Good Morning Liberty

Calls to nationalize SpaceX, Bernie Sanders' latest tax arguments, and a Second Amendment apparently limited to muskets. It's a crowded field for Dumb BLEEP of the Week.

Nate flies solo for a Monday makeup edition, starting with the Starlink controversy in Ukraine and Robert Reich's call to nationalize SpaceX. What do we actually know about the restrictions, what remains disputed, and how did a fight over satellite service become an argument for government ownership?

Then it's Bernie's turn: student loans, tuition-free college, a claim about 32,000 climate-related deaths, and California's billionaire wealth-tax debate. Nate challenges how the numbers are presented and asks who ultimately pays for the proposed solutions.

Also on the ballot: Abdul El-Sayed's musket argument, Jake Auchincloss' gun-parts ad, the backlash to Jeremy Todd's anti-draft remarks, Trump's celebration of oil revenues, and JD Vance's unfortunate Titanic analogy. We finish with Netanyahu's Iran rhetoric and a debate over criticism of Israel, vandalism, and accusations of antisemitism.

Join the Fed Haters Club to catch the live show and vote for the week's worst take: https://www.joingml.com

00:00 Dumb BLEEP of the Week: Monday makeup edition 02:36 Starlink, Ukraine, and calls to nationalize SpaceX 33:21 Bernie Sanders: Student debt and "free" college 35:36 Bernie's climate-death claim and heat modeling 43:09 California's wealth tax and billionaire math 49:24 Second Amendment rights: Muskets and modern technology 55:09 Jake Auchincloss' online gun-parts ad 58:18 Jeremy Todd, Ed Gallrein, and the draft 1:02:42 Trump's oil-money brag and Vance's Titanic analogy 1:10:45 Netanyahu, Iran, and election concerns 1:14:33 Bank vandalism and accusations of antisemitism 1:19:51 The nominees, live voting, and this week's winner

Join the Fed Haters Club: https://www.joingml.com

All GML links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links

GML playlists: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2

Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

Michigan voters face a tough question: Who will actually protect their freedom?

Josh Martens sits down with Tim Golding of Americans for Prosperity–Michigan to discuss the state's midterm races, the case for Mike Rogers over Abdul El-Sayed, and why libertarians still have serious questions for Republicans.

Tim explains how running a construction business and experiencing COVID shutdowns pushed him into political activism. He then lays out his objections to El-Sayed and William Lawrence, while Josh presses the Republican case on surveillance, civil liberties, and promises of smaller government.

The conversation gets more pointed over the Big Beautiful Bill, federal spending, tariffs, government ownership stakes in private companies, and presidential war powers. Both criticize expanding government, but they differ over how voters should respond when the alternative also falls short.

Is voting against socialism enough, or do Republicans need to earn support by delivering something better?

Join the Fed Haters Club and support independent, liberty-minded conversations: https://www.joingml.com

#MichiganPolitics #Libertarian #GoodMorningLiberty

00:00 Introducing Tim Golding

01:06 From construction to political activism

07:35 Michigan's midterms: El-Sayed and Rogers

18:06 Josh questions the case for Mike Rogers

20:51 The Patriot Act and civil liberties

24:27 William Lawrence and Michigan's 7th District

28:04 Young voters and broken Republican promises

33:09 Disagreement over the Big Beautiful Bill

36:54 Government ownership, transparency, and tariffs

44:34 Debt, war powers, and the lesser-evil argument

54:39 What Republicans should do differently

58:45 Where to find Tim and get involved

Americans for Prosperity–Michigan: https://mi.americansforprosperity.org/about/

Americans for Prosperity: https://americansforprosperity.org/

Standing links

Join GML: https://www.joingml.com

All GML links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links

GML playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA

GML playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2

Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

Trump wants to pay Americans to expose government fraud. Elon Musk says he wants to give every kid a share of SpaceX. So who gets to decide what counts as the public good?

Nate and Chuck break down Trump's proposed 1% whistleblower reward, how it compares with the False Claims Act, and why chasing fraud is different from cutting government spending. They also revisit DOGE and the voters who wanted Washington to spend less, not just announce another investigation.

Then, Anthropic's new Public Benefit Fund raises a bigger question: what does helping the public actually mean, and who gets to make that call? The conversation covers charitable equity pledges, the difference between shares and spendable cash, and Nate's observation that giving ownership to the government wasn't the suggested solution.

Finally, Musk's SpaceX pledge sparks a debate over voluntary ownership, wealth taxes, and critics who would prefer the government distribute the money. Chuck shares his experience visiting Cuba, and the guys close with a defense of ambitious innovation, even when the project looks ridiculous.

Join the Fed Haters Club for members-only streams and the community: https://www.joingml.com

00:00 Welcome to Good Morning Liberty 01:16 DOGE and the voters Trump risks losing 04:51 Trump's 1% fraud bounty 07:09 Testing the fraud-reporting website 11:26 Why fighting fraud isn't cutting spending 14:19 How the False Claims Act compares 17:46 Anthropic's Public Benefit Fund 21:00 Why not give the money to Washington? 25:42 Musk's SpaceX shares for kids 28:24 Why critics want taxes instead 33:00 Cuba and the cost of consuming capital 35:34 The Tesla Roadster and ambitious innovation

Join GML: https://www.joingml.com

All Links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2

Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

Republicans keep asking libertarians to hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil. But if they get your vote regardless of what they do, what incentive do they have to get better?

Nate and Chuck tackle the 2026 midterms, broken campaign promises, and the argument that being "better than Democrats" should be enough. From Trump's spending-cut promises and DOGE to Thomas Massie, Obamacare, and the growth of government, they ask whether political loyalty has replaced accountability.

The conversation also explores divided government, barriers to third-party ballot access in Tennessee, congressional war powers, and whether libertarians can realistically change the Republican Party from within. Nate makes a counterintuitive case: losing Congress in 2026 could actually improve Republicans' chances in 2028.

Neither host is endorsing Democrats. They're explaining why Republicans still have to earn their votes, and why the free-market logic of competition shouldn't disappear when election season arrives.

Join the Fed Haters Club for member discussions and the pre-show: https://www.joingml.com

00:00 Welcome and opening banter

01:42 Should libertarians vote Republican?

04:42 Broken promises need consequences

07:46 The "better than Democrats" problem

10:22 Trump's promises and DOGE spending cuts

13:48 Do politicians still have to earn your vote?

16:09 Thomas Massie and third-party ballot access

17:53 Could losing in 2026 help Republicans in 2028?

22:45 War powers and congressional accountability

24:16 Can libertarians change the GOP from within?

25:45 Taxes, spending, and the lesser-evil argument

31:47 After-show: Midterm projections and final thoughts

Join GML: https://www.joingml.com

All Links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2

Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

Their case helped change Florida law. Why are Michael and Tasha Patterson still facing prosecution? Ryan Ralston returns to explain why You Are The Power is challenging the case and raising concerns about the prosecutor's impartiality.

Josh Martens and Ryan discuss Patterson's Law, the fight for second medical opinions, and the expert reviews Ryan says undermine the abuse allegations. They also examine the prosecutor's conference remarks as Ryan recounts them, why he wants her removed from the case, and the family's continuing struggle after their children's adoption.

The conversation then turns to a Memphis family seeking answers and body-camera footage after a disturbing incident involving their deceased mother, an Iowa family facing prosecution following their infant son's death, and DUI arrests involving drivers whose alcohol and drug tests Ryan says came back negative. Juliana Leggett's experience raises questions about police training, accountability, and the damage an arrest can cause even when charges are dismissed.

What does accountability look like when the government's version of events is challenged by the evidence? This interview examines that question through the cases You Are The Power is working on.

You Are The Power's website:

https://www.youarethepower.net/

Ryan's Email:

[email protected]

Join the Fed Haters Club for members-only conversations and support Good Morning Liberty: https://www.joingml.com'

00:00 Ryan Ralston returns to Good Morning Liberty 02:30 The Patterson family's fight in Florida 04:18 Prosecutor remarks and retaliation concerns 08:36 Medical experts challenge the abuse allegations 16:36 Ryan on the adoption timeline 18:54 The Wilson family's fight for Memphis bodycam footage 32:54 An Iowa family's case after their infant son's death 39:07 Why the family case and criminal prosecution diverged 42:33 Investigating sober DUI arrests 43:48 Juliana Leggett's arrest and negative tests 50:28 Police training and DUI enforcement 58:23 How to request help from You Are The Power

• Join GML: https://www.joingml.com
• All Links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links
• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA
• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2
• Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

Shane Gillis tells a gym joke, some rent-control defenders want the state to seize apartments, and government debt somehow becomes capitalism's fault. It's another crowded field for Dumbest Takes in Politics.

Nate and Chuck work through this week's contenders, starting with the backlash to Gillis's SNL monologue and Dan Levy's response. Then it's New York's vacant rent-stabilized apartments, the economics of repairs, and why "just sell the building" doesn't answer the hosts' argument about investment incentives.

We also get into James Hetfield's case for keeping politics out of concerts, Ken Jennings's Washington tax ad, and why the hosts reject the idea that bailouts and federal borrowing prove capitalism failed. Mike Johnson's explanation for gas prices, Trump's Nobel Peace Prize complaints, claims about Russian bots and Tucker Carlson's audience, and arguments over gun control round out the main discussion.

The Fed Haters Club votes on which take deserves this week's crown.

Join the Fed Haters Club to watch live, submit contenders, and vote: https://www.joingml.com

00:00 This week's Dumbest Takes in Politics

02:27 Shane Gillis and the gym-clothes backlash

17:48 Rent control, vacant apartments, and "just sell it"

28:56 Metallica and keeping politics out of concerts

34:33 Ken Jennings and Washington's tax debate

40:30 Is capitalism to blame for government debt?

45:37 Mike Johnson on gas prices; Trump's Nobel complaints

50:57 Tucker Carlson, Russian bots, and the disputed view-count chart

54:12 Gun control and school-shooting definitions

01:00:09 An Arizona candidate's assault allegation

01:02:47 What if men or women disappeared?

01:05:15 Recapping the contenders and the club's vote

Join GML: https://www.joingml.com

All Links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2

Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

California wants a "one-time" billionaire tax. Meanwhile, voters are being asked to make an earlier "temporary" income-tax increase permanent. How many times are we supposed to fall for this?

Nate and Chuck break down California's proposed wealth tax, Robert Reich's defense of it, and Ro Khanna's pitch for taking the idea nationwide. They discuss why net worth isn't cash in a vault, how selling investments to pay a wealth tax can create another tax bill, and why temporary revenue doesn't solve an ongoing spending problem.

First, the guys react to an unforgettable Indiana candidate interview, then examine New York Fed research on how Trump's tariffs raised prices for American-made goods as well as imports. The conversation also tackles California's Medi-Cal funding debate, the difference between billionaire wealth and annual economic output, and the math behind promises of "free" services.

Their alternative: make it easier to start businesses, compete, and build wealth while getting government spending and monetary meddling out of the way.

Join the Fed Haters Club for members-only livestreams and more: https://www.joingml.com

00:00 Welcome, studio upgrades, and Fed Haters Club

02:25 Jaime West's unforgettable campaign interview

10:36 Today's agenda: tariffs and California taxes

12:10 Trump's tariffs and the price of American-made goods

19:40 California's wealth tax: net worth isn't cash

23:56 Robert Reich's pitch and the tax bill behind the tax bill

26:41 Medi-Cal, budget shortfalls, and the meaning of "cuts"

32:32 When a temporary tax becomes permanent

35:09 Reich on tax cuts, wealthy residents, and inequality

41:30 Ro Khanna's national wealth-tax pitch and the math

46:38 A free-market response to inequality

56:33 Ro Khanna, libertarian alliances, and closing thoughts

Join GML: https://www.joingml.com

All Links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links

GML playlists: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2

Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

#GoodMorningLiberty #WealthTax #Tariffs

Republicans call Democrats socialists. But what happens when their own answer is more spending, more subsidies, and a different plan for running your life?

Nate and Charlie examine James Talarico's economic agenda and argue that the GOP has surrendered the free-market case against it. From corporate taxes and Trump's tariffs to housing subsidies, grocery assistance, and healthcare, we ask who ultimately pays when politicians promise to make everything affordable. We also discuss the rumors surrounding Talarico's campaign absence, his denial, and why personal attacks are a poor substitute for debating policy.

Then we turn to Nick Shirley's Seattle EBT investigation, the disputed grocery-store allegations, and Charlie's challenge to the viral "one can of Spam" framing. That leads to a broader discussion of welfare incentives, benefit cliffs, and why eliminating fraud alone doesn't answer the libertarian objection to the system.

Plus: Ken Paxton, Trump's rallies, and our argument that Republicans have helped create their own political problems.

Join the Fed Haters Club for members-only conversations and support independent libertarian commentary: https://www.joingml.com

00:00 Opening banter and Nate's game-show recap 03:25 James Talarico: campaign rumors and his response 11:50 AI speculation and the GOP's missing argument 15:06 Corporate taxes, tariffs, and the cost of living 18:24 Healthcare, Medicare, and insurance competition 22:45 Texas polling, Ken Paxton, and "socialism light" 27:05 Trump's rallies and midterm expectations 29:02 Nick Shirley's EBT investigation 32:07 The disputed Spam claim and the store's response 38:40 Welfare incentives and benefit cliffs 40:12 Why Republicans lost the small-government argument 44:19 Closing and supporting GML

Join GML: https://www.joingml.com

All GML links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links

GML playlists: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2

Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

Trump's $5,000 promise, Amazon's welfare numbers, and LA's mansion tax all raise the same question: who actually pays when politicians promise to help?

It's another round of Dumb BLEEP of the Week, and Nate and Chuck are handing out criticism across party lines. They react to JD Vance's definition of socialism, challenge the defense of government checks as a tariff "dividend," and debate retirees' support for raising taxes on younger workers to protect Social Security benefits.

Then it's Abdul El-Sayed's argument for public services, historical spending on schools and roads, and Robert Reich's criticism of Amazon. What can welfare-recipient counts actually tell us about wages, workforce growth, household size, and eligibility rules?

Also on the list: the DOJ's campaign against antisemitism and its implications for free speech, Angie Nixon's call for a national rent freeze, and the reported consequences of LA's mansion tax. The episode closes with discussion of the disputed Cornell allegations, a proposed tuition-reimbursement bill, and the vote for the week's dumbest take.

Join the Fed Haters Club for members-only conversations and support independent, liberty-minded commentary: https://www.joingml.com

00:00 Welcome to Dumb BLEEP of the Week

03:40 JD Vance tries to define socialism

07:15 Trump's $5,000 checks and partisan double standards

14:51 The DOJ's anti-hate tour and free speech

21:15 Social Security: Tax younger workers to protect retirees?

26:45 El-Sayed, public services, and how much we already spend

35:20 Robert Reich, Amazon, and the welfare numbers

44:44 Angie Nixon's national rent-freeze proposal

47:12 LA's mansion tax and unintended consequences

59:04 The Cornell case: Allegations, evidence, and uncertainty

01:05:28 The proposed tuition-reimbursement bill

01:08:57 Voting for the week's dumbest take

• Join GML: https://www.joingml.com
• All links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links
• Playlist 1: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA
• Playlist 2: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2
• Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/

You paid into Social Security your whole life. But what did you actually buy, and who gets stuck paying when the promises outgrow the money?

Nate and Charlie dig into the generational fight over Social Security, starting with a resurfaced Cato Institute poll and Matt Walsh's criticism of raising taxes on younger workers to protect retirees' benefits. The conversation goes beyond boomers versus millennials: how payroll taxes fund current benefits, what the trust funds actually hold, and why fewer workers per beneficiary make the math harder.

We examine the gap between Social Security's popularity and the public's willingness to accept higher taxes or lower benefits, challenge familiar claims about fraud and immigration, and discuss the risk of financing promises through more borrowing and inflation.

Then we compare Social Security with an illustrative private-investment scenario and debate opt-outs, lump-sum payments, and the painful transition any replacement would require. Our argument: take responsibility for your retirement instead of building your future around Washington's promises.

Join the Fed Haters Club and support Good Morning Liberty: https://www.joingml.com

00:00 Welcome, AI hairlines, and episode 1832

01:25 The Social Security tax fight

07:15 How Social Security and the trust funds work

11:15 Shrinking reserves and planning your own retirement

19:15 Higher taxes, bigger benefits, and fewer workers

22:15 Why politicians keep postponing reform

25:05 Higher taxes even if younger workers get less?

28:43 Lump-sum payouts and the politics of reform

33:41 What Americans misunderstand about Social Security

37:55 Fraud, immigration, and the money-printing argument

41:50 Social Security versus private investing

44:39 Opt-outs, transition costs, and final thoughts

• Cato's Social Security survey, published December 15, 2025: https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/new-poll-most-americans-expect-social-security-benefit-cuts-third-believe-program

• SSA's 2026 trustees report summary: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr26summary.pdf

• How Social Security's trust funds work: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

• Historical Social Security tax rates: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/oasdiRates.html

• Coverage reproducing the Matt Walsh post discussed: https://townhall.com/news/dmitri-bolt/2026/10/06/old-americans-overwhelmingly-support-taxing-younger-americans-to-fund-their-retirement-n2684138

  Join GML: https://www.joingml.com

  All links: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/links

  GML playlists: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA

  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2

  Marten's Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/