The Michael Knowles Show - Right Wing Civil War: "Israel & Economy Crisis" HEATED Debate With Michael Knowles | Bar Fight

Episode Date: December 20, 2025

In this explosive episode of Bar Fight, conservative heavyweight Michael Knowles clashes with principled conservative host Steve Deace and rising America First voice Kai Schwemmer in a no-holds-barred debate on the future of the Republican Party. Is "America First" the bold, populist path forward to reclaim national sovereignty, secure borders, and reject endless foreign entanglements—or is it a divisive distraction from battling the entrenched establishment, cultural decay, and big-government elites? Watch as these three sharp minds go head-to-head on immigration, foreign policy, Trumpism vs. traditional conservatism, and more. With a rowdy live audience picking the hottest topics and jumping in with questions, no subject is off-limits in this high-energy showdown. Who will land the knockout blow? Tune in to find out! - - - Today's Sponsor: ZBiotics - Go to https://zbiotics.com/BARFIGHT and use BARFIGHT at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics. - - - 🎄✨ DAILY WIRE CHRISTMAS SALE IS HERE! ✨🎄 🎁 https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe ⭐️ 40% Off DailyWire+ New Annual Memberships ⭐️ 50% Off DailyWire+ Annual Upgrade Memberships ⭐️ 50% Off DailyWire+ Annual Gift Memberships - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How many discounts does USAA auto insurance offer? Too many to say here. Multi-vehicle discount. Safe driver discount? New vehicle discount. Storage discount. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usa.com slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply. You think Trump is a schmunk.

He was born in Texas. Why was it that he flew over to Israel and was told that he was at home? Can the United States act morally and justly in the world while defending Israel? If your tactics were to be blunt, a little less douchey at times. I mean, I completely disagree. No, no, no, no, do not pince me, bro. We have the host at the Steve Day's show. That would be my friend, Steve Days.

When you look at the facts on the ground, and they don't support the narrative. We're literally signing the greatest all. Also, to my left, you know him from Jubilee. That would be Kai Schwimmer. An existing law which had banned premarital sex. Where of other states. Welcome everyone to a very special edition of Bar Fight. We are here at Amfest filled with many of the most energetic, patriotic, good-looking conservatives in the entire country.

This is the show where I, Michael Knowles, go head to head with two esteemed combatants on topics chosen by you. Until this episode, because usually I would be debating two liberals on all of these topics. But with Amfest on, there is not a single liberal within 150 miles of Phoenix. And yet, there is probably more debating going on at Amfest this year than at any other event in the country, left rider's center, because the American right finds itself in the midst of a civil war, a battle for the future of the conservative movement, a battle between the old right and the new right,

the boomers and the zoomers and the millennials and Gen X, debates over foreign policy, economic policy, migration, everything in the middle. To my left, we have the host of the Steve Dayes show, author of A Nefarious Plot, and a Gen X conservative par excellence. I already gave away his name. That would be my friend, Steve Dease.

Thank you, brother. Appreciate it to see you. You bet. Also, to my left, you know him from Jubilee, a man young enough to be my son if I had had a child at 13. That would be Kai Schwimmer. Thank you.

Glad to be here. Here is how it works. We will be debating three of the most controversial topics tearing up the right right now. Israel, immigration, and economics. The bell rings. We duke it out for that round. Then our friends in the crowd can come up to the microphones to pick a fight with any of us. But do not wait because there is a time limit for each round.

Gentlemen, are you ready? Ready. Yes, sir. Okay. Round one. Okay, round one. Our first topic. The claim is America should support the state of Israel. Steve, you want to take it?

100% America should support the state of Israel. And I'm not going to give you any boomer era evangelical slogans. I'm not going to take Genesis 12.3 completely out of historical Christian context to appease John Nelson Darby and the dispensation list of the 1860s. I'm just going to look at history, Mike. I mean, for 1,300 years, we had no nation of Israel, but we had Islam. This idea that our relationship with Israel is inciting Islam is an ignorant view of history, because for the 1,300 years we had Islam and no Israel, Islam just came after Christendom instead.

If anything, the nation of Israel is a deflector shield. It's acting as a cudgel. It's redirecting some of the Islamic energy that historically has been targeted at the West in Christendom, and it's targeted at them as well. And then I'll add one more point. What would Trump's negotiating leverage be with countries like Saudi Arabia to get them to the table if there were no Jewish state to threaten them with? If there were no Jewish state to say, you know what? If you guys don't want to come to the table, I guess we'll give Israel all the weapon systems we haven't given them yet just to make the fight even.

It gives Trump a crucial bargaining trip to make some of the deals in the Middle East that you have seen. And so I think the case is closed. Now it's not in absolute. We put our own interests first. But I think the case is closed before we even talk about the buy. or eschatology. Kai. I mean, I completely disagree, I think.

Look, we have this unconditional support that we are providing Israel. And I don't think that they are, you know, one of our vassals and we're being able to, you know, use them as this force for our geopolitical aims. What I see is that Israel is consistently undermining even the efforts of President Trump to establish peace in the region so much that when you have the vice president,

the man one heartbeat away from the presidency, in Israel, there's a vote held regarding something that President Trump has already said is absolutely off the table, the annexation of the West Bank. That is absolutely undermining the United States authority what the stated position of the president is. And I also think that Israel knows they can use U.S. support, which has been largely unconditional, in order to involve us in foreign conflicts where we don't have to be. Look at the Iran conflict. Israel knows they were not going to be able to destroy nuclear enrichment sites in Iran if it were not for the help of the United States. They bet on that and they abused

their relationship with the United States to draw us in. And, you know, God bless. I I hope that that conflict does not endure any longer. I hope it has not started back up. But I think that is a sleeping giant. And I think Israel is counting on our involvement because they see our relationship with them as unconditional. I think that the events of what actually transpired in June, with all due respect, contradict everything that he just said.

We actually saw Arab states fly drones to shoot down Iranian missiles aimed at Israel in the aftermath of that event. I can understand why there were concerns going in. I mean, I discussed with Charlie privately. his concern of this war spilling over into a multi-regional conflict. But now we have proof of concept. You know, you mentioned the vice president. He said something interesting.

He says a lot of things interesting. But one thing that kind of percolated to me, especially since Tucker Carlson is one of his best friends, is when he said, you know, were a lot of people who claimed prior to what the president did to Iran that it was going to have a spillover in the region, and none of that happened. And you would think maybe those people would go back

and reevaluate how they were wrong. And instead they just continue with their own narrative. Instead, what we saw, for that to be true, means that you think Trump, to borrow a Jewish term, is a schmuck. That means that you think that Israel is the one pimping Trump and the tail wags the dog. Reality is, if Israel had done that event, had done the operation against Iran that it did, and it sucked. You know what Trump would have said? I'm not wasting any of my political capital on that. You're on your own.

But because the op that they did was precise and devastating, he was willing to do what he said, which was essentially provide the winning blow. Notice we are arguing way more about this than the Arab world is. Have you noticed this, Michael? The American right is arguing, has way more consternation about Gaza than what they do in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. Why is that? And it makes you kind of think that maybe there's another agenda at work here

when you look at the facts on the ground and they don't support the narrative. Steve, I think if I could tell you exactly why we're talking about this so much, it's because our unconditional support for Israel is undermining our position as a moral and just actor on the world stage. When we are literally signing the greatest agreements we ever have, ever. This is a very important point, and I notice it's a shift. So right out the gate, Steve, you knocked down

what I think is the caricature argument of the pro-Israel side and the weakest argument, namely, you know, the Bible tells us we need to be slaves to the nation state of Israel, and, you know, it's our religious duty or whatever. And you say, put that aside, I'm only speaking in nuts and bolts American interest and made a good argument.

Now, you made your side of that argument, but now you're shifting it again into a moral question. Can the United States act morally and justly in the world while defending Israel? Go ahead. I think then rather than shift, I'd actually like to stick, Steve, to what you were saying. I think that absolutely the United States does things that are not in the United States' interests, but are actually more so an extension of what the policy that Zionists in the United States and also the state of Israel would encourage, and that is anti-Semitism laws, down on hate speech and even

making illegal the burning of a flag. What flag was that? It was the Israeli flag even prior to the illegality through executive order passed by President Trump of the burning of the American flag. Why do we have that idea in our politics that it is okay to pass laws only

first if they are in defense of a foreign nation? And to the point, by the way, that we're assembled around this war in the right wing, here's the question. There is a conflict in the right wing concerning support for Israel. We have one side that is saying, I will not support the right wing if it continues this posture with the relationship to a foreign nation. Now, I see those people as people who want to prioritize American interests,

but you have a second party that says that I will retreat from the Republican Party. I will even demolish it if it stops supporting a foreign nation. Now, which one of those two voices do you think is more concerned with what's best for America? The one that's willing to break the coalition for a foreign country's best interest or the one that's trying to preserve this country's best interest. I've never advocated for any form of anti-Semitism laws. In fact, when this was proposed on a federal level early last year in response to what the left was doing on college campuses, the way I read the bill, you could actually say the New Testament is anti-Semitic. And I remember the anti-defamation league tried to stop Mill Gibson's the passion from being released because it was

a faithful adaptation of the gospel according to the gospel of Matthew. What I'm advocating is for America interests. And again, I think... Doesn't sound like it. When guys like you have this position, just be honest, you think Trump is a schmuck. So you guys don't want to say that because the minute you criticize Trump, all the ratios go down. Is it the OK? But Trump is the one doing this stuff. You're saying that Trump is essentially getting pimped out by Israel.

And so you're bypassing Trump to blame Israel. But really, Trump is the commander in chief in the White House. So he's the one making the policies that you claim to disagree with unless you think that he's the John. and they're the pimp. You get to respond. I appreciate that. Well, I think you're a little bit right. I think we do look like schmucks. When we allow spies who are Navy intelligence agents in the United States like Jonathan Pollard to meet with the foreign ambassador to Israel,

and then when we have Carolyn Levitt say that the president stands with his foreign ambassador, I think we do look like schmucks to let a spy who is selling secrets to a foreign government come onto our soil. He was born in Texas. Why was it that he flew over to Israel and was told that he was at home? I think that does sound like there are foreign. interests that come before our own here in America. Okay. Now we open it up to questions or comments or concerns.

I have all of them. All right. If Christianity is going to outlive this moment right now where there is like a surge of interest in Christianity, is the future Roman Catholic or is it Protestant? What about Mormons? Hold on, hold on.

That's not Christianity at all. I don't know. Not the same team. Different team. Okay. But is there more that Protestants need to steal from Catholics or more that the Catholics need to go back and relearn from the Reformation? Well, listen, I love the Reformation because it gave us the counter-Reformation. So I do have an answer to this, and it's not my own.

It comes from Alexei to Tocqueville, who, as far as I'm concerned, is the greatest analyst ever of American democracy, wrote Democracy in America, and in a little quoted but important observation in volume two of democracy in America, Toakville makes this shocking prediction. He says, yeah, America is a Protestant country, it looks like it, but over time, it's going to go one of two ways. It's going to go atheist or it's going to go Catholic, both of which would have seemed absurd at the time. And his argument was that America's a democracy, and in democracies, people hate authorities, so they want to get rid of religion. But if they're going to keep religion, they want it to be a uniform religion, a universal religion that applies equally to all.

And there, the answer would be the Catholic Church. So he predicted a bunch of Catholics in America. And I might have called him crazy even 15 years ago. I'm seeing a lot of people swim the tiber. Is all I'm saying. That's all I'm saying. Gentlemen, I think America needs to be a biblical nation. I think that ultimately the Word of God is the rock upon which Western civilization was built. And I think that what you're seeing right now, and I think this started with Charlie.

I think this is confirmed by Charlie's memorial. What you saw was the Holy Spirit bypassed the ecclesiastical structure. It essentially gave up corporately on much of the church that had become weak, flaccid, watered down, guys in perpetual Hawaiian shirts and skinny jeans and sweater vests. And we're not interested in combating the spirit of the age, claiming to be seeker-friendly. It's funny how all the seekers were always in these really posh suburbs where everybody makes hundreds of thousands of dollars and can write all kinds of tie checks. You know who was really seeker-friendly?

Charlie was. Charlie went where the actual seekers were. And what Charlie proved ultimately is that the word does not return void. And I think ultimately it is the Word of God that is perfect. It's the only perfect thing on the earth. It is the Word of God that remains. Movements come and fall. Sex come and fall.

You see theological fads come and go. The Word of God is the constant. And I think ultimately your culture is either built on the Word of Christ or chaos. Well, if I could add, you know, I'm... Chip in for the LDS side here. I was going to say, yeah. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I think, is a very big underdog in this fight. If you want to talk about religions, if you want to talk about religions in America, there's no more American religion than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But that being said, we have record growth and membership in the last year around the world. We absolutely have the important aspects of apostolic succession hierarchy in the church, but we also have the availability of the Protestants in the country. So I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with its bold claim that God's still. speaks to us that revelation is still being received for the church through a prophet, through 12 apostles, the same structure that existed in the primitive church. I think that's something that may actually save this country from its demise a little bit down the road. And we're also the number one most church-going state or province, however you want to call it, in the entire Western world, Utah. So I think that speaks for itself if we're talking about fruit.

It is a very American religion. There's no, that is at least absolutely true. Okay, next All right, as your resident Reform Baptist representing and an abortion abolitionist, I would like to ask you guys, first of all, I hold the controversial view that it should be illegal for everyone to murder anyone. It's crazy, right? That's nuts. So my question would be, well, before I ask the question, after 50 years of an overturning row and the Dobbs decision, we continue to see abortion number skyrocket through the means of male appeal. And all 50 states is perfectly legal for mothers to self-manage abortions, right?

So the question is, should pre-born children have equal protection under the law from all who would intentionally conspire to terminate their life, or should we give provisions to mothers to have freedom to execute their children? 100% pre-born children should have every last, going back to the Fifth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, has as predicate that language. No person shall be denied life, liberty, or property without due. process of law. I mean, I was one of the pioneers of the personhood movement a decade ago. So 100% I believe in the personhood of the unborn child. I do think you're making the, these are kind of your classic abolitionist talking points. I'll say that you guys are

good to win the argument because the mainstream pro-life movement is rudderless and lacks direction and had no post-row plan. So you're going to win because you guys actually have a vision to victory. The challenge that you guys are going to have is what kind of collateral damage are you get a cause on your way to your victory. Because you guys, and I say this man as a pugilist, okay? But you guys take some of the most counterintuitive confrontational tactics I've ever seen, right? And you end up, and I've said this to some of your national leaders, you push away

people who would be with you because you give them, you make them think that everything they did for the last 40 years was a sin against Christ. So I appreciate that. Can we address me? 100%. I don't know those guys. So on the point. It sounds like we're wearing you down.

You're coming around to our position. No, listen, I had your position before you did. Absolutely. What I'm saying is you would have won probably by now if your tactics were to be blunt, a little less dushy at times, to be blunt. Because you're right. Your argument is correct. The stuff, you know, kind of the color revolution tactics

of standing outside people's offices and screaming and yelling at them and all that stuff I see, I can just tell you because I get emails from the very legislatures that are legislators that you're trying to reach. And you give them an excuse to be cowards with that kind of behavior, where if you confronted them on an intellectual basis, their complete arguments would collapse because they lack any moral clarity at all. I agree with the feedback and garner your support. How about from the LDS and the Catholic? Well, I actually agree very much so with what Steve said. It's always this issue, right, of what is the most politically pragmatic versus which is the most morally correct. And yes, you know, the abolitionist argument is the one that is going to be obviously the most consistent. And I had that question myself.

You know, why did I at one point believe in exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest? It makes no sense at all. I will say, however, sometimes we make consistency a false god the same way that often we make pragmatism a false god. I think it is important to understand our situation and how that situation differs across countries. But I think that personally, every single individual should take the abolitionist position. It is correct. It does more affirm the value of each individual human life. So be nicer.

Okay. What else? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Do not pince me, bro. No. I didn't say anything about being nice. There's a wide chasm between being dushy and being nice. What I'm saying is be wiser.

I could care less about nice, but be wiser. Yes. Okay. I believe myself and in my team, we've been very nice and not dushy. So thank you. No, you've been wise. Thank you, sir. Don't be nice.

Be wise. Yes, sir. I would say my politics comes down to Aristotle, basically. and Aristotle says the paramount political virtue is prudence, not pragmatism, not utilitarianism, but prudence. And so, of course, I want all abortion to end. There's no moral excuse to kill an innocent baby under any circumstances. However, I'm not really an all-or-nothing kind of person.

I am willing to take incremental change. I think it's a fallen world. I don't think we're going to see perfection the side of heaven. It does seem like the culture is moving a little bit more in our direction for a variety of reasons. But I would not make the arguments primarily from ideology, even primarily using the language of rights. I would use more the language of natural law.

I would use the language of scripture. I would say it's obviously wrong. We can know through reason and revelation. It's wrong to murder innocent people, especially to murder innocent babies. Thomas Aquinas would be proud. Thomas, you know, I defer to Thomas Aquinas. You are Catholic. You really are.

I basically ask him what I should have for breakfast in the morning at St. Thomas. And so anyway, because of that, I would follow our Lord's injunction to be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove. And if there is a clear path to victory for more abolitionist arguments, I'm all for it. That's why libertarians are not convincing. They're perfectly consistent, but they don't make themselves attractive. So for context on my question, I am a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have a son that is converting to Catholicism. So I really...

You've got to get one Protestant, and then you've got the whole bit, yeah. Maybe the other son. And I appreciate all of the insight and knowledge and everything that you have shared in teaching me about Catholicism. Thank you. My two sons are part of this generation.

I'm grateful that I have raised that are extremely conservative. And where I'm struggling right now is trying to help, and we want to enlarge a tent and bring the coalition together, and yet there's so many voices out there that are so combative

and so, I feel like, hateful and hard that I'm struggling with trying to help them discern which voices in the movement that we should be listening to and especially as we were talking about Israel and some of these other topics that are so controversial in the movement if you have spiritual and political and basically because you work in the field insight on how to help them to I have a little spiritual insight on this I mean I think it's great news about your son you know I I'm just happy that he's happy and finding God that so you know at these moments

when people are having intense spiritual or numinous experience. I've just seen anecdotally and experienced. The devil really doesn't like that. And the devil kind of, he tries to find ways to go in and poke you and tilt you a little off course and kind of mess with you. And so one of the occupational hazards of political media and politics generally is detraction and calumny. And something that's very attractive in a social media age

is a railing and reviling spirit, which St. Paul warns us against. And so these are the temptations that we really have to back away from. And I get it. I enjoy being entertained in political media. I gossip and railing and detraction. They can be like really, really funny. And I'd be lying if I said I didn't watch it every so often on my timeline. But it's not good.

It's not good for your soul. It's not good for the political community. And it's important to recognize a distinction. One can enjoy a little bit of entertainment and maybe glean something from it while also recognizing that the incentives of the entertainers, of the broadcasters, are different from the incentives of the political community. And some of them are cynics. Some of them are the kind of people who say, don't even engage civically at all. It's all doom and gloom. Those people have a real profit incentive to make people despair.

Citizens have no incentive for despair. And so I would say, be quiet, instruct your family to be quiet, to pray, to listen to the voice of God, to avail oneself of the sacraments, and to be able to find the good in everything, and to distinguish where priorities really lie. Can I add to that really quick? Please, yeah. Christianity is not the endless asking of questions. It is the ceaseless seeking of answers. I would consume content that points you to truth and not modern-day Gnosticism.

You know the first being who ever said? I'm just asking questions. Satan. So I'm all for asking questions. As far as I know, I'm the only human being on the earth that has written two best-selling books debunking the scamdemic. But what I didn't do is just ask questions. I gave answers.

I wrote books that had more footnotes than pages. What are the answers? It's not about what questions. we ask. It's about where we go for the truth and what the truth is. So it's not about the endless asking of questions. That creates division. That creates a lot of the things we've seen the last few months. It's about where do we go for the truth? Where do we go for the answers? It's not about the endless asking of questions, but the ceaseless seeking of answers. One last thing. We're in the Advent season. The Lord wanted to be known so much. Truth wanted to be known so much. It left paradise

and put itself in the most vulnerable form an unborn child. That's how much. The Lord of the universe grew up, had to have a diaper changed, had to be burked, had to be taught how to speak, how to read,

had to be taught a trade. Think about that. He slept with his disciples, ate with them, hungered with them, thirsted with them. The truth wants to be known. Consume content that points you to truth

because that's godly. The stuff that does not comes from another place. Yeah, well, hey, thank you for being here. It's nice to have this underrepresented group here, which I think is actually a very large part of the conservative movement. I work at the plays. It's a very large part of them conservative.

That's true. That's true. We're at the top. We're collected at the top. No, but I know that your son certainly has heard that we believe in being honest, true, chase, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. So I believe, this is from one of the 13 articles of faith that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has.

I came to experience that question, very importantly in my own life, because I was very much actually brought to take my faith more seriously by some of the louder voices, which were even at times a little bit more riotous or maybe even a little bit meaner. It motivated me to take my faith more seriously because it was something that I was participating in more so culturally than spiritually and with my whole soul. That being said, I think you have to realize,

and everybody must make the decision to either let their politics be inspired by their faith or let their faith or let their politics, you know, go the other way around and start dictating, you know, the way they ought to live their lives as Latter-day Saints or as other religious people. It is not, you know, a virtue to be based necessarily. Obviously, there's some base things which are good and align with gospel values, but we're not going to score brownie points in heaven because we told leftists to kill themselves. And I would do these omega streams talking to strangers on the Internet, and I quickly realized it's a weird anecdote, but everybody, you know,

does that. They call them slurs, they call them whatever. And I very quickly realized that it is so much more rewarding and even so much more inspiring to try and extend kindness to people, especially your enemies, who Christ told us to pray for. So I would say to your sons, that's the ultimate question, right? Is which is coming first? Is your politics coming before your faith? Are your politics coming before your faith, or is your faith dictating your politics? It's not a virtue to be based. I like that line. That's a very thoughtful line. What are you based in? What are you based in? What are you based on? Okay. That's the end of round one.

Back to Israel. Back to the subject that we just talked about. A poll of the audience. Who won the debate over America's support of Israel? Was it Kai? Was it Steve? Who won? I can't tell.

Mr. Davies? I think it was Kai. Okay, all right. I thought Steve made good points. Okay, all right. You might want to check out Zbiotics.com slash bar fight. between film and events like these, catching up with some of our friends here in Phoenix over maybe a nice cigar or so. One amazing part to add to your routine is going to be Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink.

Here's a deal. Zbiotics, pre-alcohol probiotic drink, say that 10 times fast, is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by Ph.D. scientists to tackle tough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. You drink alcohol. the alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this product, not dehydration, that is to blame for rough days after drinking.

Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break down this product, this by-product, and you just remember to take pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you will feel your best tomorrow. I strongly, strongly recommend doing that, especially at a festive gathering such as this, and especially at this festive time of year. Make the most of every toast this holiday season. Just don't forget to bring pre-alcohol along for the ride.

Go to Zbiotics.com slash barfite to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use Barfite to check out. Zbiotics is backed by 100% money-back guarantee. If you are unsatisfied, for any reason at all, they will refund your money. No questions asked. Remember to head to Zbiotics.com slash Barfight. Use the code Barfite to check out for 15% off. It is now time.

for round two. Okay. Our next topic, a major point of debate between the old guard and the new guard, the boomers and the zoomers, big government doesn't always suck. Subheader, the economy needs a political fix. I'll let you go first this time. Guy?

Yeah, I mean, I completely agree. Just as a matter of principle, right, big government obviously does not always suck. and to get to, you know, the political prudence of it, if you believe big government sucks, you're not going to convince all the people who think that it doesn't and are willing to use the force of the state to impose their will on you.

I will say that we've gotten to a point in this country where the pull yourself up by your bootstraps excuse simply does not work for my generation. There's a 1,000 square foot house where I live in Salt Lake City, Utah that is worth $500,000. This is a huge problem. We're at a point in this country now as well

where all of the people who have been told, well, you know, you got to just get into, you know, one of these white collar jobs because you won't be replaced. They're going to be replaced by AI. There has to exist some kind of structure. And frankly, I believe there is some role of the state in creating that structure, which is going to protect the students who are now going to college. And one of the things that I actually support, and this will be much to the chagrin of many here, is a reformation of how we do welfare. Welfare, obviously, in this country is not working. But I think that you can apply market principles to get it to work better. and Milton Friedman proposed something that is similar, and this is the negative income tax. In practice, however, the negative income tax does not actually incentivize business creation. It does not incentivize risk-taking, family growth.

A universal basic income, as much as it may be due to the chagrin of many conservatives who are told that that is socialism, and you can never do anything that even approaches that word, it actually is going to allow mothers to stay in the home with their children, allow college students to devote more time to their studies, and is going to incentivize the production of businesses, and spur the growth of employment in certain sectors of the economy that are likely underrepresented right now. So I think that we have to absolutely depart from this idea that big government always sucks. It can absolutely be used as a tool for good, the same way that a gun can be used for good or evil.

We're not arguing to get rid of the gun. I don't disagree with the first half of his answer. And a lot of times big government is defined by, is government doing what you wanted to do or not? It's often how it is defined, right? But the solution is where this is going to break down. The reality is doing universal basic income is just boomerism on steroids. It's essentially the New Deal, the welfare state, 90 days same as cash, six months, no interest, all the same stuff your parents and grandparents did to bankrupt you all.

We're just going to go ahead and put it on steroids. I mean, ultimately, you have to have, and here's what stipulated. Your economic theorem must, in practicum, line up with human nature. You just have to, that's the, we cannot, that's the, we have to deal, you said this is a fallen world, we have to deal with the realities of human nature. The first people who ever really found in America were the Puritans. And when they landed here, they read Acts too and they thought, well, they shared everything in common. We should do the exact same thing.

I mean, who, who's going to be more likely than the Soliscriptora Puritans to, who believe they were elected before the foundations of the world, all right, for salvation by grace alone, lest any man would boast. If there was ever a people who out of just pure altruism would do production and would create a society just out of altruistic means, it would certainly be these people, correct? Oh, certainly. Well, what happened is because I wrote a bestselling book on this subject, I know it very well. What ended up happening is in the first two years, half of them died. Half of them died, starvation. The young men did not want to work for the old men who couldn't work anymore. The young wives, and then they got bitter that their wives are not tending to them but to the old men in their homes.

And they turned on each other. And then this guy, John Winthrop, he did this thing where he read this parable of the talents. And he said, oh, wow. I mean, so actually, if we demand multiplication and excellence, if we incentivize excellence, we're going to get more of something. So they changed their economic theory. They gave the plots of land based on the size of the clan, like the 12 tribes of Israel. And then if you wanted more than that, whoever produced the highest yield of harvest for the next fall was given more land to whom much is given, much is required, right? And so what ended up happening was the birth of capitalism and the birth of what we know is America.

Now, the problem we have with capitalism today is it looks a lot like what Chesterton once said about Christianity, rarely witnessed and almost never tried. Much of what's been done for the last generation is corporate hoaring, masquerading as capitalism. And so now we're in this position, and I say this to my conventional, traditional conservatives, the folks like me who graduated from the Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies and have our official diploma from the Milton Friedman Economic Institute, we have to live in reality.

Government has screwed this culture economically. And much of our previous republic, which you said earlier, about making sure our faith is the basis for our politics, not the other way around, we lied to this generation and said that what we were doing with too big to fail,

and when George W. Bush said, I have to suspend free market principles to save the free market. We lied to this generation and told them, because we had to, We got to beat the Democrats, don't you know. And so we lied, and we told them that that was capitalism.

And now that they're of age, they cannot afford a home. We have the highest median age of new homebuyers ever at 41. You have all the right laments, all the right complaints. I even agree it's going to take government to some degree to undo the mess it made, starting with mass deportations and immigration moratorium and a closed border. Get rid of everybody, the Biden regime, allowed into the country in the last five years. That would bring literally the cost of everything down strictly from a supply, demand standpoint. But I promise you, if we go down the road of things like UBI, you're going to

end up, and this reminds me of a debate I had with the Occupy Wall Street guy in Wichita, Kansas 10 years ago. And he said many of the same things. And when he was laying all these complaints that what the Republican Party is falsely smear at his capitalism when it was really corporatism and hoaring, I just kept agreeing and agreeing and agreeing, it blew his mind. And so he's like, well, when are we going to disagree? I said, probably when we get to the solutions. And so all the the preamble and the first act of everything you said, brother. Chapter and verse, we are singing from the same hymnal. All right?

But when we get to solutions, I promise you, just deciding, you know what, the boomers did just the tip. So let's go for the full conception. I promise you it will reverb on you badly. Why? Because you're going against human nature. We have to incentivize excellence. The answer to undo what was done in the previous generation

is not a bigger welfare state or one that redistributes the wealth in my favor. I promise you it won't work. It goes against the world. created order. It goes against what the creator intended. He's embedded in his creation. We're in this position because we violated the created order. We just did it for corporations. All right? We actually have to align our economics with human nature and the created order. Okay, so the debate, I guess, sort of became capitalism based or cringe. And so you agree on the premises. Steve, your point is, mass migration has... I'll just finish laying out so you can all decide who you want to...

vote for. Mass migration has caused rentals to go up. Two-thirds has caused food prices to go up. Welfare has caused food prices to go way, way up. I'm sorry about the just-the-tip. We're at a bar, so I thought it was okay. Sorry about that. And then, Kai, your point is, so Steve, your argument is, yeah, right now the economy is rough, we need more capitalism. Yeah. Kai, your answer is no, we need to put more guardrails on capitalism in the solution. I would like to try capitalism. I'd like to try it. And Kais' is, yeah, sure, mass deportations are great,

but we also need a further political solution to condition capitalism. Give me UBI. Okay, keep that in mind for when you cheer later. Now we turn to the microphone. Yes, sir. So, sorry to kind of redirect a little bit. I know it's not quite on topic. As a Jinzier myself, a lot of my generation is going very libertarian.

I don't like that. Also, as a Bible-believing dirty Protestant. I believe that definitionally, marriage is between a, man and a woman for the procreation and rearing of children. I think we can mostly agree with that. My follow-up question to that is, is it worth the political capital to reinstate the definition of marriage in the United States as between a man and a woman? Or do we continue to allow, to be pragmatic and to allow people to be married between two men and two women? Or is it worth the political capital to try to go against that? Yeah, I don't think it's going to cost political capital within

five to ten years. I agree completely. You've already seen some. support for so-called same-sex marriage collapse. It's now down to 53% and it's in freefall. The reason for that is that the sexual revolution was taken to its extreme in transgenderism and transing the kids. So as the logic from feminism through gay rights to gay marriage to trans, as it all went that direction, we realized it was totally nuts. So too, those premises are being unrolled in the other direction. So I don't think it's going to cost a lot of capital. And furthermore, I think you will have to get back to a sane definition of marriage to protect children, to protect to the fundamental building block of society, but also just because it's so core to human nature

and our understanding of reality. I mean, you know, you can't have matrimony without mater. You know, there's no matrimony between two fellas. So it's just so preposterous. It's unstable. It can't continue. Yes, sir. I 100% agree with that. You know, it's funny when I was heavily involved in all the marriage fights around the country back in the day, and they always would say on the other side, we don't want any slippery slope arguments. Slippery slope arguments. Slippery Slopeak arguments are undefeated, folks. Undefeated, they never lose. The only thing I disagree with Robert Bork about is we do not slouch to Gamora.

We sprint as a species. We sprint. We can't wait to get there. Every exit it says, GOMORA, and we're like, pedal to the medal, all right? And so what you're seeing now is all of the excesses people like Michael and I argued about when you guys were growing up and warned, this is what you really mean. I remember bringing gay marriage advocates on my show and saying, well, what you're really arguing is there's no such thing as gender.

And they lose their minds. Yeah. But what's funny is now, 10 years later, there's no, gender's just a social construct, right? And so now all of the excesses that they said we weren't going to see, well, how does my gay marriage impact your marriage? Well, other than literally the definition of everything and what we do with children, pretty much nothing other than everything, right? And so now we're at that place. And the reverb on this is a mofo. 38% of Republicans, only 38% support gay marriage now, only 58% of.

the general public. And it's because there was a moment there where people like Andrew Sullivan, who's kind of the Ben Franklin of the Rainbow Jihad. And after he got his big win, he said, you know what, guys, we have to stop right here. If you continue on with this, there's going to be pushback and they're going to repeal this.

Andrew Sullivan got canceled for saying things like that. And so we have a group here called Gaze Against Groomers that are doing some great work in the marketplace against some of this insanity because they recognize our inability to police ourselves. There's no William F. Buckley on the gay marriage side saying, well, how much of the John Birch society should we inherit?

They're not, they can't do it. Why? Because the movement in and of itself is a lack of restraint and a decoupling from the created order. And so they cannot just pause. They can't just moderate. It's peddled to the medal to Gomorrah. And I agree with Michael. The stigma on this is on even our own side is almost at zero now. And I think we are way closer. I don't think it'll take 50 years to repeal Dobbs at all like it did Roe. I don't. You know, just one quick correction, Steve. There was a gay William F. Buckley, and his name was Gore Vidal. But there's none today. That's true. Correct.

Yeah, I mean, I agree with the two gentlemen here. I think it was the libertarianism, and it was, frankly, you know, the fact that we didn't realize just how serious the opposite side was that led us to where we are now. And the problem is that with a lot of these rulings from the Supreme Court, it is a lot tougher to, you know, put the cat back into the box or whatever the saying is the cat into that. It's the saying? It's really hard to put the green eggs in their hands. The cats go somewhere, I don't know.

But I do think that that is a fight that you absolutely have to take. Like this definition of marriage is absolutely crucial, and it does have these cultural ramifications, and the perceptions that people have based off of legality, they absolutely exist. I mean, this is a total lie that we've been told that, well, you know, really, we're just kind of changing the legal code. It's not going to change, you know, in reality,

how people are interacting with each other, or the families they're forming, or how their children turn out. All of that's a lie. So I think we should fight tooth and nail, Unfortunately, it's that really bad Supreme Court precedent that always under assumes what the future is going to turn into, which is always, yes, Sodom and Gomorrah. And I think the problem is that now you have this inability and, frankly, a lack of willingness from even conservative Supreme Court justices to even review cases like that. I would be surprised if we get a positive result on birthright citizenship, despite the fact that the framers of the 14th Amendment very clearly did not have in mind that the child of two illegal immigrants would become an American citizen as American as somebody who came off the Mayflower. So that is a huge problem with mine.

Okay. Okay, so we're talking about repealing Obergefell. Definitely for that. Would you say, this is my question, would you say that our country would be better off if we had, like our grandparents had, my grandparents grew up in a time where there were laws against sodomy,

there were laws against cross-dressing. Would our country be better off if we had laws against sodomy and laws against cross-dressing today in 2025? Should Christ, Christians and conservatives pursue laws against sodomy and cross-tress. Well, I just want to jump in real quick, because not a lot of people know this. It was only less than a decade ago that the state of Utah, the great state of Utah, unfortunately, and it made itself less great by doing so, repealed an existing law which had banned premarital sex.

I am not aware of another state that had such a law. But people forget, by the way, that I believe. I respect the Mormon who says, I will be more puritanical than you. I respect the hell out of that. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That's an ally ship. Now, I'm signing up for that kind of unity right there. You bet. You know, the question doesn't even need to be all that hypothetical in as much as Lawrence v. Texas was, what, 20 years ago?

That was the gateway drug that got it. Right. That was the guy. I mean, there was, the argument was made by the Supreme Court that there is a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, which, you know, if you go through the Federalist papers, you won't find a lot of references to that. Thomas Jefferson thought sodomy in the military should be a capital offense. And they were fighting the British who were sort of famous for that. So anyway, they, you know, the point is... By the way, during the Crusades, the Muslims, when they were away from their wives, they would bring their petter-assed boy toys with them to the warfront so they could rape them and sodomize them for sexual release

because they'd be at the warfront for months, if not years. Christians have banned sodomy throughout the entirety of Christian history whenever they had a chance to rule in any society. And I'm wondering if conservatives, I think Christless conservatism has destroyed our country. I think we need Christ-filled conservatism, and that's what gets our country back. But if we do that, that means we've got to take some very unpopular. You know, I'll give a little bit more of a kind of nuanced take on sodomy laws,

which you're considered sort of extreme. But ask yourself, why were sodomy laws in principle on the books, even as of 20 or so years ago? These sorts of laws were not typically prosecuted. They were not even enforced. They were to shut down bathhouses. They were meant to be an insurance, yes. They were an insurance against what is happening was right now.

This is the thing. You know, that really what the laws were used for were to shut down places that were very, very dangerous, Right. Had those sorts of laws been enforced in the 1980s, a lot of lives would have been saved. Correct. But they weren't really going door-to-door, you know, Iranian purity police. And so I don't think anybody wants that. Right. We passed marriage laws successfully in 31 states in the 90s and 2000s.

How many people were in prison in any of those states for attempting to get a marriage? Zero. What Michael is saying, these were done as insurance policies. Pardon the pun? Bullwarks. they were done as bulwarks against the very Sodom and Gomorrah and the depravity that we're seeing today. And so I think you have to understand what the point of these laws were.

They were not necessarily for rounding up people for their sexual practices, but they were meant to be essentially traffic cones that said, you can't go past here. And that's why they removed that cone so they could go past there. Right, and I think the importance of it is stigma, is stigmatizing things that God hates. Standards and norms All right on it

Okay Folks Back to the I don't even remember What the original topic was Oh yeah Big Government Capitalism based or cringe

We need more true capitalism To fix the problem No we need more UBI and more government intervention Who thinks That capitalism has never been tried Not once He's trying to put his thumb

On the scale Who thinks that Steve won Who thinks that Kai won I'll take it Steve with a knockout They all sound like ties to me. Okay, all right, we'll give it to Steve.

Okay, now. There's no time. What do you mean, there's no time? We've got to get to this one. I'm going to tease it. I don't care. I'm going to tease the issue, and then everyone can boo you for shutting down a great topic.

And a way more interesting one than claim two. The claim is, we need to stop the demographic transformation of America. Yes. All right, we have total agreement. 100%. What is everyone? Who thinks won that battle? He said yes, and he also.

said yes. Well, we won. Okay. Well, typically nobody wins a bar fight, and there are only losers. We're not really in a bar, even though they somehow found booze to give me. We're at a convention center. So maybe someone can win. Maybe someone can tie. It sounds like the first round went to Kai.

The second round went to Steve. The third round, we didn't even debate, and we all won that one. Who lost today? You're not cheering for the winner. You're cheering for the winner. you're cheering for the loser. Who lost? Was it? Kai. I'm sensing a lot of Kai's support.

Was it Steve? And you are, I know it was confusing. You know, that was the cheer as they lost. He lost. Let's go. All right, I guess Steve lost. I thought Steve had a lot of good arguments. Gentlemen, thank you all for coming on the show. Thank you all for being here and see all of you next time on Barfight.

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task. unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and all birds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side,

turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer. Ryan Reynolds here from Intmobile, with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment.

Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.