4/24/25 - Creative Destruction

“Deleted” Author Allum Bokhari, and OAN’s Kara McKinney join The Anchormen to debate Trump’s $5,000 baby bonus, the emergence of the “Tech Right”, Podcast standards, and whether the 22nd Amendment should be repealed.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Now it's time for the Anchorman Podcast with Matt Gates
and Dan Ball.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Welcome back to the Anchorman program. I'm Matt Gates, host
of the Matt Gates Show here on One American News
every night, nine Eastern, six Pacific, and I am joined
by absolutely the smartest group of people I have ever
had on Anchorman. As always my colleague on the MATC.
Gates Show, the original producer of Steve Bannon's War Room

(00:37):
worked on Capitol Hill in my office in Congressman Santo's office, Vishbura,
thank you for being back with us. Always a pleasure.
And Kara McKinney kar one of our hosts here at
One American News. And whenever I want to know how
the really brilliant people are thinking about something in the news,
I asked Kara's viewpoint. Thank you for joining us on
the program.

Speaker 3 (00:55):
Again, You're too kind, but thank you.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
And we've got joining us through the zoom machine. Alan Bakari,
the managing director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. I
have been a follower of alums. I believe I probably
hold the record for the most work of alumns submitted
by a Congressman to the Congressional Record whether it is
the work that he's done on censorship, on the different

(01:22):
excesses of power in the bureaucratic state. I really became
a fan early in my congressional career of your writing
and thinking and work, and it's incredible to have you
with us. So here's what we're gonna do. I've asked
all of you to think about one big question in
the news and culture and politics and policy right now
that you want to discuss among the group. And we are,

(01:45):
of course, as gentlemen, gonna go ladies first, and Kara,
you know, what is it out there that you're looking
at or thinking about that that could really reshape the
way that we're living here in the country.

Speaker 3 (01:57):
Well, so, one of there's a lot of issues right
now going on in politics. Immigration is a big one,
social Security, We've heard that come up, so many issues,
but they all kind of seem to hover around a
central theme that is not talked about as much, and
that's the birth rate crisis. That's something President Trump is
tapping the Heritage Foundation some others to start thinking about
ways to improve US fertility. So I know, one idea

(02:22):
that's under current discussion is the possibility I know President
Trump's Askpact. He said, it, well sounds good. Don't know
if it'll come to fruition, but at least a starting
point right now for this discussion is giving new mothers
five thousand dollars per child. So I guess that's the
launching off part is should we pay women to have children?
Is that a good idea?

Speaker 2 (02:41):
A bad idea?

Speaker 3 (02:42):
Well, that helped you improve the birth rates, because you know,
one of the reasons why we have this immigration crisis
from the neoliberals and the neo conservatives. Senator Chuck Schumer said,
I think a year or two ago he made some
flip in common about, well, you guys weren't having kids,
so we got to bring people over to work and
pay taxes and the rest. We see the fallout from
the immigration debate, both legal and illegal immigration, and again

(03:04):
it hovers around the central theme of birth rates. I
think around the year twenty twenty three is when the
US kind of cratered into sub replacement level births. It
was about two two and a half kids, is what
the average was for women. Now it's I believe one
point six y three somewhere around there, so below the
two point one needed to replace just the current population.

(03:25):
Uh So for my part on the five thousand, I
see it as okay. So I disagree with the policy,
but I agree with the idea behind it.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
Right.

Speaker 3 (03:36):
One thing I appreciate is that President Trump wants to
have the government and the wider public finally think women
and thank them for having babies. That's something that we've
seen really dismissed and caricatured for so long. So I
appreciate that. I just don't think it's going to get
to the root of the issue. And one of the
roots of the issue for the birth rate crisis is

(03:58):
that people just aren't getting married or aren't getting married
soon enough. That is part of the reason why we're
not having as many babies, and so then there's a
lot more questions that come into that. But I think
it's not going to address that. So I don't think
it'll work. But I appreciate. I appreciate the support mister President.

Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well I've always seen because I agree, Look, the birth
rate decline is a big issue, and I'm glad that
that President Trump has picked up this issue. And I
like the spirit essentially behind the proposal, but I don't
like the idea without really serious stipulations.

Speaker 2 (04:35):
Right.

Speaker 4 (04:36):
I've always seen the government as like a terrible polygamist.
Right that the government has essentially decided that it's going
to marry every single woman in America and then provide
them benefits based on terrible incentives.

Speaker 2 (04:53):
Right.

Speaker 4 (04:53):
And so, if you have a child but you're below
the poverty line, you may get five hundred dollars a
month from the government. But if you have one child
and you're below the power poverty line and you have
no man at home or no husband at home, you
get eight hundred dollars. Therefore, the way to get more

(05:14):
money out of the government is to make sure to
have a kid without a husband. That is the incentive.
And so I don't like the way that incentive structure
is currently set up. I think that it creates bad outcomes,
and I think that that's ultimately what needs to be
tamped down. And if we're going to do this five

(05:36):
K per baby to mothers, it should be stipulated to
you know, it's a child with somebody you're married to
and are currently married to. And I think that that
is a good stipulation to have on such a policy.
I think that that if you even want to talk
about directionally getting the government away from doing this kind

(05:59):
of payout structure based on bad incentives. I'm more in
favor of a flat rate where you basically say, if
you're below the poverty line, here's one thousand dollars a month,
good luck.

Speaker 2 (06:11):
Right.

Speaker 4 (06:11):
I don't care if you have one kid, I don't
care if you have ten kids. I don't care if
it's out of wedlock or you're currently married. This is
the flat fee or the flat amount that we give
for people in need.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
And that's that. You know, Mam Margodafi.

Speaker 4 (06:28):
You know, he might be not the best example, but
for his people, he did incentivize a lot of these things,
this family formation things, business formation, getting a home and
would incentivize it.

Speaker 2 (06:41):
And then they dragged him in the streets and killed him. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (06:44):
Well, I mean, look they looked. I'm not going to
say that everyone was happy with him. He fair Yeah. Yeah, Well,
like I think that that that he did incentivize a
lot of the right things for people, and I think
Donald Trump is taking some of that spirit.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
Alum, you in on the five K child tax credit, bomp.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
Well, I'm going to be boring and agree with the
rest of the panel and say, yes, the spirit of
it is good. It's good that the administration is trying
to address this problem because, you know, trying to trying
to fix low birth rates and the impact that has
on the economy by just importing more people from foreign
shows obviously hasn't worked. It's led to the kind of

(07:28):
moment of political turmoil we're currently in and you know,
trying to trying to like correct the mistakes of the
past ten years with mass immigration. But as as Vish said,
the problem is incentives. You give five thousand dollars to
people who are having kids, what are the other conditions?
Are they going to be married, do they have their
own independent income? You have to think about you know.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
Right, hold on, Alan, would you tye trade it based
on that, Like you get two grand for an out
of wedlock kid, if you get the ring, maybe like
an extra three k, and if you get all the
way to the altar like ten k, would you would
you tier it? Well?

Speaker 1 (08:05):
I think it should be tiered in some in some
regards absolutely, because you know, out of wedlock kids are
not you know, lead to all sorts of social problems.
The other the other thing I'd say is, you know,
what sort of income do that does the family already
have that they're getting So, like the sort of person
for whom five thousand dollars is a lot of money,
are they going to or have be able to provide

(08:26):
an environment for raising a child that's actually good and stable?
Uh and and and decent? That that's another thing to consider.
I mean, you know, the question is is five thousand
dollars actually not enough? I mean, you know, you want
to incentivize people who are who who think who might
think that five thousand dollars is not that much money?

(08:47):
So how do you incentivize people like that? Because they're
they probably have in those sorts of people, probably have
independent incomes. They probably they're the sort of people you
want to have kids because they're able to provide a
good environment for the child they're raising.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
This is so pathetic that we have to sit around
wondering how the government has to appropriately incentivize people to
have children, because like, was it mother nature supposed to
do that? Were we told to go forth and multiply?
We have to sit here and figure out what lever
the government has to toggle to get us in this business?
Do you who is the person model the person for me,
for whom this five grand is the dispositive factor. They're

(09:22):
sitting around and saying, you know what, honey, I'm really
deciding if we're gonna have the kid or not. Tell
you what the extra five K is what gets us
there time to make the magic happen.

Speaker 3 (09:30):
Well, unfortunately, you will then start incentivizing, as you were
saying earlier, and I've seen some of these videos. There's
these videos on X going around and it's this woman
saying when that EBT money hits right, and it's the
mom with the kids from all the different dads, and
she's not too good at raising them, watching them, inculcating
them with wisdom, virtue, values, anything like that. That's who
you would be incentivizing. So if the left's issue is

(09:54):
that they think power underlies everything, every relationship, every interaction
between people an issue for the right, as they think
money under lies as if you just give money and
then people say, okay, I guess I'll have a kid now, do.

Speaker 2 (10:06):
You think that those people exist? Do you think the
people exist out there in mass that like the five
K is the key decision maker. Because I'll just tell
you this, Vish would love to have children but the
issue is not five thousand dollars. It's that he hasn't
found the right person to have them with them.

Speaker 3 (10:19):
I was going to exactly so, like I was talking about,
so the marriage, the de I just really sorry.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
It's okay, please, It's totally true. By the way, you'd
pay the five thousand dollars.

Speaker 4 (10:33):
Look, I would pay the five thousand maybe, But I
think to another point, it's not just the five thousand dollars.
It's the family formation is more about like economics. You know,
if I can't get two people together whose combined income
can make a down payment and the monthly payment on
a home, right I could, then I don't even have
a home.

Speaker 2 (10:53):
To put to raise my family in.

Speaker 4 (10:56):
And if I don't, and if I'm working twelve hours
a day and my wife is working twelve hours a day,
who's going to do the chores around the house, right,
And like there's not there.

Speaker 2 (11:05):
And the minimalnce the Chuck Schumer is going to bring
back from Elsal, Yeah, they are going to be the
ones that are gonna do it for you.

Speaker 3 (11:11):
So another huge issue, right is why people aren't matching up.
A A lot of people now come from divorce or
broken home, so they know that pain very intimately. They
don't want to repeat it, so they're afraid. There's a
failure to launch for a lot of young people. A
lot of young people, it's a weird duality. You are
cocooned in your bubble, in the daycare system, the public
school system, and in your parents' house, where the entire

(11:32):
idea is safety ism. Don't get hurt, don't try, and
you know, go out into the world. Just stay here,
eyes on the screen, eyes where I can see you,
and stay safe.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
And then all of a.

Speaker 3 (11:41):
Sudden, at eighteen years old, this school system and daycare
and everything that's kind of carried you in this cocoon
bubble now spits you onto the world and say, bootstraps,
make your life. When the game is in many ways
rigged against you economically, and a lot of people they
don't know what to do with that. They don't have
a religious back or tradition to back on, They don't
have wisdom. A lot of times their parents are the

(12:02):
ones who screwed up too, so their parents can't give
them the wisdom the parents themselves didn't have, and so
a lot of people find themselves floundering, going I don't
know what I want to do, and the entire world
just says, do you, buddy, whatever makes you happy, And
then you're sitting there going I don't know what makes
me happy. So a lot of people have failure to launch.
They start doing the drugs, they're drinking too much, they
don't put their mind into anything useful, and then you

(12:23):
start to see a lot of psychosis and mental illness
because of this. And so if you are a young
person and you're trying to find your forever person, your
your marriage, you're about someone that you actually want to
have a kid with, well it's really hard look at
the dating scene right now. That's why the joke is
if you're currently married or in a stable relationship, you
feel like you got the last helicopter out of not
because it's like a battlefield down there. You start talking

(12:46):
to someone and you find out they're kind of psychotic,
Why would you want to have a kid with them?
Those are a lot of the more serious issues that
the five thousand isn't going to fix.

Speaker 2 (12:54):
Behind enemy lines on that one. So are Americans stuck
in their starter mortgage and their starter marriages for the
same reason, Because you've got a good deal with like
a low interest rate and like a decently respectable spouse
that you could possibly appropreate with, and thus you should
just lock in your current deal forever. Is that where
America sits.

Speaker 1 (13:13):
It's a truly depressing conversation. I think. The other thing
we have to consider is we've got two generations now
that receive little to no mainstream instruction in relationships or marriage.
That sort of instruction used to come from religions. The
closest thing modern society has to an official ideology of

(13:34):
relationships and gender roles and gender relations is feminism, which
obviously is completely cracked in many cases. So there's been
no serious replacement for organized religion in terms of instructing
young people and teaching young people about relations and relationships
and marriage and things like that.

Speaker 2 (13:53):
Everything gets replaced, Everything gets replaced, right because that vacuum
has been filled by the algorithm. It's been filled filled
by the TikTok snapchat, Instagram algorithm. And that's a very
sad thing. And speaking of tech, alum, you wanted to
pose a macro question to us about sort of where
the right positions on a lot of our new tech bros.

(14:14):
What are you thinking about it.

Speaker 1 (14:16):
Yeah, there's been this term that's been tossed around for
you know, about half a year now, the so called
tech right, which I find to be first of all,
a little bit of a suspect term. There's a big
difference between say Elon Musk and the ex platform and
you know, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta and Google and Microsoft.
You know, Mask I think stands on his own He

(14:38):
poured you know, hundreds of millions of dollars of his
own money into the election campaign last year. He bought
Twitter and restored free speech for the most part. I mean,
you know, if anyone's qualified to hold the label tech right,
it would be him, just because of you know, the
clear weight of his contributions. But on the other hand,
you have people like Marcus Zuckerberg and Meta, who spent

(14:59):
the you know, the last month lobbying the Trump administration
to drop this FTC case against the company that might
break them up. And you know, Zuckerberg has sort of
pivoted towards the right. He went on Joe Rogan, he
trashed Joe Biden, he donated a million dollars to the
inauguration Committee. But you know, he said he wants to

(15:21):
bring back free speech, but there are still major conservative influencers,
pro Trump influencers who are banned on meta platforms. And
then you have companies like Microsoft and even Amazon who've
done little to nothing to show that they're part of
a so called tech right. So I wonder about this

(15:41):
term and where the where the tech right is even going,
if they even is a tech right, Because if you
compare something like Mark Zuckerberg donating almost half a billion
dollars in twenty twenty to those infamous ballot drop boxes
in swing states that were so pivotal in Wittening the
election for Joe Biden, and you know, you compare that
to what he's done recently. He said he's pro free speech,

(16:03):
he hasn't made any big do his his Chance Zuckerberg
Initiative has not made any big donations to pro free
speech causes. You know, he says he's against European censorship laws.
Is he supporting the people who are fighting back against
European censorship laws in Europe, mostly the populist right. No
sign of that happening. He hasn't even unbanned some of
these people. So I wonder where, where the where the

(16:26):
tech right is going and if there even is a
tech right and where the tech right and the maga
white can find alignment. So what are you what are
your guys thoughts on that?

Speaker 4 (16:37):
Well, I want to go first on that. I think
I think there is a tech right. I think that
there is a spectrum to it. You know, Elon Musk
is probably the most prominent who has exhibited the most
prominent let's say, right wing ideas or ideologies in his
on his Twitter posts and some of his interviews. But

(17:00):
I also think that, you know, there's the Mark Andresens
of the world, there is the you know, the Sam Altman's.
Then it goes further left, I think, to Mark Zuckerberg,
and then there's I think still plenty of holdovers who
will never call themselves the tech right, who are denizens
of Silicon Valley. But I do think that for the
long term, if we want to talk about coalition building,

(17:21):
if we want to talk about where is the opportunity
to expand our numbers not just in the talent pool,
but in the voter pool, I think that there is
an opportunity with the tech right and a lot of
these folks who are pissed off at the the sort
of quality of life degradation in Silicon Valley in San Francisco.

(17:43):
A lot of those people ended up moving to Austin,
Texas and Phoenix, Arizona, et cetera. I think that there's
an opportunity to build with those people.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
And the reason I say that is because these are
people who you gotta beef with them. Don't give me that.
Hold on, let me can I hold on?

Speaker 4 (17:59):
I want to start by setting up The positive is
that they have a positive vision of wanting to build.
But the negative part of that is that they want
to build at the cheapest cost possible because that in
turn translates into profits into their pockets. And the way
that they're willing to do that and want to do

(18:19):
it and are advocating to do it is by unleashing
the H one B visa to its maximum potential, and
that I think is a terrible, terrible idea the MAGA right,
that the tech right wants to kind of ride off
of into Donald Trump's ear and a circle of influence.

(18:40):
The MAGA rights number one issue since day one has
always been immigration and its immigration across the spectrum. That's
not just low skilled immigration, but that's high skilled immigration
as well.

Speaker 2 (18:52):
That is the H one B visa, the H one
B visa. I have so much experience with this that hey, yeah, no,
I get you could lead the Indian Americans against H
one B. VI's a coalition. But but but but to
to the point he's presenting about the future of the coalition.
So I think you did a great job framing up
where the coalition blossoms and where it fractures. So what

(19:13):
what are the terms of the relationship?

Speaker 4 (19:15):
Then, well, I think that we need to basically come
to Dayton on immigration. You guys are out of the
conversation period. The tech right is out of the conversation
when it comes to immigration. MAGA gets what it wants
on immigration.

Speaker 2 (19:29):
So we censor the tech right on it.

Speaker 4 (19:31):
We don't have to censor them because we could beat
them down with our ideas as we've done.

Speaker 2 (19:36):
What are the other terms? And then we're gonna hear Cara.

Speaker 4 (19:37):
On the the other the tariff and trade war stuff
that's also going to be a contentious issue.

Speaker 2 (19:43):
The moment, the moment that the.

Speaker 4 (19:46):
Electric jewel is cheaper in any other country than in America,
you will see every data center in America be offshore.
Into that country because data centers and databases are all
about the cast of energy, and that's why they haven't
moved to China because thank god, energy is still cheaper

(20:06):
in America than it is in China. So that's another part. Now,
what we will give to them is the opportunity to
continue building, to have beautiful cities that are you know,
law and order, clean, rhythm of homelessness. They want their utopians.
They are utopians at the end of the day. We
will help make that happen. But you're not going to

(20:27):
flood them with every Third worlder who knows C plus
plus or dot net or JavaScript at one tenth of
the rate that you would have to pay in America.

Speaker 3 (20:37):
And we're not doing that well because they're not conservative, right,
you know, anyone the tech right as is Silicon Valley. No,
they're moving down to Texas. They're going to make Texas
blue right. They've been Democrats been saying that for years.
They're well on their way to doing that. They're not
conservative in the sense that I'm rooted in time, place,
history and America as a people right, and those who

(20:58):
want to join it and be part of that rooted
cultural movement. The tech right will always see that as
an issue because what is tech, it's creative destruction.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
They need to keep.

Speaker 3 (21:06):
Destroying the bonds that tie and to create nu wants
and needs and desires and people. That's in effect what
marketing is. You didn't know you wanted this product, but
I'm gonna make you think that you need it now,
even though you never knew about it before. It's creating
new desires and people. It's creating bonds that used to
hold you. Because if I and my husband and our baby,
if we're able to be a self sufficient unit, like

(21:29):
I said, with our friends, our family, and our community
will be quite self sufficient. We don't need every new
gadget and gizmo that will be coming off the the
the conveyor belt that Silicon Valley would like to provide
for us. But if we're all isolated atomized people, well
then that's all we kind of have left to ourselves.
We're just consumers, nothing but consumers. I know there's the
moon about just consume, but that's why they need you atomize.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
So well, hold on because there's tension between you and
Vish are saying there, because what Vish is saying is
that the core of the relationship can be built on
a unified desire for or the utopia that is clean
and doesn't have your third grade teacher trying to turn
your kid trans But what you say is that those
tech elites just view us all as pieces of the economy,

(22:13):
producers and consumers. Yes, not a part of their utopia.

Speaker 3 (22:17):
Oh yeah, yeah no, because they will no matter what
overtures they try and do to MAGA now, they will
turn into a bomba really fast, the whole you bitter
clingers with your bibles and your guns, because that's how
they see us. They see astogey set in our ways,
backwards and holding back mankind from all that we could
be with transhumanism and all this techno futurism and all
the like. And so I think that that is a
direct conflict that will always be there. So from my

(22:40):
perspective as a paleo conservative, post liberal Catholic, Integra lists
so many labels. I guess everyone's a label these days.
There will always be friction. But I can you know,
work with like Elon Musky does a lot of great
work at DOGE, and so there are places where we
can agree. But there's I don't want them leaving the
conservative movement. I think that's an issue that right has

(23:01):
all the time. You'll have these hardcore just left wingers
and they say something benally true, you know, something that's
just like true kind of I guess, and the next thing,
you know, the conservative right is like, let's make them
the face of our movement. So we need to make
sure we don't do that with the tech right, because
they're not truly conservative.

Speaker 2 (23:19):
It's in the law.

Speaker 3 (23:20):
They're overtures now. It's similar to I don't know if
you're familiar with Scott Horne at the Libertarian Institute, he
kind of talked about this with the ATF and WACO
in the nineties. How you know, you had so many
Republicans back to back to back in the presidency and
you finally have build Clinton. So they thought, wow, the
pendulum swing, We're gonna have Democrats for a while. The
atef's like, let's, you know, make these democrats really like us.

(23:40):
Let's kill a bunch of fundamentalists on TV. I kind
of see that as like the deck right in a sense.
It's like, well, you know, we had the left, the
left win as horres they could after stealing in in
twenty twenty, the people rejected a law of the tenets
of wokeness. So maybe the right will be in power
for a while, and while President Trump has a lot
of popular support, let's ride that way, but in a

(24:00):
very cynical, machia valiant way.

Speaker 2 (24:02):
So it is all transactional go ahead.

Speaker 1 (24:05):
So I'll disagree to slightly with what Kara said that
I think the creative destruction part of tech is I
would say the best part of the tech industry. I
love the way they creatively destroyed the mainstream media and
they continue to do so. They made podcasting culture possible.
They made centralized media organizations like The New York Times

(24:29):
and CNN, if not obsolete, but then well on their
way to obsolescence. And that was a long time coming.
Another example of this where I sort of disagreed a
little bit with some critics of the tech industry was
he had a couple of weeks ago, Jack Dorsey, the
former CEO of Twitter, he said something along the lines
of delete all ip law, and that caused the massive backlash,

(24:52):
which understand me because delete all ip law is a
very extreme statement that I don't fully agree with. However,
there's a case to be made. The reason why Dorsey
said that is because the whole tech industry wants to
weaken IP law so that they can feed their lms
or the data in existence, feed their AI models or
the data in existence. And you know, there's a lot
of potential dystopia there if you actually delete all IP law.

(25:16):
But there's definitely a case to be made, and I
think you can have some alignment with the tech right
here on significantly reforming IP law. Because who's the greatest
beneficiary of IP law. It's the big Hollywood studios like
Disney right there. You know, we talk about tech companies
being monopoly monopolies, but a company like Disney is a
massive monopoly. They just all all of this intellectual property

(25:38):
and turn it into the most garbage movies you can
possibly imagine. It would be great if ordinary people could
use large language models and diffusion engines to create their
own versions of Hollywood movies at a fraction of the cost.
I think that is where the technology is going. It's
a major major threat to Hollywood. It's a major major
threat to big video game studios as well. And that's

(26:01):
another area where the creative destruction of tech can actually
be a very good thing.

Speaker 2 (26:06):
And also they at least bring something to the movement.
I hate to be like overly ablest on this, but
they bring political ability. Like Elon Musk helped us designed
a way designing way to win Pennsylvania with targeting skills
that any other contributor simply cannot achieve. And so I

(26:27):
have a similar view to vision. I sort of view
our relationship with the tech right like the church. The
church has to grow, so our politics has to be
able to grow into those who are helping define the
future through technology. Well, at the same time, the newest
arrivals in your church don't typically lead the sermon on Sunday.
You don't put them in the pulpit to drive the

(26:50):
theology and the doctrine and the message. And I think
keeping those lines delineated ought to be fine for them
because like, where else are they going? Where else are
the tech bros going? Alum? Are they gonna go to
the genderlest, purple haired wolp toopians and find common cause anymore?
I doubt it?

Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the future of politics,
they really don't have many places to go because the
Democrats are getting more extreme. There AOC is a serious
contender in the Democratic presidential primary. You look at europe
young people, if they're not voting for the populist right,
which they are in large numbers, then they're voting for
the populist left, and they're going to be far worse

(27:29):
to tech companies than any right wing party. As someone
who cares exclusively, it's my job to care exclusively about
free speech. That's what my nonprofit cares about. What I
want to see the tech right do is get much
more serious about fighting these foreign online censorship laws, which
they all say they're opposed to. But we've seen nothing

(27:49):
like the level of commitment that Zuckerberg used to give
to the Biden campaign and the progressive courses against those
laws in places like Brazil, the UK, and the European Union.
The Digital Services Act in particular, I would say, is
the number one threat to online free speech in the
world today. And it would be great if trade negotiations

(28:09):
that the tru that the Trump administration is doing could,
you know, perhaps turn the DSA into a bit of
a bargaining ship. It could be weakened in result in
in in exchange for trade concessions.

Speaker 2 (28:22):
But you also tell that that's not what happened during USMCA.
During USMCA, a lot of the special protections that big
tech had in US law they were able to get
baked into that treaty where now even more enlighten lawmakers
wouldn't be able to undo it. So do you even
think those type of trade deals in how they approach

(28:44):
tech are going directionally correct? And then we're going to
move on. But I'll give you the last word on it.

Speaker 1 (28:49):
I remember that I think it's much better this time around.
I think that you know, you go out of the
previous administration, there were so many people, as we know,
in that administration who were not really on board with
the free speech agenda. In fact, people inside the administration
and in the deep state of the time tried to
on the mine online free speech. I think this administration
is complete seed change from that one. The personnel issue

(29:10):
has been completely solved, and I expect that we speech
probably will be a part of those trade negotiations. But
the other thing the tech right needs to do well,
that the the tech industry needs to do is build
long term movements in favor of free speech in these
other countries, as they have done with progressive causes in
the past.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
Look, we've all seen how unpredictable things can get, whether
it's supply chain issues, unexpected emergencies, or just trying to
get a doctor to prescribe but you already know you need.
It's become way harder than it should be. That's why
I trust All Family Pharmacy. They're not just another online pharmacy.
They're changing the game to put you first. They're giving
you the freedom to order what you need when you
need it, so you're never left to that of central medications.

(29:52):
They've got everything I've remacted in, hydroxychlorical and anerbiotics, daily
maintenance medications, emergency kits, and a whole lot more. I
even get my magnesium supplement.

Speaker 3 (30:00):
There.

Speaker 2 (30:00):
Over two hundred medications are ready to ship, and yes,
you can order in bulk to be prepared. The process
is simple. You fill out a quick online form, one
of their license doctors provides the prescription, and your meds
are shipped right to you, no insurance required, no hassle,
no waiting around or being unreasonably limited in your options.
That's what real medical freedom looks like. You're in control,
just like it should be. Stock up today, make sure

(30:21):
you've got the meds you need on hand. Go to
All Family Pharmacy dot com forward slash Matt use code
Matt ten for ten percent off your order. Trust me,
these guys are doing it right. So the big question
I wanted to address was the utility of the twenty
second Amendment. We have seen a lot of Republican lawmakers
and commentators say Trump should be able to run again,

(30:42):
and that is the basis of their approach to whether
or not a president should be able to be elected
more than twice. I want to zoom out beyond just
you know whether or not it is a reflection of
whether or not you believe Trump ought to be able
to get another opportunity. Have we as a country outline
lived the utility of the two term limit on our presidents.

(31:05):
You look at our pacing challenge in China, you look
at our global competitors, and there is a durability of leadership.
You see at the areas in the world where capital
is rising and decisions are being made. In the Middle East,
a region that was run by a bunch of octagenarians
now is run by a bunch of guys in their
thirties and forties and for America to have that kind

(31:29):
of durability, we may need more than eight years out
of someone. People are living longer than now. It is
a larger federal bureaucracy that one has to manage that
it takes a little longer to kind of gather control
on it, to get your people in place, It takes
longer than ever to confirm your key appointees. And thus
eight years is truncated. And isn't it kind of a

(31:49):
limitation on democracy? All I've heard from the left lately
is that they want to vindicate democracy and the two
term limit limits the choice of voters. So I think
it's something worthy of debate, and if I were a
lawmaker today, I would seriously consider voting to repeal the
twenty second Amendment. What do you think, Kara.

Speaker 3 (32:07):
Ooh, So, that's definitely a spicy question, right, especially with
the left, and they're always talking about, oh, Trump he's
a dictator and authoritarian. So but like you're saying, then
that means the power of whether or not he continues
past eight years would be in the hands of the people.
So is that really a dictator? That would be hard
to make that case, right.

Speaker 2 (32:28):
Yes, and no, I do go git to go out
on a limb. All right, all right, thish, come on,
I know you want to give me a hot take.
Karah's going to think about it.

Speaker 4 (32:40):
The twenty second Amendment needs to be repealed. It's I
don't think it was ever useful in the beginning. I
don't think it was fair that FDR got to sit
in the White House for four terms and then turns
around and says, nobody else gets this opportunity. Okay, so
I'm totally against it. The Founders never had it in
the begin They always they didn't put term limits in

(33:02):
the Senate, they didn't put term limits in the House,
and they didn't put term limits on the White House.
And I think that obviously they wanted a country where
the people were able to decide how long exactly they
wanted certain parties, certain people sitting in those seats for
however long that they wanted. And especially today when you

(33:23):
consider that our number one opponent geopolitically is China that's
able to move in one hundred year eclipse. If and
we can't get past eight that is a massive problem.
If we can't execute an agenda past eight years with
the leadership that we have it's going to be a
massive issue in trying to not just beat fight back

(33:45):
against China, but just to keep up. And so yeah,
the twenty second Amendment needs to go Trump twenty twenty eight,
thirty two. However long he wants to sit there, he
can sit.

Speaker 2 (33:55):
There, well the eight years.

Speaker 3 (33:56):
Then it necessitates having a deep state, right because like
you're saying, when you're going up against all these presidents
and all these military June does all these groups that
can govern for essentially however long that they would like
to in these other countries, and like you're saying, China
and how they can you know, have fusion beings in
office for for many, many many years. Then again I
think then the State Department the rest would say, well,
that's why you need the deep state, You need us,

(34:17):
you know, right, h Or it doesn't really matter who's elected,
because who cares what the people say. We'll just keep
governing the way we want to keep governing.

Speaker 2 (34:23):
Well, in every system that has terms, in every legislative system,
it does empower the bureaucracy. And the question is is
that preferable to empowering kind of long term office holders.
And in the legislative system, I actually think the churn
is better. I support term limits for lawmakers because I
actually don't think there's anything that's special about lawmaking. You're

(34:44):
representing people in a community regarding their interests, and I
think that being the executive is different. So, Alan, will
you rescue us from our radicalism on this issue or
are you going to join in the repeal the twenty
second Amendment parade?

Speaker 1 (34:59):
I think I think Kara actually hit the nail on
the head with this point about the deep state. And
as he was saying, Matt, it does kind of empower
the bureaucrats. And it's interesting if you look at the history.
It's interesting that it's all started with FDR, who, as
Vish was saying, was able to serve four terms, was
the last president who was able to do that. FDR

(35:20):
really created the modern bureaucracy as we know it. It
was started by Woodrow Wilson, but it was finalized by FDR.
He's the one that installed the giant bureaucracy that became
what we now know as the deep state. And I'm
actually less radical than other conservatives when it comes to
the administrative state of FDR and of Woodrow Wilson. It

(35:41):
wasn't really that bad until the nineteen sixties. It did
some impressive things. It built the Interstate highway system, it
built the Minuteman missiles. It was very, very impressive until
it merged with the civil rights bureaucracy in the nineteen
sixties and then it all went haywire. But clearly there's
been very little it's been very very difficult to reform

(36:04):
it ever since FDA and possibly term limits of something
to do with that.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
Would you be afraid about Obama coming back and being
a viable Kennedy? So no care? What do you think?

Speaker 3 (36:15):
So that would be one issue that I'd be worried about,
right because we have basically what started out with the
founder's intention of being a small republic morphed into mass democracy,
and that I think ends up being the rub because
you look at someone like Pelosi, she will I mean,
she'll just be voted and voted until she dies or
resigns or whatever.

Speaker 2 (36:34):
She's at least effective. Whatever people want to say about
Nancy Pelosi, it's an incredibly effective operator. If you want
to live in a meritocracy, probably in San Francisco, you're
not going to like throw a rock on the streets
of San Francisco and hit something more competent at the
acclamation and deployment of power than Nancy Pelosi.

Speaker 3 (36:52):
Well, so then, so what I have a problem. So
I'm not someone who's pro democracy rights. You can see
my my views be considered myself as but I, like
I said, post liberal, that's that's my mindset. However, so
to me, democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting
for what's for dinner, and they go, hey, we voted,
so it makes it all fine. So I would, in sense, say,

(37:12):
if you want to do the twenty second Amendment, I
would say to add some some meat to it. I
would say that we should kind of go back to
the founder's intentions or at least closer in alignment. Basically,
you need to have real stake in America. You know,
we're talking about eighteen year olds and then down to
sixteen year olds and shit felons. I think, wasn't at
Bernie Sanderson the surviving Sign of Brothers should Boston bamber

(37:33):
should still be able to vote things like that. I say,
let's even dispense with that and say are do you
are you a homeowner? Are you do you own property?
Are you married. I think there's other issues.

Speaker 2 (37:43):
I say, I have How long do you go on
that list before you get to the poll tax? Are
you for the poll tax? Let's see what the limiting
principle on Kara's diminution of democracy?

Speaker 3 (37:52):
No, definitely not that open.

Speaker 2 (37:53):
Okay, however, reading tech, literacy testing, how about are you
at taxpayer? I think that's a good she's already for
I s already said she's for that. Would you do
a literacy.

Speaker 3 (38:02):
Test maybe like the was it the eighth grade? You
would say, like government will test. And it's the same
thing that if you immigrate to this country you need
to be able to pass.

Speaker 2 (38:11):
You do a social studies test.

Speaker 3 (38:12):
See, I'm not putting down any hard and fast rules.
I'm saying that in a general direction. I think that's
maybe where we should go.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
Yeah, but don't you worry about the left weaponizing that?
Where if somebody doesn't answer the questions, you know.

Speaker 3 (38:25):
We've been in prison and got him shot last year.
I think we're beyond the well, what if the left's
back and power, who knows what they'll do next. It's
like they've done some crazy stuff. At this point. We want,
we need to keep governing it's time to build and
to create the future we want. Instead of saying, well,
what if the left wins again, it's like, well again,
like I said, they almost.

Speaker 2 (38:40):
Through Trump in prison.

Speaker 3 (38:41):
And if you look at right when governments around the world,
their leaders are always constantly being thrown in prison and
made unable to run because.

Speaker 2 (38:48):
We've thrown some of them in prison. Fascinating this take
us home.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
What the left would would say if they were thinking
along these lines, they'd say, everyone, you can only vote,
you have a master's degree, you could only go to
be an expert.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
If you have your pronouns in your email. If you're
willing to accept as a fundamental premise of our social
studies that the white man, you know, should never have
gone to battle with Native Americans and should have should
have surrendered upon arriving, obviously to their own slaughter. Bish,
take us home. What you want to talk about, all right?

Speaker 4 (39:20):
So recently there's been a massive dust up and uproar
over the guests that are appearing on Joe Rogan's podcasts,
and namely the people who have taken issue with this
are Barry Wise of the Free Press and most recently
Douglas Murray, who appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast and essentially

(39:45):
went in Joe on Joe Rogan's platform in his face
and said, you need to have standards on who you're
booking as guests on this show. It's not about And
he basically says, it's not the problem of the ideas
that you're talking about or the question that you're talking about,
but who you're allowing on your massive platform to talk

(40:05):
about these things. And they've been pointing out guests such
as Andrew is Isker and Darryl Cooper and Ian Carroll
and basically, and then Jordan Peterson goes on Joe Rogan's
podcast and takes it a step further then says, oh,
you know, yeah, James Lindsay kind of calls these people woke, right,

(40:26):
but that's wrong. Actually they're just psychopaths, right, and so
there and so you shouldn't have these psychopaths on your show,
on your platform. And and what really needs to happen
is podcasts need to have standards and guardrails. And I'm thinking, like,
where have these people been the last ten to fifteen years.

(40:49):
The whole point of the podcast, of this decentralized disintermedia
disintermediated media is the point to not have any guardrails.
You can talk about what you want, how long you
want to talk about it. You could take the conversation anywhere,
you could take the conversation off on a tangent if
you want. That's the whole point, to allow conversations to

(41:10):
naturally evolve. And Joe Rogan has built that model to
great success, great success. And now you have all of
these people who America only knows about them because they
appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast telling Joe Rogan how to
book his show with his guests.

Speaker 2 (41:30):
And I think it.

Speaker 4 (41:31):
Is an outrage These people will turn around, look you
in the face and say that there is no bigger
free speech advocate out there than me, and then turn
around to Joe Rogan and say you shouldn't have certain
people on your podcast. I think it's outrageous, and I
think that there's a real conversation to be had about
our podcasts and this disintermediated media ecosystem gonna start having

(41:58):
only experts. You can only talk about certain subjects with
certain people. This person is approved to talk about this subject.
I think that's a dangerous game to play. They're going
to take us back to exactly what we broke away from.
And so I wanted to get your thoughts on this.
Like you've had podcasts, you have shows. Would you ever

(42:22):
consider like one of your guests telling you who you're
allowed to have on your show?

Speaker 2 (42:28):
Vish, I think this is very substantial projection on your
part to let Kara and Allen and the rest of
our viewers in on this. Vish had a bit of
a difficult week at work this week. He's the booker
on the Matt Gates Show and he booked someone who
was dressed like a dominatrix. And so now suspiciously he

(42:50):
has raised this issue of how low the bottom should
be on booking.

Speaker 4 (42:56):
No, it's not about how low the bottom should be.
And I'm not going hearing the guests you're talking about
to these other people who are clearly have massive followings,
have great perspective, and.

Speaker 2 (43:10):
I trust you quickly, and I'm dying here Allen's take
on it, because he's an expert in the area. I
think when we start to do that, like you say,
you lose the rawness and the edge and the unique
feature of this space. And people listen to podcasts in
a different way than they consume television, And the way
you credential in this medium is by having something interesting

(43:33):
to say, having a warrant for your claim, having thought
about something, whereas on television it is the recitation of
sound bites and talking points and achievement of a viral moment.
And we're not immune to that. We try to create
interesting moments for our viewers every single night on the
Macage Show. But I think it is different than trying
to go a layer beneath that, and I think over

(43:55):
cooking the sauce with a critique of credentialism is misplace.

Speaker 4 (44:01):
Okay, well, Kara, how about you like what do you say?
What do you think about this?

Speaker 3 (44:06):
So once again let me think so I don't get
too much trouble with my thoughts on this. A When
I watched that debate as you're referencing Douglas Murray versus
Dave Smith on Joe Rogan, the potshots that Douglas Murray
was taking at Dave but then also Daryl Cooper of
the Murder Made podcast, what he kept basically getting back

(44:27):
to was he had never listened to Daryl Cooper. He
has no clue who Darryl Cooper is what his beliefs are,
what his thoughts are on anything, and how well researched
he is. Either what he does and says he conflates
them with with smear merchants, and he just puts them
all in the same group and he just says, yeah,
they're all bad people. Don't listen to any of them. Well,
that ends up meaning it's censorship because Douglas Murray kept
really harping on credentialism and expertise, but then he talks

(44:49):
about the war and the Israel Hamas War all the time,
he talks about the Ukraine, where he talks about these
wars that, as far as I'm aware, he's not a
history an historian. I don't believe he's done scholarly work.
He's written books, he's a journalist, but he is not
also the card carrying credentialed expert that he claims can
only speak about it. So in fact, what he's saying

(45:11):
is you just can't talk about it. But then when
Dave Smith would push back and Joe Rogan pushback saying
well what about all you're talking about free speech, He's like, well,
of course you can.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
Talk about it.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
Well, I thought you said I can't old and you
can't because you're just a comedian, And it was as
weird back and forth, and basically he's saying is I
have my certain pet issues, and I will come down
really hard when you go against my pet issue, and
I will use It's like how the left does. It's
they have their end goal in mind, and they use
arguments like this, they switch it around. And that's why
too many people on the right, when we're trying to
debate someone on the left, we're trying to attack their argument,

(45:40):
and it's like, well, it's not even their argument. They
don't care about the argument. They don't care about the
logic or the reasoning. What they care about is what
they want at the end of that, and that's what
you have to keep attacking. So that was my main
problem with Douglas Murray, as he admitted he has no
clue anything about Darryl Cooper, doesn't even know his stance
on anything, just assumes he knows what he's talking about,
and then says shut up, don't talk about or as
you can talk about it, but also don't talk about it.

(46:02):
It was the threat, the veiled implicit threat of don't
you dare I will destroy you, Joe Rogan, however I can.
And that's what I have a problem with.

Speaker 4 (46:10):
Yeah, I mean it's I mean, to say the least,
it sounds like, you know, Douglas Murray and James James
Lindsley types. They're using woke tactics to censor the very
people that they turn around and say, Hey, we're free
speech advocates for Alan.

Speaker 2 (46:24):
How about you?

Speaker 4 (46:25):
What is your take on this? I know you you've
been a veteran of the space.

Speaker 1 (46:29):
Yes, first of all, sorry about the lighting hat excellent
natural light in this room when I started, but the
sun's just gone down.

Speaker 2 (46:36):
I know you. You look so much more distinguished and
credentialed now now that you're the silhouette of Alan Bakari
has joined us.

Speaker 1 (46:45):
So yeah, it's just ta vicious point, I think.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
So.

Speaker 1 (46:48):
I write a lot about online censorship, but that's only
one side of the censorship coin over the last few decades.
The other side, I think is this culture of denunciations
and deplatforming. Way, you know, you're not allow allowed to
have so and so on your show, You're not allowed
to platform this person. I want you to condemn this

(47:08):
person before we could even talk about their ideas that
sort of culture, right, And I think the reason why
Douglas Murray's comments and Jordan Peterson's comments brought about such
a backlash is because it seems to be pointing back
in that direction. You know, we've just gotten past this
era in history where you know, you had people being

(47:29):
asked to ritually denounce people essentially for their political views,
and now we're trying to get back to this this
idea where you have to have a certain credential, you
have to have the right opinions to be able to
go on these podcasts. And as Carra said, I mean
the whole expert thing. Yes, there is a genuine sense

(47:49):
that there's a sort of crisis of competency right now.
There's a sense where, you know, anyone can talk about
any topic without it, you know, any sort of any
sort of background in the area. Sure, But at the
same time, if you insist on expert credentials for everything,
then Douglas Murray can talk about seventy seventy to eighty
percent of the things he talks about, because if you

(48:10):
only talk about the one thing you're credential and that's
not going to be very.

Speaker 2 (48:14):
Much Matt, I am glad, I am at least credentialed
in one thing. And like I said, you know, I
think that I think that the value of somebody's contribution
to the conversation has to matter somewhere. And if the
podcasting space, if the online space for the streaming space,
aren't accommodating that, then I don't know what will. And

(48:36):
I'm grateful it does. I'm grateful that Allen fights for
it every day as the managing director for the Foundation
for Freedom Online. I'm so excited that we get to
be here on this amazing pirate ship we call One
American News with Karen McKinney who hosts, and with Vish
who produces, and I do the mac Ads Show on
weeknights nine o'clock Eastern, six Pacific. Please make sure you

(48:56):
get our live app ata dot com and give us
five stars, leave us a review, let us know who
you'd like us to talk to and get great ideas
from in the future. Thanks for joining us on Ackerman