Thomas Massie (6:54)

Watch yesterday is that there was a group of conservative lawmakers who want deeper cuts to government spending than which was originally proposed in the framework. So they essentially got those reassurances from Senate and House leaders that there would be more government spending cuts. 1.5 trillion, to be exact. Now comes the hard part. Mogo. If this was difficult just to get to this point, you can imagine how much more difficult this is going to be moving forward, because now they actually have to craft legislation and policy expanding the President's tax cuts, maybe introducing more tax incentives like no tax on tips, for example, line items related to funding immigration reform that the President wants. But most importantly, the trick here is going to be finding where to find that $0.1 trillion in savings, because up here on Capitol Hill, savings means spending cuts, and those cuts will have to come from somewhere.

Matt Walsh (8:06)

So there were two plans here for a spending bill to fund the government. The. The. The Senate plan, which passed over the weekend, would only reduce the deficit by around $4 billion, which is basically nothing compared to the new House framework, which demands a min. $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. But here's the problem. Even this new framework isn't binding. It just sets a broad outline for future negotiations between the House and Senate, which still need to finalize a budget. And several members of Congress, most notably Thomas Massie of Kentucky, believe that this deal is worth about as much as the paper it's printed on. Thomas Massie has been in office for more than a decade now. He understands how Congress works, and he knows that it's one thing for lawmakers to promise spending cuts, but it's a completely different matter for them to agree on a bill that actually cuts spending. So here's what Massie told a reporter after the framework was announced. Listen.

Tim Pool (8:57)

What do you get some promises. Okay, wait for him.

Matt Walsh (9:01)

Were you surprised? Are you surprised that some of your.

Tim Pool (9:03)

Members went along with some promises, assurances from the Speaker?

Eric Swalwell (9:07)

Nope.

Tim Pool (9:08)

I knew all along they would trade the cow for magic beans. These beans are like the rest. They don't sprout.

Eric Swalwell (9:14)

I mean, they seem convinced that they'll.

Matt Walsh (9:16)

Get $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. You don't buy it? No, not that.

Tim Pool (9:26)

We'll see. We'll see how it all goes. I mean, do you worry that the party's not focused on prices enough?

Matt Walsh (9:30)

I mean, given how big the ratio was?

Tim Pool (9:32)

What I'm worried about is that the House is not consummating what President Trump is trying to do. Like the Doge cuts. Why aren't we voting on those everywhere week? We should be doing rescissions or something. But I suppose we don't want to take. Take recorded votes on things. I mean, like on the tariffs. We should be voting on that. We're not voting on that now.

Matt Walsh (9:55)

What's surprising here isn't anything Thomas Massie is saying. What's surprising is that so few Republicans in Congress are agreeing with him. The reasons that voters elected Republicans to control both chambers of Congress along with the White House is that they want government spending and the cost of living to come down. It's one of the top issues in every exit poll. And now that Donald Trump is doing that or attempting to do it, Congress is refusing to codify any of his cuts into law. So if a Democrat becomes president, he could override all these Doge cuts in a Day one executive order. And by the way, no matter what you think of Trump's tariffs, Massie makes a good point there too. Why hasn't Congress held a vote on them? Tariffs are a form of taxation. They have the potential to significantly raise the cost of goods in the United States, among other effects under the Constitution, Congress has the power to tax. And even if you approve of the tariffs, you should still want Congress to vote on them for the simple reason that they'll be harder to overturn in a future administration. On the other hand, if you're skeptical of tariffs, a congressional vote would allow for a full debate on the issue. So either way, Congress should be taking action. And no matter how you feel about the subject, you should agree with that instead of just having unilateral announcements from the White House which don't allow for this debate and also mean again that all that stuff can just be overturned in five seconds by the next White House. But the GOP leadership in Congress hasn't displayed any interest in holding a vote on tariffs. In fact, they've blocked a vote on the topic and they haven't held votes on the Doge cuts or any other significant spending cuts. In fact, they, they still haven't reined in any of the trillion dollars worth of spending in the so called Inflation Reduction act, which was full of giveaways to environmentalist groups and NGOs and million other places. Why exactly hasn't any of the waste there been rolled back? Why is no one bothering to even talk about it, really? Congress has not codified any of Trump's executive orders at all, which means that they're all susceptible to being overturned with the stroke of a pen by the next president if it's a Democrat. So where is Congress on that now when it comes to spending? If you ask Missouri Congressman Eric Burleson, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, he'll say that Republicans aren't actually serious about cutting spending. Like Massie, he thinks that the spending cuts will never actually happen. Here's what he said. Quote, I think this town has got a lot of snakes in the grass who don't want to accomplish it any way that they any way that they can that are going to stop it from happening. And I want to ensure that we don't end up in a place where we let the President down in that regard. Close quote. Whatever Donald Trump makes of the deal, at the moment, it looks like Republican voters might be let down. We're talking about raising the debt ceiling by historic amount and potentially spending more than the Biden administration ever did. And we're doing it at a time when we're initiating a broader trade war, which means that we'll have less access to money to borrow, which is not a recipe for a stable economic situation going forward. In separate interviews, Thomas Massie and Congressman Jody Arrington of Texas outlined what's at stake here. Watch.

Tim Pool (12:59)

This is a framework for financial collapse of our country, is what this is. This is a framework for the biggest deficit increase in the history of Congress. That's what this framework is. There could have been promises to cut spending, but there were not. The full America first agenda is not just cutting taxes and other pro growth policies like unleashing American energy production. It's not just simply giving the president more research for border security and strengthening our defense. I would say most importantly, it's putting our nation on a path to balance. Because if we bankrupt this country, nothing else matters.

Matt Walsh (13:39)

Now, even if you listen to that rhetoric and you think that it's overblown or whatever, or that there's really no cause for concern, the fundamental point remains. Republicans ran on a platform that involved lowering the cost of living, which includes lowering taxes and government spending. If Republicans cannot deliver on that very simple promise, if they cannot deliver on it in Congress, they will not be in power for very long and they will be replaced by a party that's even more committed to more taxes and more government spending. This particular spending bill won't be finalized for several weeks, in all likelihood between now and then and the moment that this legislation is finalized. It's hard to imagine that anything in Congress is more important than holding GOP leadership to their promise on these spending cuts and pushing them further for as many cuts as possible. If Republicans and their voters stay focused on that goal, they will have achieved something that the party has promised for decades but never come close to delivering or even really tried to deliver. They will have permanently reduced the size of the American government for the benefit of everybody living in this country. The White House is clearly committed to that goal. Now it's time for every Republican in Congress, not just Thomas Massie and a few others, to follow suit. Now, let's get to our five headlines. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career, calling you impact your family, your friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University Private Christian affordable visit gcu.edu well, here's something that Congress did achieve, or at least the House. The House just passed an election integrity bill called the SAVE act which is designed to make sure that only US Citizens are voting in US elections. Imagine that. Now, as you can also imagine, the left is not very happy. The media is not happy. The idea of doing anything to protect our elections and make sure that only people who should be voting are voting, that's very offensive to the left. So they had to find some kind of narrative here. And the narrative that they're going with is that this bill will prevent or make it difficult for married women to vote somehow. Tons of headlines like this one for the New Republic. Four Democrats Passed Bill Making It Harder for Married Women to Vote. So that's the point of the bill. You would think if you read a lot of these headlines that Republicans are conspiring with a couple of Democrat Judases to make sure that married women can't vote. That's like the Republican grand conspiracy, even though that wouldn't even make sense as a Republican conspiracy. Married women vote Republican by and large. So if Republicans were going to conspire to prevent a certain demographic of women from voting, it would be young single women. Those are the ones that if you're gonna conspire like, those are the ones you wanna conspire against. So it doesn't make any sense, but this is what the media is saying. Here's a Newsweek headline. Does the SAVE Act Stop Married Women from Voting? Here's what to know. Reading a little bit from the article says the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility SAVE act is a bill that will require all people registering to vote to bring proof of citizenship in person to a voter registration site. It eliminates voters ability to register to vote by mail or online. Supporters of the bill will say that it eliminates non citizen voting the chapters say that multiple studies have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud and that this will only make voting harder for citizens. Will the SAVE act stop married women from voting? Not directly. However, it will make it harder for 69 million married women whose names do not match their birth certificates to register to vote in the first place. Married women can bring their passports instead. But more than 146 million Americans do not have a passport and may not have $130 to spare to purchase one. Passports also take time to be delivered, which many people may not have if they are registering to vote close to their state's deadlines. Okay, so does this stop married women from voting? Well, only if the married women in question are so incompetent that they can't figure out how to obtain a passport over the course of the next three years for the next presidential election or even for the midterms. You still have until next year to figure this thing out. And if it does prevent those kinds of women from voting, the ones who can't figure out, starting now, you've got a lot of notice here that you need to go get a passport. If your name doesn't match your birth certificate. And if there are any married women who are totally flummoxed by that and can't figure out how to get a passport, even given years notice and they're prevented from voting, then that's good, because these are incompetent, stupid people who should not be voting. If you're someone who cannot obtain a passport in three years to vote in the next presidential election, then we don't need you voting. It's better that you don't. But in spite of this fact, in spite of the fact that, like, 170 million Americans have passports, so it's obviously not that hard to get one. The Democrats are still telling us that this requirement is effectively a ban on married women voting. Eric Swalwell says that. He says it's impossible. It's making it impossible for these women to vote. Here's Eric Swalwell.

Tim Pool (20:06)

Congressman.

Matt Walsh (20:07)

Hey, what's happening?

Eric Swalwell (20:08)

You're everywhere, man.

Matt Walsh (20:09)

Yeah.

Tim Pool (20:09)

What the is going on with the SAVE Act?

Matt Walsh (20:11)

Oh, you mean the Save the Republicans Ass Act. It's the only way they can win elections is by making it absolutely impossible for people to vote. The SAVE act would make it impossible to be a ban on married women from voting. Why? Because it would require you to have your birth certificate to prove who you are to go and vote. Well, married women who change their name, they're not going to have A document that shows that. So it's crazy. It's just another way to obstruct people from going to the ballot box. All it does is save Republicans, doesn't save our democracy. Every part of that is just false. Completely invented. Number one. Again, it would not save the Republicans asses to stop married women from voting. Married women vote Republican. Number two. More importantly, he says it's impossible. Impossible for a married woman who has changed her last name to vote, even though, again, you could get a passport. But he says that's impossible. It's impossible to do. Did you know that it's impossible to get a passport. You can't do it. No one can do it. No one's ever done it. Nobody in this country has a passport. I mean, I thought 160 million people do, but apparently not. I thought that I had a passport, but I guess I don't because it's impossible. It's a figment of my imagination. Again, if anyone finds this very minimal barrier to entry impossible to overcome, then that is someone who is too stupid and too incompetent to vote in the first place. You know, this idea that everyone not only has the right to vote, but has the right to vote without having to expend any energy or put in any effort whatsoever is just pure nonsense. It also contradicts what we hear all the time about how voting is a sacred duty. It's this mystical responsibility. We're always told it's your civic duty. Well, if that's true, if it's our civic duty, then doesn't that mean that we also have the duty to put in the minimal amount of effort to verify our identity before we vote? I mean, if we're already talking about voting in terms of duty, in terms of civic duty, of civic responsibility, then wouldn't this be part of it? I also love it when they talk about the cost of getting an ID, getting a passport, in this case, 130 bucks. But what if somebody can't afford it? You can't afford 130 bucks. Again, you have multiple years notice to save up. I think anyone can afford that. If it's important to you. If it's important to you and you have three years to save your money and scrounge together the money to get a passport. If it's important enough to you, you can do that. But also, the government takes from us way more than $130 every year. So we're worried about $130. Well, I mean, we're talking about married women here, so the average American family pays $18,000 in taxes every year. That's federal, state, local, combined. And that's just the income tax. We're not talking about property tax. We're not talking about sales tax. We're not talking about tolls and fines and speeding tickets and on and on and on. So it's actually a lot more than that. But $18,000 just for income tax, and that's only the average, right? Some of us pay way more than that. So the Democrats are worried that American families can't afford $130 every 10 years to get a passport, while at the same time, you're already taking on. You're taking an average of $18,000 every year from us. So here's an idea. Cut taxes, cut them by even a small amount, and you'll free up a lot more than 130 bucks for all of us. But just don't tell me that you're worried that families can't afford $130 while you're already taking $18,000 on average every single year from American taxpayers. By the way, you could just make passports cheaper. I mean, the government is what the government controls. The fees for getting a passport, basically arbitrary. So you could just make it cheaper. You could do that. And all of this, I mean, all of this to me is irrelevant anyway, because you guys know where I stand on this. I don't think that this makes voting difficult at all for anybody. But even if it did, you know, my take on it is that I want to make voting a lot harder and a lot less accessible. So when I hear about a bill that, well, this is going to make voting less accessible, I think, great. And then I'm always disappointed because it's not true. When I hear about the Republicans have finally passed a bill that's going to make voting almost impossible. And I hear that, and I go, finally, Finally. Great. You know, we finally have a bill in place that's going to stop, like, 70% of the people currently voting for voting. Sounds good to me. But. But then I look into it, and that's not the case. I mean, they make it sound like, you know what? There's going to be one voting location per, like, per state, and it's going to be at the top of a mountain that you have to climb and deliver your ballot in person. And then when you get to the top of the mountain, there's going to be a drawbridge and a moat filled with crocodiles, and there's going to be one guy standing at the drawbridge. And he's going to have three riddles and you have to get all three of them right or you'll be thrown into the alligator moat. That's what they make it sound, that's what they say. It sounds like that's what voting is going to be. Which again sounds good to me. I mean I, I, I think that that's what the voting process should be. It's better than what we currently have. No, actually I, I, I want to, I, I think we should be greatly reducing the number of people who vote and we don't need to use alligators or mountains. As fun as that would be. The voting law that I, and I, I said this, I put this up on X a few weeks ago and of course people were upset, as they always are when I say anything. But the, here's the, here's the save act that I would like to see. I mean this is good, this is something at least. But what I would like to see is I would put basically three restrictions in place for voting and on top of the ones that we, the very minimal restrictions we already have. Number one, you have to be solely a US citizen to vote. You have to be a citizen of this country and this country only. Which means that if you're a dual citizen you have to renounce your citizenship in the other whatever the other country. You have to renounce any other citizenships you might have and declare your loyalty and fidelity to this country only if you want to vote, you want to take part in our elections. And what everybody says is there are sacred democratic. Right. Ritual of voting. Well, okay, then we gotta protect that. And this is only for US citizens who are only US citizens. So that's the first law that I would put in place. Second, maybe we don't need the guy at the drawbridge with the riddles, but I think having a fifth grade level civics exam would suffice. And so there should be when you register to vote, I mean we could talk about how you do this logistically, but probably when you register to vote, you're given on the spot, you have to register in person and you're handed on the spot. A really easy fifth grade level multiple choice civics exam. Ten questions, very basic. Can't use your phone, you can't use ChatGPT. This will be done on paper like in the old days and you'll be graded on the spot. If you don't get at least an 80% 8 out of 10, then you don't get to vote. In fact, you're banned from voting for four years and you can come back in four years, study up, try to get up to a fifth grade level and then, and you can take the test again. So that's the second thing I'd put in place. And then the third thing that I would put in place is that you cannot be on any form of welfare, you cannot be on any form of taxpayer, you cannot be on the taxpayer dole in any form whatsoever in order to qualify for voting. So that's it. Eliminate noncitizens, eliminate dual citizens, eliminate people who are too dumb, who are dumber than fifth graders and eliminate anyone who relies on the taxpayers lives off of the taxpayer dole. Eliminate all those people from, I'm not saying eliminate them permanently from the world, I'm saying eliminate them from voting. And the great thing is that all of those are solvable problems. So if we put this in place, I think what would end up happening is that, I don't know, about 70%, but a huge number of Americans would immediately lose their right to vote. The election that occurs right after this law was put in place, we would have, I don't even know we would have, there would be 20 people voting in the whole country. Maybe not that bad, but it would be a drastic reduction in the voting rolls. But the great thing is that again, all these things are solvable. If you're a dual citizen, you can renounce your other citizenship. If you can't pass, if you're dumber than a fifth grader, you got some time to study for the next election. If you're on welfare and it's important to you to vote, then you can work to be a self sustaining person or not and you just don't get to vote. So that's the law that I would put in place. Never going to happen in a million years. And the reason why it's never going to happen is that the people in power, basically because it is the right thing, is why it's never going to happen. The whole reason why we don't want these kinds of people voting. If you're dumber than a fifth grader, if you have no clue what kind of country you're even living in, you have no clue how the government even works or what the government is. If you're on the taxpayer dole, then these are people who are very easily manipulated. And that's what a lot of politicians, I'm not gonna shock you when I say it. A lot of politicians, that's how they want the voters to be. It's very Convenient for them. They'd prefer that. And that's why they would never put a law like this in place that eliminates those kinds of people from voting. All right. Tim Pool has been on his show and on X, arguing to the surprise of many in his audience, that the Austin Metcalf murder was self defense. Or at least he's speculating that it may have been self defense. He's taking the position that Carmelo Anthony may have killed Metcalfe in self defense. He's made this argument a few times. It's been kind of trending on social media. A lot of people very upset. Here's just one short clip from his show where he kind of lays this out.

Eric Swalwell (32:06)

There was an argument between Carmelo Anthony, who was from a rival school, who was there, and there are a bunch of kids from, from this town or whatever, and they got into an altercation. They told him he wasn't supposed to be there. Apparently they had words. Carmelo Anthony pulled a knife out from his bag and said, touch me and see what happens. Witnesses said either he was touched or grabbed. They were different with his accounts, but that Austin MCF did put hands on Carmelo, who then stabbed him once in the chest before running away. According to police, Carmelo Anthony, when he, when he got. When he got apprehended or turned himself in, however the story goes, I mean, different accounts. He asked if Austin was going to be okay and said it was self defense. He asked. He said, he grabbed me and I said self defense. The family is arguing with self defense. It's strange to me that with this story, the right is adamant that this kid just killed another kid and he should go to prison forever. And I'm like, we don't even know what happened. Like, you've got witness testimony that sounds like a fight happened at a school. Then I've heard the argument, yeah, well, he shouldn't have had a knife. He brought a knife to a school and it's like, okay, what kind of knife was it? Was it a utility knife? Was it. Was it a switchblade? Was it a machete? Like, did he have a steak knife? Is he. Was he. Because he coming back from culinary class where he had fine Japanese blades for cutting cucumbers? I have no idea. You're. You're allowed to carry knives in, in tech. I'm pretty sure in Texas, especially if it's like a utility blade, you're also not allowed to grab people like, no. Nobody knows the exact specifics of this story with Carmelo and Metcalf. Witnesses, some witnesses said that Austin touched Carmelo, some say he grabbed him. Whatever, the courts will play it out. If weapons are banned, he's going to go to jail. However, in a general self defense context, this is why I'm saying the story I find so confusing. We have always maintained when it comes self defense, it is not, it is not the responsibility of the victim of an attack to determine the extent of that lethal force.

Matt Walsh (34:04)

Yeah.

Eric Swalwell (34:04)

If they are being attacked, they, their perception of how far that force goes. Is it.

Matt Walsh (34:13)

So let me. First of all, I like Tim. He's a, he's a great guy. He's been on a show a bunch of times. I like doing a show. No hard feelings at all. I disagree with him on this one. Strongly though, I think he's wrong on this one. I don't think there's anything even approaching a legitimate self defense claim here. So let's go over the facts as we understand them. And this is according to the witness testimony and the police report. And also just common sense, you know, I think all those things combined give us a pretty clear picture of what occurred. And yeah, innocent till proven guilty and all of that, he'll get his day in court as he should. But innocent until proven guilty, that applies to the court system, legally does not apply to the court of public opinion. We're allowed to arrive at our own conclusions. I mean, we know that OJ Simpson, according to the courts, was not guilty. But the court of public opinion can look at the evidence the same way the actual jury did. And we can come to the conclusion that the jury got it wrong. And no jury has looked at this one yet, but we can look at the facts as they're currently known and come to some conclusions based on our own opinions about it. And that's what we're doing here. So as far as we know, what happened is that Anthony, Carmelo Anthony went to the wrong tent at a track meet. He brought a knife with him to this track meet already. Now if he had a knife on him and he just had it on him and obviously didn't use it to stab anybody, well, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But it's strange. Like why are you bringing a knife to a track meet of all things? I mean, why, why did, at a track meet, what's the purpose? And anyway, so he, he was in the wrong tent, he brought a knife with him, already had it with him, told to leave. He, if he gets up and leaves the place where he's not supposed to be and he's told to leave. If he gets up and leaves right then, then everyone lives, nobody goes to jail, everything's fine and none of us are talking about this, but he refuses to leave. He then challenges Metcalfe and says, touch me and see what happens. Metcalfe at this point grabs either Anthony himself or his book bag, different accounts, to try to get him out of the tent. So if, and I think it's not clear if this even happened, but if Metcalf grabbed Anthony and no one is saying that he, that he, you know, that it was some kind of brutal, violent assault, if he, if he made any physical contact, he grabbed him to get him out of the tent, right? And at that point Anthony pulls out the knife and stabs him in the heart, runs away, dumps the murder weapon and then admits to the police that he does not know whether what he did was self defense because he asks the police if what he did would count as self defense. Right? So, I mean, that fact alone pretty much sinks you. Everything else, I mean, even if he had said nothing, I'd have the same opinion on this. But him saying that alone, I mean, that's, you would need the smartest defense attorney in the world in history to get around even just that. You have revealed your state of mind to the police and you've made it clear that you at least don't know whether it was actually self defense. So why isn't it self defense? Well, first of all, he instigated it by being in the wrong place and refusing to leave. He further instigated it by saying, touch me and see what happens. This is a guy looking for a, a pretext. He's provoking an altercation, looking for a pretext to commit violence. Very clearly, you cannot go to a place where you don't belong, refuse to leave, dare anyone to touch you, and then stab them when they do. You can't do that. That's not self defense. That is you provoking every step of the way and then resorting to an absurdly disproportionate response when you get the response, when you get what you're looking for. Anthony, in order to buy the self defense claim, you would have to first of all ignore the fact that Anthony provoked the situation entirely. And then you'd have to believe that he was in fear for his life. What matters is was he in fear for his life. But not just that, because anyone, we don't know anyone can claim that they had any kind of emotion going on inside them. That's a subjective, there's no way to know. Did he have a reasonable fear? Did he have a reasonable fear? Was there a real reason for him to fear for his life? Was there a reasonable fear of some kind of lethal threat? Of course. Does anyone believe that there was? Does anyone believe that Anthony truly thought Metcalfe was going to kill him for being in the wrong tent at the track meet? Okay, Grabbing someone and going, come on, buddy, you don't belong here. Okay? That is not a fatal situation. That's not a lethal situation unless you make it one. Nobody believes that Metcalfe was any kind of real threat to Anthony. Nobody believes that. Does anyone think that Austin Metcalf at this track meet was going to kill this guy for being in the wrong tent? Of course not. It's just ridiculous. And if Carmelo Anthony really did fear for his life, he could have left. When you're in a place where you don't belong and the people who are there don't want you there, and they tell you to leave. If you fear for your life, what do you do? You leave. It sounds like you're locked in. There's a tent. There's no doors. There's no door or wall. You just leave. If I'm under a 10 where I don't belong, and the people there say, you got to go. Well, for me, because I'm just a reasonable human being like most people, I would. I'd already be gone. But if I feared for my life, that would be all the more reason to leave the tents. Standing up and saying, touch me and see what happens. That is not a statement of fear. That is the opposite. That is you making a threat. That is you making a threat. That is not you feeling threatened. Okay? What. What happened here very clearly to me is that Carmelo Anthony stabbed Austin Metcalf not because Anthony felt threatened, but because Anthony felt disrespected. That's what this is. We all know that. Again, I mean, I feel like I'm just consistently saying things that we all know the whole scene, showing up in the tent. You don't belong there. Someone tells you to leave. I'm not leaving. It's like, dude, you have no argument here. You don't belong here. You've been told to leave. You're not in the right. Okay, you have to leave. It's not your tent, man. And instead, touch me and see what happens every time. That whole. That's a routine that we're all familiar with, okay? The touch me and see what happens thing, that is you challenging, son. That is a Challenge, that's you asking for a physical altercation. And then if you do get touched and you respond, this is a matter of disrespect. You feel Carmelo Anthony felt disrespected, that anybody would dare, anyone would dare tell him to leave a place where he doesn't belong. How dare you. He felt disrespected and he killed somebody for it. And no, you don't. That's not allowed in a civilized society. We don't allow that. So there's no self defense here. I think Tim got this wrong. Wrong one wrong, which is okay, we can have disagreements. And the other point that I want to make here before we move on is that, you know, Tim is getting fairly ripped to shreds on X right now with a lot of people saying that he's a trader and a grifter and all this because he, because he, you know, took this position on the Austin Metcalf thing. We don't. He. He's wrong in my opinion. We really need to get away from this thing where anyone who disagrees is automatically some kind of Judas, some kind of con artist, a grifter. Right? I mean, I've talked about this before. This is one of the most annoying things about discord. What passes for discourse and debate in modern American culture is that we don't even debate anymore. We just don't. Because anyone who disagrees is automatically a scam artist, automatically a grifter. It's like no one, it's not possible for anyone to actually have an opposing view. And if they do, then it's always just like a game that they're playing. It could never be that. Well, maybe they actually just think that and they're simply wrong. That's possible. Um, so people can have differing opinions and we can argue about it and we can argue passionately as I so often do, but not everything. We don't always have to jump every time to, oh, this person disagreed. Total con artists revoke his, his membership in the club. He's not part of it anymore. Never listening to you again. Unsubscribed. I'm done with you. Like, we don't. It doesn't always have to be that. Every time. It really doesn't. Finally, I thought this was an interesting report from New York Post. Gen Z has come up with a new innovation and they're always innovating. You know, Gen Z, they're always inventing new things. So listen to this. This is pretty mind blowing. So get ready for this New York Post headline. Gen Z Coffee Lovers discover new way to Combat Insane Java Prices with new Home Cafe Trend. The article says it's out with overpriced oak milk lattes and in with DIY coffee culture. Gen Z tiktokers are ditching the expensive morning coffee runs and instead transforming their kitchens into cozy custom coffee shops, complete with menus, pastries, and even barista uniforms in an attempt to save money. And then it goes on in describing this. But this is incredible. So the zoomers have figured out that apparently you can drink coffee at home. Have you heard about this? Have you heard about this? This thing? Folks, have you heard about this trend with drinking coffee at home? I heard about this and I was floored. I said, what? You could. They're drinking coffee. Where? Where did you say? At home. You can. You can do that. So they've pioneered this bold new strategy where you just, I guess you sit at your home and you drink coffee. I've also heard rumors, and I don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard rumors that some of them have even figured out a way to eat, like meals at home. Breakfast, lunch, get this, dinner. Okay, yeah, yeah, they're eating dinner at home sometimes. In fact, there's this trend. And again, I heard about this, but Gen Z, they're experimenting with this other trend. They've also. It's this new trend. It's like this. It's this big, flat thing that they bring into their homes. Like big and flat. It has legs. Not real human legs, okay? Because people get confused. But it's made. The legs are wooden. It's like wooden legs. And it's called. In fact, it looks a lot like this thing here, but it's called a table. And they'll sit at this table. It might be. I think it's pronounced table. It's actually French. And anyway, they'll sit at this thing and they'll just drink coffee and they'll eat and it's just amazing. So this is what I love about Gen Z, that they're constantly inventing new things. And listen, the fact that the new things that they're inventing have existed since forever is not the point. That's not relevant. The fact that they're constantly inventing new trends where they do the thing that everyone has already done a billion times, but it's still a trend. I mean, I saw a headline recently. I had to look it up again to make sure I had it right. The headline was the Rise of Hydration as a Lifestyle Trend. Yes, a hydration trend. A trend of being hydrated. That's another one that the zoomers, the Gen Z, they've, they're really getting into the hydration trend, which was mind blowing for me because my whole life I always looked at water and I didn't really know what to do with it. I wasn't sure. I looked at water and I said, okay, well we can swim in it. I can drown people in it. That's pretty much it, isn't it? Like what else do you do with water? You can swim in it, you can drown somebody in it. I don't know what other function this stuff serves. And then Gen Z came along and they said, no, no, no, you can drink it. And I'm like, drink it? You mean like with my mouth drink it? What do you mean? And they said yeah. And so I went straight to the toilet with a cup to get. And they said, no, no, not that water, no, there's water in your sink. And you put that in a cup, you drink it. And I said, oh, okay, noted. And so anyway, Gen Z, they're always inventing new things. And by that I mean they're always inventing things that have always existed. They're always inventing the oldest things on earth. I mean, we are days away from some sort of article somewhere in the New York Post talking about Gen Z using this new trendy thing called the wheel. I mean, we are days away from Gen Z actually announcing that they have invented the wheel. So we are very close to that actually happening. And it's very exciting. It's very exciting stuff. So big fan of that. As Doge continues to surgically cut the fat from decades of bloated government spending and corruption, PureTalk, the cell phone company that I use for business, is cutting the fat from the wireless industry. That's right, PureTalk says I don't think so. To $100 a month cell phone plants. That's just wasteful. It's irresponsible. Instead, they're offering America's most dependable 5G network at America's most sensible prices. Listen to this. Unlimited Talk, text and 15 gigs of data plus mobile hotspot for just 35 bucks a month. And the best part right now, you'll get a free one year membership to Daily Wire plus with PureTalk's US customer service team, you can switch hassle free in as little as 10 minutes. You don't need Doge to cut the fat from your wireless bill. You need PureTalk. Go to PureTalk.com Walsh switch to PureTalk@PureTalk.com Walsh and get a year of Daily Wire plus for free with a qualifying plan, Pure Talk Wireless by Americans for Americans. This is what real media looks like. The Daily Wire delivers hard hitting news led by facts, not feelings. We cut through the noise with unapologetic truth. When you become a Daily Wire plus member, you unlock it all. Ad free podcasts, the best in investigative journalism and premium entertainment that is reshaping culture. America needs bold voices now more than ever. Join the fight today at DailyWire.com Subscribe now let's get to our daily cancellation. As we're all painfully aware, a lot of Democrats are vying to be their party's nominee in the next presidential election. There's Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Cory Booker, to name a few. In their own ways, they're all competing for the nomination, whether they're doing 24 hour filibusters or starting podcasts or whatever else. At the same time, there's at least one prominent Democrat who's decided that he doesn't Want to be President 2028 under any circumstances and he's gone out of his way to make his decision as clear as he possibly can. I'm talking about Governor Jared Polis of Colorado who just signed what is easily the single most unconstitutional piece of so called gun control legislation that we've seen in many decades. He's gone full Robert Francis O'Rourke. We're talking about a law that heavily restricts the sale of most semi automatic weapons, including rifles and handguns. The original version of the bill went even further. It outright banned these guns, but the final version is still designed to make the process of purchasing a firearm as difficult as possible. At the risk of giving Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts too much credit, there's just zero chance that the Supreme Court upholds this watch. Governor Polis signs into law what may.

Eric Swalwell (51:15)

Be the toughest gun control regulations in state history.

Matt Walsh (51:18)

Under that new law that takes effect next year, it's illegal to buy, sell and make most semiautomatic firearms without background checks and training. Political reporter Shawn Boyd followed that measure through the legislature.

Eric Swalwell (51:29)

Sean Polis received a lot of pressure to veto this bill.

Jared Polis (51:35)

Colorado's congressional members, Republican congressional members, among those lobbying the governor. Michael they say the new law is unconstitutional. The original version banned so called assault weapons. Governor Polis negotiated several amendments, including an exemption for those who agree to an extensive vetting process.

Matt Walsh (51:56)

We can make sure the people who choose to buy guns, first of all, are able to choose the gun they want, but also that they are properly trained.

Jared Polis (52:06)

But the new law limits who qualifies for training. Individuals would need to pass a background check and receive an eligibility card from their county sheriff who could deny it if they believe the person was a danger. Those eligible for training would need to pass a 12 hour course certified by Colorado parks and wildlife, unless they have hunter's training, and then it would be four hours. Their names would go into a state database allowing them to purchase a gun after passing another background check.

Matt Walsh (52:37)

So in the state of Colorado, you'll have to take a 12 hour course in order to purchase a handgun. We're not talking about a course for a concealed carry permit here. We're talking about a 12 hour course including a background check and a mental health examination in order to buy a gun. And by the way, this is a 12 hour course that if you live in the state of Colorado, you have to pay for. And on top of that, even after you take the course, the local police department has the discretion to deny your ability to purchase the handgun if they conclude subjectively that you're a threat in some way. According to legislation, the sheriff may deny an application if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to themselves or others. If the applicant holds a firearm safety course eligibility card, the sheriff may revoke an issued firearm safety course eligibility card if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the cardholder makes it likely the cardholder will present a danger to themselves or others if the cardholder continues holding a firearm safety course eligibility card. Close quote. So this is a standard that pretty much empowers the state of Colorado to deny anyone a handgun for any reason. The law doesn't even say who specifically needs to document the behavior that supposedly makes it likely that someone will be a, quote, danger. So to be clear, we're not talking about denying handguns to people who commit a crime or even people who are accused of committing a crime. We're talking about denying handguns to people who the police department, in its discretion, just believes are dangerous. This law substitutes an objective standard, one that involves judges and juries, with a subjective standard that provides an extraordinary amount of power to law enforcement agencies. Again, we're not talking about concealed carry permits here. We're talking about the right to buy a gun in the first place. Now, it's true that under this law, people who are denied handgun licenses can go to court and appeal. You can demand an administrative hearing, and then after waiting a few months, if not longer, you can take your chances with the notoriously sane and highly nonpartisan judges in the state of Colorado. But even if you're successful at court, that's still yet another very expensive hurdle that you need to clear. Even though under our constitution, there's no reason for any of these hurdles to exist in the first place. Now, of course, in Colorado, they know exactly why they're implementing all these hurdles. The clear purpose of this legislation is to make it as difficult as possible for people to own firearms, if not ban them entirely. That's why it started out as a bill that would completely ban all so called, quote, unquote assault weapons before they watered it down when they realized that that wouldn't pass. A lawmaker who lost his son in the Aurora movie theater mass shooting, a state senator named Tom Sullivan, has made it clear that his goal is to destroy the second amendment. They're doing everything they can to ban all firearms, and they're trying to go as far as they can within the limits that the supreme court has set out. And just by itself, you know this approach is unlawful. Imagine if Republicans publicly announced that their goal was to ban all black people from attending, say, sporting events. And then let's pretend that Republicans acknowledge that the supreme court would probably strike that down as long as it was explicit. So instead, Republicans decided to pass a bunch of laws that, taken together, heavily restrict the ability of black people to attend sporting events. They might pass a law that shuts down public transit from the hood while games are in progress, for example. Or they might ban people who wear certain kinds of shoes or have certain kinds of criminal records that are more common among non white demographics. If Republicans tried something like this, we would all immediately recognize it as an unconstitutional attempt to implement segregation. The law has discriminatory intent, and therefore no court in the country would ever allow that to stand. At least in that case. That's exactly what Colorado is trying to do with the second amendment. And just on that basis alone, it should be rejected. They're presenting a mildly watered down version of a clearly unconstitutional idea. But even in its current form, this legislation is still unconstitutional. It's still going to punish law abiding American citizens who want to exercise their second amendment rights. And so it cannot be allowed to stand. Really, this is almost as bad as the law that Washington, D.C. tried to implement back in 2008, which banned handguns and required that rifles and shotguns be disassembled or trigger locked while at home. That was ultimately struck down by the supreme Court. The same outcome seems inevitable here. Although I mean, frankly, who knows with the path that Amy Coney Barrett's been on recently? As for the rest of us, people who are fortunate enough to not live in the state of Colorado, the silver lining, again, is that we're probably going to be spared a Jared Polis presidency after this or even a serious candidacy. As Robert Francis O'Rourke discovered, Americans don't like it when you promise to eliminate the Second Amendment. And in a way, that's too bad, because it would have been a lot of fun if Democrats had tried to nominate somebody like Jared Polis. Just to give you some idea of who he is, here's his profile on X. As you can see, it reads, platinum recording artist, Father, Entrepreneur. Education, Baseball, tech, politics. Gamer. Yes, Jared Polis wants you to know that he is a gamer. G A Y M E R. As in a homosexual man who plays video games. Specifically, he says that he plays the games League of Legends and Age of Mythology, and he plays them in a gay way, I suppose because he finds it relevant to include his sexuality in the very same word that he uses to describe himself as someone who enjoys video games. Jared Pollis is desperate for you to know that he is a gamer. It's a core part of his identity as a gay gamer. And after he signed this bill into law yesterday, Jared Polis has also made another thing clear, which is that he will never be the President of the United States or achieve any higher office of any kind. And that is why Jared Polis and his unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today and this week. Have a great weekend. Talk to you on Monday. Godspeed.