how well they treated the hungry, the sick, the poor, the stranger, and the imprison. Nations are judged, in other words, by how well they care for the most vulnerable. And despite 2,000 years

of work on meeting those criteria, our so-called Christian country still fails on most of those counts. We have the highest child poverty rates in the developed world. In terms of strangers welcoming, we have ICE putting nonviolent criminals in detention centers surrounded by alligators. We do take more immigrants than any other country in the history of the world, and we've been doing it for decades. We have mass incarceration and we imprison more people than any country, including China. But there's nothing wrong with the prison of criminals, is there? Jesus called us to not simply believe in him in our hearts, but to build a world that works for the poor. And that's really what Christian socialists want. Yes, Christian charity is so important. But we didn't,

Jesus was not calling for the poor to be cared for here and there by individual acts of charity, but by the way that we structure our society. Okay, but a few points on there, because you bring up a lot of important points. You mentioned, one, you compare American prisons to Chinese prisons, China, which in prisons hold races of people, ethnic communities, but also a lot of political dissidents. Here in America, we tend to just imprison criminals, and we don't imprison nearly enough of them. And I don't think there's anything in the New Testament that says that we're not allowed to imprison criminals. I seem to recall St. Paul saying that the civil authority does not bear the sword in vain, and in fact that the civil authority is appointed by God.

Then to your point on the political communities being judged, you know, I don't recall our Lord's saying that, you know, you will have rendered unto you according to your nation's policies. I think it's according to your works, right? I mean, and even further than that, you say that the kingdom of God is a political concept. But what does Christ say? He says, my kingdom is of this world? Is that what he says? Does he say, my kingdom is of New York City, or my kingdom is not of this world? Very commonly misunderstood passage. When Jesus said the kingdom is not of this world, he didn't mean it was ethereal and spiritual. He meant that it doesn't derive its values from this world of empire, which is one empire after another. In Jesus's day, it was Caesar. But, but, But before that, it had been Alexander the Great. There's one beast after another rising up out of the sea, and they all have the same agenda, domination. An agenda we see still carried out today by Christian nationalists who look a lot more like Caesar's beasts than they look like Jesus's human kingdom, which served the vulnerable. And so what I was simply saying, and I'm not going to get into argument about incarceration, et cetera, the simple point is that Jesus was talking about structural issues, not just personal charity. The reality is that personal charity is not enough to feed all of our children.

And what my question would be for Doug and Father Murray is that do you believe that a child deserves to eat, even if their parent cannot afford groceries? Well, since you name-checked the Christian nationalist on the panel first, Mr. Beast, Doug Wilson, Doug, do you want to starve children? Actually, I'm against starving children. I'll put it, I'll put it this way. First, it may be surprising, but I do agree when Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world, it doesn't mean that it has no implications or ramifications for this world. It just means the seat of authority is from the right hand of the God, the Father in heaven, instead of Rome or London or New York or D.C. So I agree that it has, I'm fond of saying theology comes at your fingertips.

And whatever it is that's coming at your fingertips, represents your theology. And we ought not to let children starve. But there's a key issue here. Jesus says that he's going to judge the nations and individuals, not by their rhetoric, but by the effect. Not by the rhetoric. Many will say, Lord, Lord, didn't we do this?

And didn't we talk to good game. But the Lord is not going to judge us by our words and our protestations. He's going to judge us by the actual impact. that it has. And I'd like to just reinforce, I don't want my health care or the health care of any child in America to be run by the Department of Motor Vehicles. I don't want bureaucrats in charge of everybody's cancer treatment. I don't want bureaucrats saying, well, you can come in for your second checkup in six months. Basically, the issue is what is the quality, what is the standard of living, what is the life expectancy? How much good are you actually doing? But with that said,

I think that we all need to be willing to surrender the whole thing, our political apparatus and our individual behavior up to the Lord to have him judge and have him examine. I think we need to do better, but I don't think we need to do better than North Korea because we already are. I don't think we need to do better than... Colton, are you a North Korean? Are you on the side of North Korea or on the side of God? No, sorry. I did not mean to interrupt Brother Doug here.

I was moved with Holy Unction at something he said. We're doing a lot of interesting stuff. And I'm going to be honest, I expected some more sophisticated arguments here than what I was hearing from my sophomore conservative friends at Oral Roberts University in 2008. Of course there are, you know, there's so many things to react to. Of course, there are a number of popes who have condemned socialism as such, but we have to discuss what we actually mean by socialism, because like I said before, it's a broad tradition that entails a lot of different things. You get a group of socialists into the room.

They're going to disagree with each other more vehemently than me and Doug are going to disagree with each other. But we also have Pope Paul the 6th saying that socialism travels under different names and Christians have to be able to make distinctions. We have Pope John Paul II who says that we have to allow for public and collective ownership and that the socialization of some means of production can't be outruled, right? Here's what I think we have to understand. Before Christianity ever had to consider anything like capitalism or socialism, it already

had a way of thinking about economic life. The earth belongs to God. And what we possess is something that we are responsible for using rightly and the needs of other people place real claims on us. So remind me, what does Acts 4 actually say, right? Does Luke say that the church protected, it's accumulated wealth and told the poor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps? Or does it say that no one claimed private ownership of any possessions and that everything they owned was held in common and that the proceeds were distributed to each as any need? Well, hold on. Hold on one second. And later in Acts 11, when the church sends economic relief, right? In 4, it tells us that

It was distributed to each as they have need. In Acts 11, it tells us that they contributed according to their ability. So from according to their ability to each according to their need sounds pretty dang familiar to me, right? I think it's pretty obvious. I just want to head off. I know you're going to say that Acts was voluntary. Fine, right?

Common ownership and distribution according to need are still, though, clearly compatible with Christianity. Not legally compelled for the Christian does not mean. morally optional. And I was of the understanding that we were here to discuss whether or not Christianity is compatible or socialism is compatible within Christianity. And in a Democratic Republic, we have the ability to pass laws that not everyone might like. But if we decide that we want to have some collective ownership of certain industries, and we want to have a health care that cuts out the middleman, the mob that's coming in to take the extra cut off the top, that if we're going to invest in public infrastructure and private industry, that,

the private companies we gave that money to, the taxpayer money to, don't get just to privatize all of the gains. We should get a share in that. We have to remember who is stealing from who. Yeah, who's stealing from who, Doug? Don't you know you're supposed to be a socialist? So, yeah, I'm not supposed to be a socialist. And I want to remind our friend that in between Acts 4 and Acts 11 is Acts 5. And Ananias and Safira conspired to lie about how much they were donating. and they both fall down dead as a result of that lie. But when Peter is talking to Ananias, he says, wasn't the land yours already?

Wasn't it yours to keep her to sell? And after you had sold it, wasn't the money yours to dispose of as you saw fit? Acts 5 is in between Acts 4 and Acts 11. It's not me saying it was a voluntary contribution. It's Acts saying it was a voluntary contribution. So when we take up a collection at our church, it comes from everyone. People are to overflow with generosity. And once it is donated freely, once it's given freely, yeah, that is common property.

That's something that the church uses to minister to the poor, to minister to the downtrodden. But it is not coerced. It is not me coming to somebody else. Does Doug believe that the Jubilee laws were coercive? Would you know, the Jubilee laws were not a redistribution plan. The Jubilees were a law that required a prohibition of a permanent alienation of private property. In other words, the Jubilee laws caused everything. Did they require the redistribution of private property at every 50 years?

Were people who claim things as their own required to relinquish those things? It required that all properties sold was essentially a lease. And the lease had a time limit on it. So it was not taking property from Nabath and Nabus Vineyard and giving it to Ahab. What it was the instantiation of private property. Here's the key thing. But what was the moral purpose behind that law? Doug already said it.

So that you wouldn't be permanently alienated from private property. And this is the essential thing here. not be a massive gap in well. Doug? Let me finish this point. When you have in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and in Deuteronomy 5, the prohibition of adultery that presupposes the institution of marriage. If there is no such thing as marriage, there's no such thing as adultery.

In the Prohibition, in the Ten Commandments of theft, thou shalt not steal, both again in Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 20. the prohibition of theft presupposes the institution of private property. Moreover, in Israel, the institution of private property was ironclad. In other words, if you were a landowner, you couldn't sell it permanently. Now, I know JP2 was named checked here as a supposed communist, so I want to bring Father Murray in on this because last I checked, St. John Paul II was one of the great men who defeated the Soviet Union. Was he secretly a red without us understanding it? No, that's a falsification of history.

In fact, ask the people of Poland, were they happy under communism or what they have now? Of course, they're happy what they have now. They have freedom. They can leave their country. They can put money in the bank. They can buy things. They can travel. All of that was denied by communism. And I want to go back, you know, to this question of private property and the rest. Remember the parable Jesus told about the landowner who went out at the first hour and hired workers and then at the third, the ninth, all the way up to 5 p.m. And then he paid them all the same wage. And the people worked all day said, well, we thought we get more.

And what didn't the man say? Am I not free to do with my money as I see fit? And in the parable, Jesus, that man, that landowner represents God the Father. And that's God the Father giving his grace as he sees fit to people, you know, who do his will. So, yeah, it's very, very true that there's a caricature which basically says, says, since God owns everything, nobody can own anything. But that's not the way God set up the world. He put Adam and Eve and he told him, be fruitful and multiply, have dominion over the earth. And dominion means that you work and gain the benefit of your work so you can support yourself

and your dependence. And socialism, by the way, makes everybody a dependent of the government. Just ask the people of Cuba. You know, it's curious when people say, well, you know, socialism is something that really incarnates Christianity, socialism has destroyed Cuba. Cuba was a Christian country. They shut down the churches. They deprived people of religious freedom, and they impoverished everybody. And as regards this country, you know, not achieving its goal as a Christian inspired nation to take care of the poor, where did the poor travel from to get here? From everywhere. You don't have poor people traveling to Cuba and North Korea. They traveled to the United States. And that is because we do have one of the most active, charitable institutions in the world

among hospitals, schools, and all the rest. So belittling the United States because we believe in free property and we believe in the free market by saying, well, you're not taking care of the poor. It doesn't hold up under analysis. Yes, this free market point is important because I saw Colton was laughing there after he invoked JP2 as the socialist. But I seem to recall from a little known work called Chintesimus Anus, which was an encyclical of John Paul II written on the 100th anniversary of Ray Rum Navarum by Leo the 13th,

which establishes Catholic social teaching. I seem to recall John Paul II saying that the free market is the most efficient way to allocate goods around an economy. And while there are some goods and resources that are not solvent, that are not marketable, that in some cases we need to bring people into the market economy, and we do have obligations to our neighbors because of the universal destination of goods, nevertheless, there is such a thing as a right to private property. Doug makes a good point that the very prohibition on theft presupposes a right to private property. And it seems to me that JP2 would not be the best example to point to for socialism. He would not be for specific forms of socialism, certainly, right? He, he, and we should all

reject some aspects of some socialist projects. But because true socialism has never been tried, I assume. Yeah, it's just neither has true capitalism. That's what they tell me every time I critique. I'm not a capitalist. I'm a question. of Adam Smith. Yeah. And I'm not a socialist. I'm a Christian. But we're talking about socialists. Economics of the kingdom. But Pope John Paul II said that the only legitimate title to the possession, well, first he said that labor should always have priority over capital and that the only legitimate title to possession, whether private or public collective ownership, is that they should serve labor and that we can't exclude socialization under suitable conditions of certain means of production.

I'm not inventing these quotes. He said that the position of rigid capital, capitalism continues to remain unacceptable and that the exclusive right to private ownership of the means of production is an untouchable dogma of economic life, right? He defended that. He believed that. But he said merely converting the means of production into state property is by no means an equivalent to socializing that property. So what we have to understand is he's not writing off all forms of collective ownership, of worker-owned companies. I do want to get at this point of when we talk about ownership and we talk about, you know, who owns what, I go to, and it's so interesting the parables and the scriptures that my other panelists here are using,

because a lot of them are the ones that I would go to. But, you know, when I look at Gregory the Great, right, he says that when we furnish the destitute with any necessity, we render to them what is their own. We don't bestow upon them what is ours. We pay a debt of justice. We pay a debt of justice rather than an act of mercy. Well, hold on. I want to stop your other, because this is a very good point that you're hitting on. Yes, when you render to the destitute, when you render to the man whose family is starving a loaf of bread, you're giving to him something that would be his. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologia brings up this very point. He says, is, is Ammes giving

a precept of the law, the starving man who's trying to feed his family? Does he commit theft when he takes a loaf of bread? And the answer that Thomas comes to is no, he does not commit theft because of all of our goods ultimately do come from God, and we do have obligations one to another. And so, um,'s giving, in the case of someone who is destitute, would be a precept. And he does not actually commit a theft. However, he doesn't say that you have to give that guy a Ferrari. He doesn't say you have to give that guy a nice, lavish apartment in New York. He doesn't say that you have to give that guy all the money out of Father Jerry's or Doug's piggy bank here. What he's pointing to is, yes, we have to balance human dignity on the one hand, which is real. That's why we're going to prioritize

labor over money that's sitting in a bank. But likewise, we can't damage human dignity or insult human dignity by depriving people of their property, depriving people ultimately of their freedom, and coercing them into some system run by Tsar Mamdani. Go to puretok.com slash knolls. As America approaches its 250th anniversary, there's a lot of discussion about patriotism, national identity, and what kind of country we want to be. But patriotism is more than fireworks, flags, and speeches. It is, also about how we treat the people who volunteered to serve this country. So today, I'm especially proud to tell you about something Pure Talk is doing. Pure Talk and its customers are working to raise

$250,000 for America's Warrior Partnership, an organization focused on preventing veteran suicide and helping veterans navigate the challenges that often come after military service, housing, transportation, counseling, access to VA benefits, the practical support that helps veterans regain stability and move forward. When you switch your cell phone service to Peart Talk this month, you'll have the opportunity to round up your bill to support America's warrior partnership. Pure Talk will match those donations up to $250,000. It's great, obviously a great cause. It's great veteran-led company.

But also, it's just great service. Customer service in America that speaks English. Also, just great service generally. Unlimited talk, unlimited text, unlimited high-speed data for $3499 a month on the best towers out there. You can't beat it. Go to Peartot.com slash NOLES. Make the switch to PeartTalk. That's PeartTalk.com slash Knowles.

switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, pure talk. In 1950, in 1950, the richest city in North America was Detroit. The richest city in Latin America was Havana. And you can just look at what the collectivist mindset has done, turning both of those places, into moonscapes. Yes. We can talk in vagaries all we want to, right? That's not a vagary.

You really have to remove specific examples. Those are not the favorites. Detroit was not a socialist, was not a socialist project. It's ridiculous, right? It is now. It is now. It is now. Neoliberal capitalist policies with socialism is silly on its face.

We have, when we want to talk as Christians, we have to learn to stop talking in secular categories and definitions of words and understand things like freedom and property and rights Christianly. Me, I'm always going back to the church fathers to give me guidance on how to understand the scriptures. I think of Simeon the New Theologians. I think of Simeon the New Theologians. who says that the things of this world were made for all of us to have in common. But listen to this.

What my opponents would normally point to is covetousness, like Michael, what you just did there, you know, reducing it to giving everybody a lavish apartment, rather than providing the needs that people have. He says that covetousness came in like a tyrant and divided up what God gave to everyone. And then he goes further. He says that even if the wealthy eventually gives some of it back or all of it back to the poor that it doesn't suddenly make them merciful, but instead they owe repentance for all time to their brothers that were deprived of what have should been theirs. The Church Father Saul is over and over

again, right? What belongs to God. You don't see any covetousness. We're entrusted with it to be able to give to those who need it. And when we hold it in ourselves, we're not just violating God's law in some abstract way. We're actually putting ourselves in our mortal souls in danger like the rich man stepping over Lazarus. Why don't we're promoting an economic system that does that? Hold on one second. Do you not see any covetousness in the socialist politicians and the many socialist activists who are openly campaigning on eating the rich and taking all of their money for themselves? You know, you don't see it. This is such a common accusation.

Who's campaigning and taking all of the rich's money and keeping it for themselves? I don't know. I'm Donnie, AOC, Abdul L. Sayette. I think they're campaign on soaking the rich. Ryan, yeah. These are people who want people to have their fundamental human needs met. I didn't know a lot of socialists, and I don't know anybody who's envious of Elon Musk. I don't know any that want people to have yachts or mansions.

They want people to have health care. They want people to have affordable housing. They want people to not be drowning in medical debt. And this, for me as a Christian, is based in my belief that people are made in the image of God. And as a result of them being made in the image of God, they do deserve that. Yeah, Father, hold on. Father, why do you want to deprive people of health care in their basic needs? No, no, well, you want to talk about health care? Let's go to the fraud in Minnesota. What did the people who stole from the government do? They bought yachts and apartments. They sent money overseas. Are you kidding? That's not socialism.

It's nonsense. And by the way, that's a red herring. That's literally a red herring. It's not a red one. That sounds ridiculous. Well, there's Somalis and they exclusively vote for Democrats and they defraud the government by a bunch of mansions. So, yeah, I think it makes a lot of sense. explain this when the government opens up an unlimited credit line and never checks on what's being taken out, that's when socialism realizes for these people, their desire to get what they could never afford if they worked at their normal jobs. So they buy houses, they buy yachts, and they go build houses overseas. That socialism leads to criminality. We know that. The government steals from the people, then the people steal from the government. Yes. The social effect of socialism is very important. Brian? Well, I think a lot, the word theft is getting thrown around a lot. Doug brought up the Ten

Commandments. He said that, oh, it presupposes just like adultery or adultery presupposes the reality of marriage. So the prohibition of theft presupposes personal property. I don't know a single socialist that thinks that people can't own things. There's a big difference between owning a toothbrush and owning the factory that makes the toothbrushes. This is a really elementary school version of theft that we're talking about that doesn't reckon with what the Bible actually says about theft or what Christian history has said. Colton has given a lot of great quotes. Well, let me just give another.

Actually, you know, I can use a specific example to clarify this, if you're like, on the point of toothbrushes, there's a state assemblyman in New York. She's a socialist. Her name escapes me. I was talking about her on the show today. She is running specifically on the supposed right of people to steal toothbrushes and toothpaste from CVS because this is a basic need. And you might point out that there is Medicaid, there are food pantries, there are

are myriad charitable organizations that would happily give these people toothbrushes, but instead they go into CBS and Walgreens, which is why we can't get any of our products now because they're all behind plexiglass. So that would be an example. You want a specific example. That is a socialist candidate who is running specifically on the supposed right of people in the street to steal toothbrushes from stores. Ryan, you think that's okay? I can't speak to that specific example because I don't know what that person has said. But what I will say is that our meager welfare state put so many barriers in between people and their basic human needs that I can understand why people might be unable to access those needs. The reality is when somebody needs to access a basic

human need, that is not theft. St. Basil the Great said when someone strips a man in of his clothes, we call him a thief, the bread in your hoard belongs to the hungry. The cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked. The shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot. The money in your vaults belonged to the destitute. And so I wonder what St. Hazel would say to Elon Musk, a trillionaire while people are starving. And listen, I was raised with this thought. I was an independent and fundamental Baptist who grew up homeschooled listening to Rush Limbaugh for social studies. I read his books. What happened, Brian? I was ingrained with the belief that not just socialists, but Democrats were evil and demonic. But I became a socialist because of Jesus, much like other people. For instance,

Tommy Douglas, who was a Christian socialist, and his socialism was downstream from his Christianity, and his desire to see Jesus have his way in people's life is what caused him to roll out North America's first universal health care system in Saskatchewan, which was so popular that it was ultimately established throughout Canada. And that has become so popular. And now Canada is killing 5% of its population every year through the medical system. Even the conservatives in Canada, that do not, even the conservatives in Canada do not want to roll out back. their single payer healthcare system. In fact, in 2004, Tommy Douglas was voted

the most popular Canadian over every prime minister and even over Wayne Gretzky because of the success of his universal healthcare program, which is a socialized program. The reality is, and I'm done, one more sentence, socialist projects, and this is the truth, they have produced durable and popular outcomes when they have been implemented democratically.

Neither of us are calling for violent revolution, but through democratic processes, people do deserve to have their basic human needs met, and that is the kind of socialism that we want. Doug? The democratic process can include three coyotes and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Of course. That's a democratic process. Yeah, that's the democratic process.

You're the one who wants to remove the rights to vote from women in America. So I'm not sure that you have much at all to say about democracy, actually. Does the vaunted Canadian health care system include the youth. In Asia. It does, right? It involves like killing a lot of its citizens. Killing people. It does, right?

Okay, I can't really speak to me. Okay, then that's not beside the point. He points to the Canadian health care system is the triumph of socialism. That's something that can debate and democratically. The Canadian health care system is murdering 5% of the population every year. The Canadian health care system saved my mom when she had cancer twice, whereas in the United States, she wouldn't have got access to the care she needed because it wasn't covered under most of the health care here.

When people from around the world, when people from around the world need high quality health care. Do they go to Canada or the United States? Let me tell you this. Canadiens have a longer life. They go to Cuba. Wow, that's a new one. The best doctors in the world. Oh, do you go to a Cuban doctor? When you need medical care? I wish I could. And pay less for medical care than Americans. And that is a fact. They pay less for medical care and yet they have longer life expectancies. So we can debate and through the democratic process, we can decide whether money goes for use than Asia or not. That has absolutely nothing to do with socialist. We don't have to decide. That has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

Well, no, it does. It does because what you've done is you've transferred the locus of decision-making, right? So who lives and who dies? Only men? Only white men like you, Doug? No, no, not at all. I'm a big freedom guy. You're the one that wants to remove the locus of decision-making away from democratic, the citizenry to include female voters. Brian, why are you making it racial and sexual? I would love to deprive white men like you of making any of these political decisions.

So I don't think it comes down to race or sex. Right. And what you're talking about is... He wants to repeal the 19th Amendment. You're changing the subject. Yeah, we can get into the 19th Amendment later, but I'm specifically talking about repealing your right to vote, Brian. That is a totally separate thing from the 19th Amendment. Like I said, you're anti-democratic.

I don't all of us to have the rights to vote. Stop it. Go on. Get out of here. Come on. Doug, were you finishing your point? Yeah. The thing that I want to emphasize is the word coercion. All right. You have to understand that when you draw a line somewhere between the ownership of a toothbrush and the ownership of a toothbrush factory, I want to know where that line is. I want to know who draws the line.

I want to know what the enforcement mechanism is for the enforcement of that line. So if I earn money... You sound kind of like the rich man, a little bit worried that his barns are being encroached upon. God can encroach on them all he wants. He says, you fool, this night your life is required of you. I believe that we should live Corom Deo, and I believe that we should be generous and open-handed. I believe that we should be ministering to the poor. I hold to all those things.

The issue is not, do we take care of the poor? It's not whether we care about widows and orphans. That really is true religion. That really is. So the issue is what is the most effective mechanism that ministers to them actually and that doesn't trample all over the rights and the freedoms of the people who are the source of the wealth that is being given. So this is the thing. There's a difference between, there's two kinds of rights. If I say, if I believe as I do that you have the right to free speech, the only thing I have to do to honor your right to free speech is leave you alone.

Okay, that's the only thing I have to do is leave you alone. But if you have the right to free dental care and I'm a dentist, what you have done, if you have the right, basically any right creates obligations on others. Your right to free speech creates an obligation on the part of others to let you say your peace. Your right to free dental care obligates dentists to work under coercion in order to supply you with that free dentist. sir. It would still love to be paid out of the common purse. It's ridiculous. Michael admitted earlier

that people deserve to be fed and that it actually would not be stealing for someone to steal a loaf of bread. Does that mean that a baker is then being stolen from and that his labor is demand? Well, no, but what's very important on that. The important context there, though, is, yes, in very limited circumstances and circumstances of destitution, there is a preceptive bombsgiving, absolutely. And citizens do have mutual obligations one to another. I totally, I totally agree with this, which is why I'm curious about Catholic social teaching, which I think Colton made a very good point, is not purely capitalistic and it's certainly not socialistic. It has this kind of middle ground.

Because even, you know, Doug, to your point on free speech, it's true that your right to free speech mostly just requires me to not interrupt you. But there is a little more to it in the First Amendment, which is if someone's engaging in fraud that requires a justice system to stop that, because fraud undermines free speech, or obscenity. that appeals to the prurian interest, that undermines the rational basis of free speech. So I'm interested in this kind of third way beyond libertarianism and communism, which I guess does bring us to Catholic social teaching. Father, this has really come up in some conversations on the right, on post-liberalism, on integralism, on thisism, on thatism, all of these obscure political monikers being the right-wing version of gender pronouns. I think, to Colton's point, and to Doug's, for that matter, but not to Bryans. But to Doug and Colton's, there is a kind of political implication from the gospel.

You know, we are told to do certain things. There's an interaction between the religious authority and the state. In the Catholic Church, that's been true going back to at least Pope Jalasius I, and Emperor Anastasius. So what is the way? You know, statistically, we can point out, as Doug is alluding to, Christians give way more to charity than, so socialists do. It's not even close. No one actually disputes that. So there, there, something about Christianity is impelling, giving and, and charity. But what is the political role, the role of the state in securing those rights and that human dignity?

Well, the gleaning laws, for example, in the Old Testament, the gleaning laws would be a good example of a political construct that, um, that allows the poor to go out into the fields and and glean. Right. Well, the, you know, the political responsibility in order to fulfill God's will is that there be just laws which are applied evenly and that the right to private property is respected and that we are conscious of our obligation to help those who are dependents. So parents have to take care of their children if the house, feed, and clothe them, people who are in equivalent situations, people who are ill can't take care of themselves. It's up to society to do that. So yeah, there's no absolute

individuality expressed in Catholic social teaching. But what we don't have is a coercive system in which the government decides how much you can keep, how much you have to give away, and that you cannot be owning the means of production that you're simply, you know, acting on behalf of the government. That's not the way it's conceived. And, you know, again, back to, you know, if I can go back to the toothbrush, you know, the objections made where you can own a toothbrush fine, but you can't own a fact. Well, if there are no toothbrush factories, there are going to be no toothbrushes.

And the people stealing toothbrushes, by the way, in New York, it's not a guy who needs to brush his teeth. It's a guy who wants to swipe a whole handful so we can go resell it at a bodega or a flea market. Yeah. You know, if you read the New York Post, you can learn a lot about the application of social teaching in the real world. Because what we have here is a criminal enterprise on the part of some to take money when they know there's no consequences to it.

And that's, you know, the Catholic Church says you have to be law-abiding, just laws have to be obeyed. And that's a compliment to the fact you also have to be charitable to those who are in need. Amen. I did not expect Father Murray to make what I was about to say to strengthen my argument by giving me that data point I hadn't considered that they're not just stealing the toothbrushes to use it, which would be less of an urgent need. But they're stealing it so that they can sell it at a bodega or a flea market and make money. I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, but toothbrush resales from a handful of toothbrushes at Walgreens, isn't going to buy you a whole lot? That sounds to me like somebody who's stealing to sell some toothbrushes, to provide for a very present and urgent need, probably feeding his children to taking care of them.

Colton, I'm going to finish, but I just have to, do you think the guy who is going into Walgreens and swiping a bunch of toothbrushes and deodorant to resell at a bodega? You think he's doing that to buy some bread for his starving kid? Do you think he's doing that because he's a dirty, rotten criminal bum and he's going to go buy drugs with the 20 bucks that he gets from selling the toothbrush? What do you think is more likely? You guys hate on poor people, man. Yeah. I don't hate on anyone, but I don't approve of criminals and I think we should prosecute them. When someone is absolutely desperate.

Hold on. It was cold about them. You need more proximity to the poor, Michael. I have a lot of proximity to them. You would hate them less if you are near to them. I try not to have proximity to criminals, but I do have proximity to the poor. And I love them very much. They're literally selling toothbrushes in the street is someone that we should draw near to

and we can encounter the face of God. Sure. This is a simple question. And I think we should care for criminals too. But this is a simple question. It's a yes or no from both of you guys on the left side of this panel. Do you think the guy who is stealing the toothbrushes from CVS and selling them to a bodega? Do you think that guy is taking that money to go get bread to give to his wife and children?

Or do you think he's doing it for less wholesome reasons and activities? What do you think? A gun to your head? No, you didn't phrase it as a yes or no question, but I'll say, no, he's not, he's not doing it probably to go buy drugs. As somebody who grew up in Kensington, not drug, you think he's doing it to buy bread for his family? Come on. Probably. And let me explain why I think that, right? As somebody who grew up in Kensington, one of the worst drug neighborhoods in the country, doing ministry for my father and grandfather pastor to church there for the last 67 years,

it burned down last year, pray for them. There's a lot easier ways to make money if you want to to go cop something real quick. And I'm not going to mention what they are here rather than going and running a whole operation. Sounds a little different to me. Here's what I want to say. We are forgetting and drifting off course. We're talking about is this specific socialist policy the best way to do this? Christossum, John Chris Awesome tells us not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from whom, from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are what, not ours, but theirs. And as you already said, Michael, St. Thomas Aquinas lays it out pretty clearly that in cases of need, and here's a direct quote, all things are common property so that there would

seem to be no sin in taking another's property for need has made it common. It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in case of extreme need. And I think that we have a lot of extreme need. And truly, I wonder just one more point, because this is probably my last time I get to talk. So let me just finish this last point. All right. Earlier, somebody made a point about, you know, I think it was Father Murray, who I disrespectfully spoke over earlier and I genuinely, when I was apologizing, I wasn't being sarcastic.

It made the point that if you want to look at a country that's thriving, you look at America, right, where people aren't very poor. And if you want to look, he said North Korea, a hilarious example. But the truth is, if you want to look at the countries where people are struggling the most, We live in the imperial core. So to compare the quality of the lives of people here, which is not as good as it could be, to the lives of the people in the resource rich nations in the global South that we are using brutal imperialist techniques to extract that money using soft power like the IMF and the World Bank

to put them in handcuffs and shackles. By the way, we're actually creating religious persecution there by creating such insane scarcity that we're now pitting Muslims and Christians and Christians are now being persecuted because of all of that? You know, Muslims and Christians have been, we've been fighting for a while. The Muslims have been persecuting us for about 1,400 years. I don't think that's the IMFs.

Anybody out of some vague thing. There's always a specific materialist reason that we can track through and understand what's going on. Hold on. That's a very interesting point. What was the material reason for which the Muslims invaded into Gaul and made it to Poitiers 150 miles from Paris? What was the material reason that the Ottoman Turks tried to invade the Battle of Lepanto or once again at the siege of Vienna in 1683?

Was this caused by the IMF? I'm very sorry. I'm very sorry, but I have a heart out. It's been great talking to you all. Thanks. You know, whenever you bring up the Battle of Lepanto, the Protestant has to get at. Good to see you, Doug. Thank you very much.

I know. Thanks. Sorry. Good to see you. On this point, hold on. You say it's all driven by just material need. How do you explain those great movements of history? You think it's because Charlemagne or Charles Martel was a little too heavy-handed with his economic policy in North Africa or something?

Well, I'll have to get into the research on that. You're asking me to pull some historical analysis of something I'm not prepared to talk about. Light them up in the comments, ladies and gentlemen. You guys go do the research chat. Tell them what we think. But I can tell you why it's happening right now in countries like Nigeria. and I've already stated those reasons. But my point is to say that if the question is whether or not there are forms of socialism

or aspects of socialism that are compatible with Christianity, certainly Acts 4 shows us that that is the case. And regardless of how the state decides to live, Christians are called to live in a way that we can't support policies that are contrary to how we're called to live as citizens of the colony of heaven on earth, who are here to establish and make known the kingdom of God. I think every act of wealth redistribution wrought by Christians is a sacramental moment of healing. It's a moment of the already not yet breaking into our reality. Please. Can I respond to that?

Please. When Fidel Castro nationalized all foreign entities and took away people's bank accounts and caused the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, that was an example, according to you, of a Christian redistribution of wealth? No, I didn't say that. I said every example of Christians redistributing wealth, right, out of our commitments and beliefs. I mean, if we want to debate those states on their own terms, that doesn't answer the question that we're debating. We're not talking about this country. Colton, you brought up Cuba and how great Cuba is and how it's got great health care and all the rest of it.

I just brought up that they produced the best doctors in the world, which is true. They don't produce the best doctors in the world. That's nonsense. That's propaganda. What they do is they produce slave doctors. They send a foreign countries and then the salaries are paid to the government and those doctors get a hand, you know, a little pittance. Many of them try to defect, but they don't because their families are back in Cuba. That's part of the socialist mythology.

Whenever you talk about socialism in reality and then you tell me, oh, by the way, that's not what I'm talking about. No, that's what I'm talking about. Cubans. I want to talk about the capitalism. I want to talk about the capitalist mythology and the capitalist propaganda because the reality is that in our country, there's a kind of a theft that we're not talking about. A lot has been thrown around about theft. And there's this obvious theft, right? Stealing a toothbrush from CVS. But the largest theft in this country by far, statistically, is wage theft. That is 15 million to 50, or sorry, 15 billion to 50 billion every year, which vastly outpaces from the illegal aliens. of that. No, not at all from corporations and companies. No, by corporations, but most of the wage theft is promoted by capitalism.

No, no, but I just want to clarify, I'm sort of agreeing with you. The, the wage theft that you're talking about, the problem of wage theft is usually perpetrated against illegal aliens because they're a more vulnerable population and it's easier to defraud them of their wages. That's the point you're making, I think. Well, that is one kind, certainly, but there's many kinds of, and deport the illegal aliens and we've solved the problem. Not at all because actually not only that, but if you just look at worker compensation, so the theft, that's just what's actually illegal theft. But in terms of what's actually moral, if you look at since the 80s till now,

worker compensation has only grown 26% while CEO compensation has grown over 1,000 and productivity has grown over 80%. Sounds like CEOs are doing a good job. Productivity is that far up. Well done. No, the workers are doing a good job. One of the great differences, I think, between people like myself and Colton and people like Doug and Father Murray is that we actually believe that the workers are the engine of wealth, not just one guy at the top of a hierarchy, some brilliant Elon Musk figure that's producing all of this. It's actually the workers who create wealth. And yet they often do not share in the results of that labor. Well, you just said they did share because their wages went up 26%. Sorry, Father. No, no, no, because productivity went up over 80%.

Why does Elon Musk have workers? Up until 1980? Yeah, father, father, yeah. Yeah. Why does he, I'll ask it, then I'll answer it, then I'll let you comment. Why does Elon Musk have workers? Because Elon Musk came up with an idea for a product that people wanted to buy, and he was able through financing to get other people to support him,

and then he produced many, many companies that employ hundreds of thousands of people, and people are happy about that. The workers in particular happy, because before they came, before Musk showed up and did all this, they weren't working for him. Workers and bosses, they go together to produce wealth. Well production is a solution to poverty. And that's a very Christian way. St. Paul said, if you do not work, you do not eat.

That hasn't been quoted yesterday. Elon Musk has workers because he inherited vast amounts of money and capital begets capital under capitalism in a feedback loop that perpetuates itself. He had an idea that he could sell to other people. That's why he made money. Yeah, people squander generational wealth. all the time. That's much more of a story than a guy becoming a trillionaire. Yeah, I think that example was weak, Brian, because I am concerned about the stalling out of lower middle class

and middle class wages. I think there are a lot of reasons for that that are not attributable to deal on last. We just finished a point. But I'm concerned about that, obviously. But your example, I think is pretty weak because you say, you know, the real grave injustice is that since the 80s, workers are only making 26% more than they used to. And you say, well, okay, maybe they should make 30% more, but like they did get a raise. It's like, That's something, I would tell you. I think it's a pretty weak example. We have to leave it there because we've gone way, way over time.

But I am grateful to all of you. Colton, very nice to meet you and welcome you onto the show. Where can people follow you? You can follow me at Colton Barnaby on Instagram and TikTok, the Kensington Cone on Substack and Colton Barnaby won on YouTube. Okay, Brian, I have an embarrassing confession to make, which is because I was reading your book about how hell doesn't exist, even though it does exist.

But I was reading it. And it ended up, I ended up having it on my nightstand for like six months. And if anybody walked into my home, they would get very wrong impressions of my views. But wonderful to see you again. Thank you for coming on. And Father Murray, oh, sorry, before I let you go, Brian, where can people follow you? At B.E. Recker on Instagram is the best place to find me. Also, beloved with Brian Racker on Substack.

Okay, go follow him there. And then, Father Murray, thank you for being correct and just coming on and bringing with correct respect to this panel. people can find you all over like TV and so you find but where can people follow you if they like yeah so uh royal grande the prayerful posse uh that's a weak league podcast i do and then i write columns for the catholic thing the catholic thing dot org so go follow that one most of all okay wonderful to see you guys all of you good to see you please duke it out in the comments we'll see you next time