Insights Unveiled: Defense, Politics, and Tech Reform

Breaking Battlegrounds

Join us for a dynamic episode featuring three exceptional guests who bring diverse insights to the forefront. Paul McLeary, a seasoned defense journalist at Politico with unparalleled reporting experiences; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a former Navy Lieutenant Commander, physician, and political candidate running in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District; and Rick VanMeter, the Executive Director of The Coalition for App Fairness, leading a bipartisan effort to address anti-competitive policies from tech giants Apple and Google.

-

Connect with us:

www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote

Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds

Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds

-

About our guests

Paul McLeary covers major defense programs and acquisitions policy for POLITICO. He previously covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News and Breaking Defense, and has embedded with U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.In Afghanistan, he was the first reporter to get inside the secretive ODIN program that targeted insurgents planting roadside bombs, and later accompanied U.S. special operations forces training Syrian Kurds in northern Syria. He has also traveled to the Arctic with the Norwegian military.-

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a former Navy Lieutenant Commander, physician, and political candidate running in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District

-

Rick VanMeter is the Executive Director of The Coalition for App Fairness. A bipartisan Congressional effort aimed to address anti-competitive policies from Big Tech companies Apple and Google.-

TRANSCRIPTION

Sam Stone: Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone. Chuck Warren and I are apparently taking alternate days off this month, but fortunately for for us, we have Michelle Ugenti Rita in studio today to be here. Michelle is always fantastic and another fantastic lineup of guests for you today, folks. First off, we're leading out with Paul McCleary. He covers major defense programs and acquisitions policy for Politico, previously covered the Pentagon for foreign policy, defense news and breaking defense and has embedded with US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Paul, thank you so much for joining us today. Welcome to the program.

Paul Mcleary: Thank you.

Sam Stone: Obviously, there's a lot going on right now. A lot of news focused around Israel and Gaza and everything going on there. But that's also leading to a lot of ripple effects around the globe in terms of defense, in terms of economics, a whole host of, of of problems that are created when a situation like this kicks off. Can you talk a little bit about what's going on and how that's affecting our defense programs and policy really globally right now?

Paul Mcleary: Sure thing. Yeah. I mean, I think what the wars in Ukraine and now in Israel are really showing is that the the Pentagon gets $800 billion a year, is well funded, but there are some real stresses here that were being felt even before these wars and the defense industry, as far as how long it takes to get new weapons and equipment under contract and things like that, and how expensive they are. And that has not been working out well for Ukraine as we're shipping billions of dollars worth of weaponry. We've given 2 million, I think, artillery shells to Ukraine. And the Pentagon has been struggling a little bit to get contracts to the defense industry to replenish our own stocks for that sort of thing. Both countries are also using a lot of Israel, more than than Ukraine, precision guided weapons. And those are expensive. They're kind of tough to make. And the US hasn't really ramped up production for those as much as maybe they would like to, given that China is also posing a threat on the other side of the world. We're not in a war with China, obviously, but the DoD is trying to increase production to increase its stocks for that, while it's also giving to Ukraine and now Israel. So there's some real concern on Capitol Hill and at DoD about how they're going to pull this off. There's no US troops involved in in these wars, clearly, but the US defense industry is going to have to get on wartime footing at some point. And it's definitely not right now, which is the new package that the Biden administration released on Friday morning. $106 billion for Taiwan, for Israel, for Ukraine, for the US defense industry, for border security. And that's going to try to get at some of this to increase production lines, speed things up a little bit. But there's no House of Representatives at the moment. So that bill is going to go anywhere for the foreseeable future. It's going to be some debate.

Sam Stone: Is there a whole you know, you follow obviously, acquisitions policy really closely. And I've wondered for a few years now if we have a hole in our thinking where our adversaries around the globe are manufacturing very quick, cheap, easy to manufacture weapons, where everything we have is very high tech and tends to be very expensive. Does the US need to consider creating almost a secondary pipeline for weapons that we we've known how to manufacture for 50 years, and things that can be manufactured and given into the field very quickly.

Paul Mcleary: Yeah. I mean, the thing with God is everything that they buy is bespoke, right? Very little commercial off the shelf, off the off the shelf equipment and stuff, you know, and and so everything that they buy or they ask industry to make is made for God specifically. Right. They demand intellectual property, things like that. So it is tough for them to do it quickly. And it's tough sometimes to even share that technology with with allies. That's been the case with Ukraine, with some of the weapons systems, even with Israel. So and we've seen the Ukrainians, I mean, they're building small drones using Chinese parts and whatever they have, and they're being incredibly effective with it. The Russians have no answer for it, but the US Army and military would never do that in a million years. Right? Right, right.

Sam Stone: Right.

Paul Mcleary: Build small parts even though it works. But we're just not going to do it.

Sam Stone: Yeah. I mean, it seems like our enemies obviously have the ability to wage war for a lot less money than we do. And a lot of it comes down to that sort of bespoke military that you're talking about.

Paul Mcleary: Exactly. I mean, the Chinese are doing it, the Ukrainians are doing it. Most countries around the world are doing it to some degree, and DoD won't. And there's a real push to try to change that. There's a new program that the DoD announced in August. We don't have a lot of details about it called replicator, which is a great name, where they want to build thousands of small drones that can be lost. They can be treatable where they can perform drones, drone swarms, do surveillance, I think some kind of kinetic activity. And this is aimed directly at China because China is building these, these drone swarms and things like that. But there's a lot of questions if DoD can do this in the next 24 months, which which they're giving themselves a timeline to do it if industry is ready, if DoD will trust small, innovative companies who they don't have a relationship with to work on this stuff, because this has been a years long project where DoD is trying to get VC firms, small tech firms to work with them. And they've had real, real problem with it because the overhead is low, the payoff is low for these companies, and it takes years for DoD to do anything right. They say, okay, this little drone looks good. Make five of them. We'll get back to you in two years, and we'll tell you if we want to buy 500 of them. And these companies say no thanks, it's not worth their time, right?

Sam Stone: Yeah. We talked to a reporter a few maybe, actually about a year ago, who was talking about this in a different sense, that we've become too reliant on just a handful of major contractors, and they're not designed none of them. Their operations are designed to quickly gear up to expand production overnight.

Paul Mcleary: Well, exactly. Well, this is part of in 1993. So I'll be quick about the history lesson, I promise. Then-secretary of Defense Les Aspin called in all the major defense contractors for a dinner at the Pentagon, and it's called the Last Supper. And he told them, hey, budgets are going down. There's 92 defense companies. And some of you, we have no problem with some of you going out of business, so you're going to have to consolidate or die. So those dozens of defense companies whittled down to the handful we have today, which creates less competition, higher prices. Et cetera. Et cetera. So that was a decision made then, that we're really feeling now that all those smaller companies that maybe would compete or have new ideas are now, you know, ten companies, essentially the Lockheed Raytheon's BAE systems bought up all those companies. So the policy decisions made 30 years ago are having a real impact now in trying to modernize and reform the system.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Is is America vulnerable militarily, with us being pulled so thin across all of these different interests in terms?

Paul Mcleary: Yeah, I mean, I think that there's an argument that the DoD makes that I think has some merit to it that, you know, we're giving billions of dollars worth of equipment to Ukraine. But what Ukraine is doing with that investment is decimating the Russian war machine. Right? I mean, stuff that we had built in the 80s or early 90s to fight the Soviet Union is now fighting the Russians in Ukraine. And it works. It works the way they wanted it to work. And the Russians, a lot of it for a lot of this equipment, don't have a good answer for it. And this is at the cost of the package. Today will be at 64 billion for for Ukraine, a lot of money, but no American soldiers are being killed, no Americans are being taken hostage or prisoners. So the argument by DoD is that this is we're achieving our aims cheaply and without loss of American life. But still, like I said before, until and unless DoD and industry can really figure out a way to get industry on some sort of. War footing. It's not sustainable for the long run for the United States. If this war drags on for four years, which it looks like it likely will.

Sam Stone: That looks like it will drag on for years. And, you know, we we've talked about that quite a bit on this program that I don't think anyone really has any idea of what the out out in story is. Is Gaza different? Because it does seem like Israel is starting to very carefully focus on what comes after the invasion that appears to be imminent.

Paul Mcleary: Yeah, it does appear that the IDF will go in on the ground in Gaza and try to clear out the north and target Hezbollah leadership. I it's it's not clear that Israel has a good day after plan other than decimating Hamas leadership. What comes next? Is it going to be an occupation? Is it a couple of battalions behind you? Create a buffer zone. It's that is going to be tough, tough stuff because the urban fight in in Gaza will be will be absolutely brutal. And we, the United States has done it in Najaf and in Fallujah. And those were hard, bloody door to door, literally room to room knife fights.

Sam Stone: And and those are not as dense. And the density creates additional challenges in that type of environment. Right.

Paul Mcleary: Exactly. I spent some time in Fallujah with the Marines after the, after the big fight. And there was still, you know, some some resistance there, but just driving through those streets and, you know, taking over houses and, and just trying to do that in a populated, dense city is just so hard. I mean, every time you turn a corner, there's a threat. Every time you pass an open window, there's a threat. And Hamas, I'm assuming, has Islamic Jihad has dug in pretty well in Gaza. They're going to have tunnels. And so this will be incredibly difficult for Israel. And it blunts a lot of their technological advantages, right? Things like drones and things like that they'll still be able to use, but packed in so tight those won't be nearly as effective as they would be on open ground.

Sam Stone: We have just about a minute and a half before we go to break. We're going to be coming back with more right after that. From Paul McCleary with Politico covers major defense programs and acquisitions policy. Talking a little bit about, obviously, Gaza and Israel, what's going on in the world right now. But also I want to touch a little bit on Taiwan and China and does this when we come back. Does this create an opening, the US involvement in Ukraine now in Israel, potentially a pretty significant supporting of our ally there? Does this continue to make things more dangerous for Taiwan and increase the chances that China may look to take advantage of everything that's going on in the world right now? And obviously, I want to give you a little bit more time than the 30s we're about to have here. But Michelle, I think it's not been talked about enough. What what all this various conflicts is doing to create additional instability.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Absolutely.

Sam Stone: So folks, make sure you stay tuned for that. We're going to be coming back with more from Paul McCleary in just a couple of minutes. And then stay tuned afterwards, because we have a very interesting second guest on the program, Dr. Judy Zaza. Zuhdi Jasser. I'm getting his name wrong already, but he has a fantastic background, and he's just announced a run for Congress here in Arizona. It's going to be an interesting fight, folks. Stay tuned. Breaking battlegrounds back in just a moment.

Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place, and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high quality furniture and decor you need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock. Making dream homes come true.

Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host Sam Stone in studio with me today, Michelle Ugenti-rita. Michelle, thank you so much for joining us. And on the line, Paul McLeary covers major defense programs and acquisition policy for Politico. We're talking, obviously, about what's going on in Israel and Gaza and the effects all around the globe. Paul, is this creating an opening that China may look to take advantage of, or that creates additional concern for Taiwan in that regard?

Paul Mcleary: Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. The Biden administration is trying to at least make the right noises about this in the $106 billion supplemental today for Israel and Ukraine and other things. There's 2 billion for foreign military financing for Indo-Pacific partners, and there's also money for Taiwan to finance US weaponry. But yeah, I think the Chinese are seeing the United States and Europe being consumed with the fight in Ukraine and now Israel. And just like they watched for 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, while China was cranking out destroyers and aircraft carriers and submarines and things like that, they can kind of continue with that, that that project there is I think they're also probably taking some lessons from the from the fighting, right, in that in Ukraine, particularly that a small country backed up by the West and can fight and can do some real damage to a larger industrialized nation like Russia.

Sam Stone: Well, and they share a lot of the same technology. Theirs is better for the most part, but the basis of a lot of their military technology. Is Russian technology, correct?

Paul Mcleary: It is. It is the disadvantage that Chinese have if they were to try something in Taiwan or, you know, give them a shooting war in the Pacific, is that they haven't they haven't fired a shot in anger since the late 70s when they fought Vietnam to a standstill. Right. So they have brand new ships and submarines and drones and a lot of and fourth or fifth generation fighter jets, as we've seen with Russia and Ukraine. That stuff doesn't always work. You know, you build stuff cheaply and in mass. It's not always going to work the way you want it to.

Sam Stone: It doesn't even always work for us. I mean, hence the f 35 and its continued travails. But yeah.

Paul Mcleary: Exactly. Or the littoral combat ship for the Navy, which are retiring five years after they built some of them. So that's not to take away what China's done, but it's a big unknown. If this stuff works right, we're doing something in an exercise is a lot different than doing it under the stress of actual combat. But the United States is trying to bolster allies in the region, you know, trying to make more deals with countries like Vietnam. There's a big push in the Philippines to get them more aircraft and more ships and things like that. So it is an increasingly complex situation in the Indo-Pacific, and it's kind of unclear where China wants to take this and how just how, how many things the United States and its allies in the West can juggle at the same time?

Sam Stone: Reading into some of what kicked off this event in in Israel, in Gaza, it looked in the weeks preceding this like they were going to be some fairly historic agreements coming up on the table between Israel and some of the other regional powers there, particularly Saudi and Egypt. We're talking about a large economic corridor for transport. How much are groups like Hamas tuned in to those sorts of things, and how much does that affect their decision making when they launch these type of things? Or was this just something from what you know, that they were planning and they were going to do regardless of anything else going on in the world?

Paul Mcleary: Yeah, I mean, Hamas had clearly planned this for, for several years. I mean, this was a complex, massive operation. They somehow kept kept secret. But I would think that the agreements that were being reached, Israel kind of being accepted slowly and incrementally into the larger Middle East community, I'm sure that did concern them. But they also took advantage of an Israeli defense force that was completely distracted by. I mean, I think they were most of the IDF was focused on the West Bank. That's where the Israeli settlers and their politicians in the Knesset had demanded more protection from the IDF. And those are Likud voters. There's a Netanyahu people. So the IDF was fully focused on the West Bank, and it was also in focus, focused on a lot of internal fighting, with Netanyahu trying to change the Constitution and and exert more control over the courts. You know, there were mass resignations, there were protests within the IDF from top leadership to the to to regular soldiers. And I've spoken to a few IDF soldiers who said that they were distracted by just internal fights over these political moves by Netanyahu and the rejection of them within the military. So I think they took advantage of that. The idea of being focused on the West Bank and the internal struggles in Israel, where they took their eye off, off the border there and in Gaza and. They clearly took advantage of that and took the Israeli army hours to reach a lot of those communities, which wouldn't have been the case probably just a few years ago.

Sam Stone: That brings up kind of the follow up question is the IDF regardless of some of these other things going on, have they gotten, you know, sorry to say it this way, but a little soft, a little complacent with the last decade of relative quiet?

Paul Mcleary: Yeah.

Paul Mcleary: I mean, I think whenever things are quiet and there seems to be a status quo, most people settle into a routine. Right? And you watch the border and nothing happens. You do that for years at a time. You probably settle into that routine. But like I said, a lot of those units that were around Gaza were pulled out to go over to West Bank and the West Bank and and protect the Israeli settlers there. So I think that was it was a confluence of a lot of events. And Hamas pays attention. And they saw it happening and they they decided the time was right. I'm sure with the agreements Israel is making with other countries and just kind of the internal chaos and the distraction by the IDF, they figured it was time to go.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Who's Hamas is, you know, back up where where can they rely on for military support and money and finance?

Paul Mcleary: Several places I've speaking to earlier today, a few sources in the region who said that the Israelis have seen some North Korean components in some of the rockets that have come over from Gaza. So they have been pulling a little bit from North Korea, is happy to solve anybody.

Sam Stone: Right? Right.

Paul Mcleary: So they've pulled from North Korea. There's been some Iranian help, just like with Hezbollah. So they they have allies and sources that they can. I mean, there's been a blockade of Gaza for years, but they've still managed to smuggle in all this weaponry and all this equipment. So it gets in and they have some state actors who are helping them out for.

Sam Stone: Fantastic. Paul, I want to thank you so much for joining us today. How do folks stay in touch with you and follow your work? Because obviously, we'd love to have you back on the program. I thought this was a fascinating discussion. I'm sure a lot of folks out there want to stay in tune with the work you're doing.

Paul Mcleary: Yeah, thanks for having me on. I write daily or multiple times a day, depending on what happens in the world. Yeah. Politico.com. I'm also on Twitter at Paul McCleary Mcleary. And if I could remember my blue Sky and threads handles, I would tell you those, but you could look me up on either one of those, and they could.

Sam Stone: Probably find you through your Twitter and take it away from there. Right?

Paul Mcleary: Exactly, exactly.

Sam Stone: Paul, thank you so much. We really, really appreciate having you on the program. Thank you for fantastic discussion today, and we'll look forward to having you back on to talk about some more of this stuff, as unfortunately, the world doesn't look like it's getting safer anytime soon.

Paul Mcleary: So thank you very much.

Sam Stone: Okay, folks, make sure you stay tuned. We're going to be coming back with a couple more segments here. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he has an amazing resume.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Michele, interested to hear about this. A challenger to Stanton.

Sam Stone: It's a it's a blue seat. You got to you got to be ready to fight.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: I want to hear the strategy. Yeah.

Sam Stone: Me too. All right, folks, breaking battlegrounds. Coming back with more in just a moment. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds, folks. You've been hearing us talk about why reify for a while now, and if you haven't gone on their website and checked them out, you need to do it today. Especially with the stock market as discombobulated as it is, the market's going up. It's going down. World events are decimating people's bankrolls and their futures. So you need to check out our friends at Invest Refy. You can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's not correlated to the stock market. All you got to do is go there, invest the letter Y, then refy.com, or give them a call at 888. Y REFY 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you, and you'll do a fantastic thing to help secure your financial future and your family's future. So moving on with our next segment today. We are very excited to talk to recently announced congressional candidate Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. He is running against Greg Stanton here in Arizona. For folks who don't know, Stanton is the former mayor of Phoenix. He campaigns as a moderate. He governs as an extreme liberal. He did this when he was at the city of Phoenix, when he was on the council. And as the mayor, he will talk the the middle of the road all day long, but he votes the far left lane. But on the other hand, Greg Stanton is a tough competitor. He knows how to campaign. He knows how to to win in these races. And so, Dr. Jasser, thank you for joining us today. And welcome to the program. You've got a big hill to climb, but I think you're the type of guy who can climb it. Tell us a little bit about you and your background first.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Well, I served in the Navy for 11 years as a physician. My family emigrated from Syria in the 60s as political refugees and got asylum here. I grew up in Wisconsin, was on a Navy scholarship for medical school, and moved here to join my father in practice in 99. My dad was a cardiologist and internal medicine doc here in town, and I've been in primary care running a small business in Maricopa County. And with most of my patients actually from the district area for now 25 years, and been very involved not only in the medical society. As a past president of the American, I'm sorry, the Arizona medical Association, but also active on the Maricopa County Board of Health and a number of areas in the community, but also post nine divided by 11, have been very active in Islamic reform, counterterrorism. And as we see now, it's more relevant than ever and have been leading the charge nationally and globally, actually in Islamic reform and counter ideology. And I think that it's time for new leadership. It's time for folks that our community trusts and have looked to leadership on a number of issues, not only in health care. I mean, through the pandemic, for example, I was one of the few docs to to stand up and say, listen, we shouldn't have these shutdowns that destroy American businesses. We shouldn't be printing money. We should allow the engine of American economy to work. And I'm for free speech and the ability of American citizens to make their own decisions and not have government make the decisions for them. And I think it's time to to send people like Congressman Stanton back home, as they are simply empty suits who talk the talk sometimes when it suits their purposes and campaigns. But the reality is, is he's a rubber stamp for President Biden and also the far left radical progressivists that are anti-Semitic and un-American.

Sam Stone: And, Doctor Dr. Jasser, you have served two terms as a US Senate appointee and vice chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, which I think is actually one of those groups that does really good work that a lot of people don't know about. We have only about two minutes before we go to break here. We're going to be coming back for more. But tell us a little bit about that experience and what your work was there.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Yeah. Thank you. Senator McConnell had appointed me based on the recommendation from Senator Kyl back in 2010. It took a year and a half of vetting. I was one of the first appointees that President Obama actually refused to accept, even though the Republican seat that should have just been accepted. But the the Islamists across the country did not want me in their served for four years. That's an independent body that had nine seats, three from the Senate, three from the House and three from the white House. That is pretty balanced. And it provides feedback to the State Department, to appropriations and others about how we spend our money abroad, and the fact that America should stand behind forces of freedom, religious freedom, protecting minorities, such as. And what I spoke out quite a bit about was the protection of Christian minority Jewish minorities across Muslim majority countries, across the planet. And 2013 we went to Egypt. I confronted the Muslim Brotherhood in meetings at the time. I went to Saudi Arabia three times and basically told our State Department that they were mistranslating things intentionally to make it seem like the Saudis were more moderate than they were. And now, fast forward, we realize we need adults in the room. And this is some of the experience, I think, that would shape my ability to do a lot more as a member of Congress and represent our constituents much better than Congressman Stanton, who really has really very little to show on what he's done in his three terms.

Sam Stone: Yeah. You know, for folks who know, I worked at the city of Phoenix while Greg Stanton was mayor there, and quite frankly, he had very little to show for his time at the city of Phoenix. You know, he is he's one of those go along to get along rubber stamp votes. And folks are not being well served by him here and here in Arizona. So we're going to be coming back with more from Dr. Zuhdi Jasser in just a moment.

Advertisement: At Overstock, we know home is a pretty important place, and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms, Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high quality furniture and decor you need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock. Making dream homes come true.

Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with the host Sam Stone and Michelle Ugenti-rita in the studio with me today on the line, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he's running for Congress against Greg Stanton. And while we were at the break, Michelle was asking a good question because we're broadcast now across this country, literally from coast to coast. Yes, a lot of people probably have no idea who Greg Stanton is or what this district is we're talking about.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Yeah. Let them know what the geographical makeup.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Yeah, it's a CD four. It includes all of Tempe, most of Mesa, and also Ahwatukee Phoenix. And demographically, it's a very diverse district with various populations of the community that include a large Hispanic population and, and a number of faith representations. And also the numbers Republicans should win this district. It's not as democratically blue as it was when Stan got elected. It's now plus 2%. It was split completely down the center presidential ballot with 49.1 to 49. Biden, Trump and right now registers heavier Republican by 3 to 4% with a large independent registration. So it's definitely winnable by a conservative, by Republican and with the right candidate and the right background. And that can take Stanton to task.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Very competitive district.

Sam Stone: Yeah. It is. And it's funny because it includes a big Mormon population in portions of it. But you also have Tempe where ASU is, which is is very blue around that. So Dr. Jasser, you mentioned kind of briefly that you were one of the few physicians in the country who kind of stood up to the Covid restrictions that were rolled out and all the limitations on on people, the lockdowns and everything else. Tell how how tough was that? Because there really weren't many physicians who were able or willing to do that at that time. And I think a lot of them I've talked to kind of regret not taking that that tough road that you did.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Yeah. You know, this is one of the reasons I'm, you know, after being an activist and small business medicine for some time, I'm putting my hat in the ring to politics because I see folks like Stanton in politics. And I ask, where is their courage? Why? Why the demagoguery in which they say one thing privately and do something else publicly and so many physicians, unfortunately, from Fauci on down here, we have a profession that for a long time, I can tell you in primary care, I'm often trying to push physicians to tell my patients what they should do, because they're often giving them a buffet of choices and often are noncommittal. And yet, in the pandemic, we were basically our our profession almost willingly became weaponized in order to tell government that they should shut down businesses, shame gyms and shame restaurants and others into shutting down. I understand initially, until we figured out what was going on for 4 to 6 weeks, maybe it made sense. But after that, when did America become the most risk averse country in the planet in which we were basically telling businesses, telling families, somehow I became the only profession that was essential. I mean, health care is not the only essential profession. Every family is essential when they want to put food on the table for their kids and their families. And we then started doing disease trading. I was telling medical leaders here in Arizona and was on the radio frequently in television saying, listen, you're going to delay the treatment of elective procedures of cancer, screenings of patients with abdominal pain, asthma attacks, heart attacks and chest pain.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: And true enough, there's going to be pandemics after the pandemic. And we saw that now in the last year, so many diseases were delayed, so many treatments were traded for that one virus. It didn't make sense from a public health perspective. It didn't make sense from an American choice perspective. Let families make their own decisions. And yet politicians locked us up, told us that they couldn't go to work. And I was talking to so many people in the district that were saying they wanted to work, and they were being forced to wear masks, and sometimes they didn't disagree. They disagreed with that. They were suppressed in their free speech. They couldn't speak out against what government was mandating. And it's just from every perspective. And I think the people of this district, especially that includes ASU and other places where free speech should be a big part of who we are. I think there's going to be a large pushback in this election, as we're seeing, for example, even on the left with Rfk's candidacy and others, there's folks that are really fed up with government controlling so many aspects of our of our lives.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Yeah. Well, I would say I mean, Covid to me was about control. I think you really hit the nail on the head there about control. How do you see the campaign moving forward right now? Are you the only Republican in the race?

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: No. We've got a contested primary against Kelly Cooper and I've I've not met Kelly. Look forward to a challenge and challenging him. You know last time he had his hat in the ring and unfortunately lost by 12 points. So I think it's time for a new candidate, new platforms. And I think we can hit Stanton with a much broader and I think diverse portfolio, if you will, for the constituents to appeal to.

Sam Stone: Yeah. And for folks again, who don't know, outside of Arizona, Kelly Cooper, a local businessman, owns a handful of restaurants here locally. You know, certainly he he, you know, did as well as he could in that run, but it was still a 12 point margin. That's a tough seat. But I think it does take a little bit more experience. And maybe he could bring that in a second run. But you come to the table with that here for your first run.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Yes. And I think it's this is the issue I believe in meritocracy. That's what America is all about. And have the voters decide, you know, who is not only the best for their district, but the best to bring change and new leadership, because it's not just about being able to check a box and become a congressperson, but it's what's best for the district, what's best for the state, the country. I think the Republican Party needs a bit of a new branding, if you will, as far as diversity. And and we look on the far left, you've got extremists like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and I think the party of immigrants, legal immigrants as the Republican Party. And that's really the story that and the reason I believe in this country. And I've been so honored and privileged to be able to serve. So many different ways in the past few decades.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: And I think another important component of this race coming up will be turnout. So we're coming into a presidential election. And that's not what obviously last election cycle was. That was a midterm cycle. So there may be an opportunity to get this seat. If you see our side, our Republican side, really build out our turnout, the ground swell. And with Biden doing such a horrible job, I mean that in a weird way, there's a gift there. If we can capitalize on it and see if we can't win some of these more competitive seats.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Amen. And this is one of the reasons I felt, you know, sort of carpe diem. Seize the moment now. Because if you look, I became a conservative in high school right after the Carter administration and saw what inflation was doing, was a Reagan conservative in junior high. And that's when I started to do my first volunteer work. And so much of this seems the same to me, is that you see a huge swing because people are working twice as much to make the same money. They are realizing that we're losing strength. We had hostages in 79 that were taken by Iran, and now we're seeing Iran fueling another war in the Middle East. Same thing is that nature abhors a vacuum. There's been a vacuum of American influence, not only domestically, economically, but globally, militarily. And I think people you're going to see a conservative wave. And this district governor Ducey won by six points in the current polling of the current district. So with the right candidate, this district can be won. And I think it's only been lost in the past because, you know, good candidates might have said, oh, it's it's too solid for Stanton, but it's just not true. I think that toe to toe pre.

Sam Stone: 2020 though, the district legitimately was tougher because you had he had more of central Phoenix wrapped into it. Right. So it was through redistricting. Yeah.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Yes exactly. And that's why the numbers I gave you about Ducey's margin, the Republican margin of registration of 5 to 6% is all post 2020 redistricting.

Sam Stone: So one of the one of the challenges I think you're going to face in other candidates. You've got an amazing background, amazing record, is getting that out to the public in a in a year when people are talking about Arizona potentially being the having the most political spending of any state in the country, I mean, people are talking about maybe 5 to $800 million plus in political advertising spent just here in Arizona in this cycle. And obviously, you're running for Congress. You're not going to have 50 or $100 million to get your message out. How do you get across to voters who you are and who what your background is, so that they have an they can make an informed decision?

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Well, I think it's exactly what I've been doing for 25 years in primary care is you meet people, you engage them, and then they feel they can trust you and want to invest in your message and feel that you will serve their interests transparently and do the best possible to advance the interests of the district. So I think ultimately, as they hear that message, they'll want to invest in that future, because I think most of the voters are looking for new leadership. They don't want the same old failure that's been happening with the Democrats. They see that the Biden administration and the rubber stamps like Stanton have brought them nothing. And I think ultimately, you're right. It is going to take a bit of fuel. Stanton is not only an empty suit, but he's not as good a fundraiser as you know, the folklore has. Yes. The ICC dumped a lot of money into the last few months of his campaign, but that's really most where most of his money came from. And I think ultimately, this is my first run for political office, and I think people will be refreshed at seeing a new candidate who can bring new leadership for the district and ultimately want to invest in that and, and be able to produce very good.

Sam Stone: Dr. Jasser, one of one of the things here on your resume I got to ask you about, well, two things, but I'm going to start I'm going to start with the easy one. First, you were a recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal for service to the office of the Attending Physician of the US Congress. Tell us a little bit about that, because that's pretty darn cool. Yeah.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Well thank you. Yeah. My I served as a physician with the Navy for 11 years. My last billet was as a physician to Congress. I was chief resident at Bethesda Naval Hospital, which also includes NIH. And by the way, Fauci was one of our attendings out there. And after I.

Sam Stone: Did, he actually did he actually, like, treat patients?

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Sometimes you did a lot of research, done a lot of grants. And yeah, he's a smart he's a smart guy, but obviously became a politician instead of a sort of state as an academic professor, if you will. But then my last billet was the head of internal medicine at Bethesda Naval Hospital, then became the admiral for the attending physician of Congress, and he asked me to join him. There are two junior internists that are staff physicians to Congress, and I served there for a little over two years. And after that service, I received the Meritorious Service Medal. And part of it was in recognition, I don't know if you remember, but on July 24th, 1998, Russell Weston junior shot his way into the US Capitol and killed three Capitol Hill Police officers. And I was the only physician that responded to that. It was 20 yards from our medical clinic, and we did advanced trauma life support on the police officers. And unfortunately, they didn't make it. We did get them to the hospital, but it was the closest I got to terrorism directly, if you will, with the four corpsman and I that responded to that. And I talk about it, by the way, in detail in my book, A battle for the Soul of Islam and a lot of Time on service. I was a member of the USS El Paso, served in Operation Restore Hope in 93, in Somalia, and was part of that deployment.

Sam Stone: So last question before we let you go here today. You are a father of three. Your children are ages 21, 19 and 15, which means by the time it's all over, you will have had a teenager in your house for the better part of a decade and a half. Can anything prepare you as well for the battles in Congress? Is that.

Dr.Zuhdi Jasser.: Exactly? This is you know, it's the teens today especially, you know, post Covid are my poor kids were stuck at home. It made my wife and I were like, this makes no sense. Why are they at home? Covid doesn't affect them. You're affecting the next generation for no reason. They had to stare at a screen instead of socialization, and it was just the worst decision public health could have made. Absolutely.

Sam Stone: Folks, you can check out Dr. Zuhdi Jasser at Z for F or Z for Arescom. Check him out. Go on. Their breaking battlegrounds is going to be back on the air next week, and we'll look forward to as this campaign unfurls. Learning more about Dr. Jasser and his positions back next week.

Advertisement: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a Your name web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now.

Sam Stone: Welcome to the Breaking Battlegrounds podcast with your host, Sam Stone in the studio with me today, Michelle Ugenti-rita. Michelle, thank you so much for joining us. Happy to be here. And someone on the line right now that I'm excited to talk to because it's I love finding out about issues I know nothing about but that are potentially actually really impactful for folks. And so, ladies and gentlemen, we have Rick Vanmeter on right now. He is the executive director of the coalition for App Fairness, a bipartisan congressional effort aimed at to address anti-competitive policies from big tech companies Apple and Google. And yeah, they are really vicious in their, frankly, their agenda, in their agenda and their exclusion of all potential competitors. They have created these landscapes that are almost impossible to avoid and that they control totally. So Rick, thank you so much for joining us today. Welcome to the program.

Rick Vanmeter: Yeah, thanks. Thanks for having me. We're a coalition for App Fairness is a group of about 70 app developers from all over the world. Some big companies like Spotify, Epic Games, match Group, but also a lot of smaller kind of mom and pop app developers with with 1 or 2 employees. So but what unites us all is that we're all fighting these anti-competitive practices, which come through the app stores, which are holding back innovation and creating a lot of consumer harm. So look, looking forward to discussing this with you all.

Sam Stone: So how did this come about? I mean, we know that they have developed these ecosystems. And I think when you look at some of the antitrust issues behind it, it's this exclusion of app developers and other software developers from their platforms. Given that Apple and Google essentially dominate the the mobile, mobile phone and mobile device market. How were they able to do that legally?

Rick Vanmeter: Well, to your point, this really came about because of the fact that Apple and Google came to dominate the mobile, the mobile internet, if you will. So if you think back, you know, ten, 13 years ago, you had a lot of different choices for smartphones. You had iPhones, there were Android devices, windows had a phone, there was Windows Phone, there were Nokia's, there were blackberries. And at that time developed kind of the the hardware companies were competing for developers to create products and software or apps for their, their devices because they lured customers to their products. You know, if you've got cool apps on iPhones, you want to buy an iPhone. That's that's why I originally wanted to buy an iPhone.

Sam Stone: It's not just for the color of your texts.

Rick Vanmeter: That's right. Yeah. Somebody, you know, at first I had no interest in having an iPhone. Then I had a friend who had one, and he was showing me Pandora and Google Maps. And, you know, I thought all these things were really that it was because of the software on the phone that made it desirable. And then now you've basically got a system where two companies not only control 100% of the market share, but within that market share, there's no going back and forth. It's not like Coke and Pepsi, where one day you're going to buy Coke, and maybe next week you're going to buy Pepsi. Once you have an iPhone, you're locked into that Apple ecosystem and you can't get Android apps on your your iPhone and vice versa. So it's really kind of a siloed ecosystem where they have total control over developers and ultimately over what consumers can put on their phone and what they can't have on their phone.

Sam Stone: I mean, really, it's sort of, for consumers, a digital prison that you have, you can roam freely within the walls of the prison that Apple or Google create for you, but you're dependent on them to expand it, to go anywhere else.

Rick Vanmeter: Yeah, that's exactly right. And for for developers, where this is a problem is, you know, on on you can't get your software to a consumer on their phone without going through the Apple App Store. And they use that basically as a choke point to impose all of these other crazy things.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: So like what what are what are some of the things that they do.

Rick Vanmeter: So for example, one of the major concerns of our member companies is that they one thing that they will do is they will say they categorize you if you sell goods through the app. So they say you're either physical goods or digital goods and why that matters, I have no idea. But if if you sell digital goods, they say you have to use. Our payment processor to process credit card payments. So Apple Pay on the Apple devices and Google on Google devices, they both do this the exact pretty much the exact same way. So and they charge a 30% commission to process those payments, whereas a standard credit card processing fee is like 3 to 5%.

Sam Stone: So and this is for digital goods. But like so like if someone orders from whatever restaurant app, you know, Grubhub or whatever, they don't pay that same level of fee.

Rick Vanmeter: They don't. And actually that's a good example because this is a good point on, you know, kind of the arbitrary nature of this, of this determination by the two companies. So things like Grubhub don't believe are they're categorized as physical goods because they say you're getting a you know, food, you know, it's a physical thing. Whereas the companies themselves, like Grubhub might argue, well, we're just a platform, you know, we're just software. We're connecting drivers and restaurants and customers.

Sam Stone: Yeah, they make that argument extensively. Legally.

Rick Vanmeter: Yeah they do. Yeah. Uber is another example where Apple and Google said Uber is a physical good because you're getting a ride. So when you pull up your Uber app, you say where you want to go, but then you have a choice on how you want to pay. You can pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay. You can use your credit card, which they use a third party processor to process that payment. You can use Venmo, PayPal. You can even use your SkyMiles. But if you're using a dating app or if you want a streaming service, something that they determined to be digital, you don't have a choice. You have to use Apple Pay or Google Pay, and the company has to pay that 30% commission. So when you're talking about 30% commission, that's a huge amount of money, especially for small companies that are up and coming and trying to get started to pay 30% of their revenue to Apple and Google, who have provided no value for the developer. So but what do they say, other business expenses that ultimately gets added into the cost of the products that they have to consider?

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: What does Apple and Google say in response to that? There must be a justification that they rely on.

Rick Vanmeter: Sure. Yeah. What they will say is that these are our customers. And if you because they're using an iPhone, they are apples customers. Of course, Spotify might say our customers to, you know, just because you that like if. If you use your Toyota Camry to drive through a drive through at McDonald's, and then. Toyota wanting 30% of the sale of the McDonald's food because their Toyota customer mean they're just it's just different things, right? You can be a Spotify customer and an Apple iPhone customer, but but Apple takes kind of a controlling view of that is their customer.

Sam Stone: Rick, I got to tell.

Rick Vanmeter: You, you want to right? To sell anything to them. You have to pay us a commission.

Sam Stone: I don't want you to give these car companies any ideas right now while they're looking at it.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: At this this this is a familiar issue. Has there been legislation regarding this? This sounds like something I've, I've seen introduced at the state level and maybe even at the federal level.

Rick Vanmeter: Yeah. So several different states have attempted to pass legislation that would say is very narrow and kind of one, one part of this issue, which is the payments issue. Right? So essentially saying that you you can't force developers to use your payment processor if they want to use something different, they have to be able to do it. That should be fairly common sense. You know, any other business can choose how to accept payment. You know, there are many businesses that are cash only. There are other businesses that are no cash. Some businesses accept checks, some do not. You know, for for brick and mortar stores, that's that's always the option. So that should be the option online as well. Um, that has not I don't believe that has passed in any state, and in large part because there was federal legislation introduced about two years ago, bipartisan, the Senate, by Senators Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal. Um, it did get a bit of traction in the past. Last Congress, it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee 22 two. So nearly unanimously, um, and it's a little bit broader than just that payments issue. It would also basically say that developers can offer their apps and services outside of the App Store. So that would make it basically work on your phone exactly the way you get software on your desktop computer or laptop, where you can go through the official app store to get software, or you can go directly to a developer's website and download it directly from there. So we people do this all the time. It's it's very common if you if you buy a new computer, which I did recently, I went to Microsoft's website to get Microsoft Office, you know, Outlook Word. Um, I went to Zoom's website to get, you know, to download the zoom app. I went to Spotify's website to download the Spotify app. This would essentially remove Apple and Google as the internet gatekeepers for mobile devices and just make it work like your your desktop computer or laptop.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: And I suspect they're vehemently opposed.

Rick Vanmeter: Yes, yes, there might be an understatement. Yeah, yeah, the big tech companies, I think last year spent, according to Bloomberg, they spent over $300 million in advertising against this bill and several others, you know, kind of big tech reforms. And they spent an additional, I think, $90 million in lobbying, um, which is which is just insane. I mean, it's it might be the most ever spent on a lobbying campaign. It tells you how.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Lucrative this must be.

Sam Stone: Yeah. I mean, from my understanding for Apple and Google now, they're both basically trending towards being essentially subscription services and that revenue being a much more significant portion of their business than hardware or other other services or that kind of thing. So this points right at their intended business model. Right?

Rick Vanmeter: Right. Yes. And one of the arguments that they make all the time is this is our business model, to which we say, well, you're you're just because it's your business model doesn't mean that it's right or doesn't mean that it's legal. So it can still.

Sam Stone: Be monopolistic and anti-competitive. We've had plenty of businesses that have engaged in very predatory practices like that. Rick, we have just about two minutes left. What are the current what is the current status of that legislation? What are you guys trying to get done and how can folks support your work doing that?

Rick Vanmeter: Well, the current state of the legislation is that we're hoping it will be reintroduced in the House and Senate shortly. You know the best thing, folks? Can do is to contact their members of Congress, their senators, their House members, and encourage them to support this issue. We actually have a function on our website which is app fairness.org. And you can you can go there and you can enter your address and information and it will help you contact, you know, send a message to your your representatives and senators. But there's a lot of more information there. So I would encourage folks to go to our website again. App fairness.org. And to contact your lawmakers.

Sam Stone: And tell them to support the Open Apps Market Act. Correct. Or or similar legislation. And and there can be a push to get some of this done at the state level also. I mean, it might not be as effective, but at the same time, we've seen states have a major impact on corporations like these when they pass these laws. Absolutely. Because all of a sudden they either have to start creating a patchwork system, or they have to follow what that state is leading.

Rick Vanmeter: That's right. Yeah. If a state were to pass it and folks in other states would see that it works and it's effective, it helps lower prices and probably have a lot of app developers moving to that state. Yeah, it could grow from there. So we definitely would not discourage that at all.

Sam Stone: Fantastic. Rick Vanmeter, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate having you on the program, folks. Make sure you check them out at the coalition for App Fairness and the Open Apps Market Act. I'm going to trip over that if I try to say it again. But thank you again, Rick, so much for joining us. We really appreciate having you on the program and look forward to getting an update, hopefully down the road when this moves forward.

Rick Vanmeter: That sounds great. Thanks for having me.

Sam Stone: Perfect. Thank you. All right, Michelle, I want to thank Rick Vanmeter for his time on the program. Really appreciate having him. But I got to got to get to something that, folks, if you're outside of Arizona, you're probably rolling your eyes because this is a little bit of an Arizona heavy episode. But at the same time, there is one of these organizations in your state, too. And if you're not aware of who they are and the work they're doing to undermine public education, quite frankly, you should be. We're talking about the Arizona School Boards Association. There is a National School Boards Association. There are basically branches in every state. These are hard left organizations that pretend to be nonpartisan.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: When they're the exact opposite.

Sam Stone: When they're the exact opposite. I mean, they are they are so far lefty. Remember, these are the ones they got in big trouble around. Some of the trans stuff. They got big trouble around some of the Covid stuff. These organizations are.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: They're like an arm of the the the.

Sam Stone: Teachers union.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Yeah, the teachers union. It's exactly right.

Sam Stone: And and they control by the way, this is where schools get their superintendents from, right?

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: This is where they're farmed. Right.

Sam Stone: If you wonder where your superintendent came from, who put them up for that job? It was your local school board association or your state or your national. So they have a huge influence on what happens with schools, which makes this week's news in Arizona just a little bit more entertaining. So, Michelle, it came out today that the Arizona School Boards Association hired as their executive director a ridiculous nutjob commie Democrat.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Perfect for them.

Sam Stone: Yeah, perfect for them. But who lied on his resume? Oh, and doesn't have a college degree?

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Well, whoopsies.

Sam Stone: Now he has put this on multiple applications and resumes. Not only for this, but he tried to get a maricopa supervisor, you know, supervisor seat. He applied for that.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Oh, as an as as an.

Sam Stone: Appointee and he didn't get it. But he had that on his resume. When he applied for that. He served as a temporary appointee in the state legislature. As a far left dem and he had it on his resume there. But then this fool had had gone on.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: So it was working for him.

Sam Stone: It was working for him. Except that he went on some friends podcast in 2020 and told the truth.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Well, how would you do that?

Sam Stone: I don't know, it's.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Not that smart at the end of the day.

Sam Stone: Oh my goodness. Seriously. Like so here's the thing. Like I don't even care that he doesn't have a college degree. What does that.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Matter? Right? But why'd you lie about it?

Sam Stone: Yeah. What is it again? Why does it matter? And then the school board is being called out. They found out about it.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: What are they going to do? Have they said anything?

Sam Stone: They. They have a lawyer looking into it. Right. Who came away with. Okay. No, he didn't go to college. But more to the point, they weren't then going to they were going to sweep this under the rug and just go on. And they're paying him, by the way, $215,000 a year.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Is. Are you really?

Sam Stone: Yeah. For to be the executive director for the state school board Association, which, by the way, is a cakewalk of a job.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: And what are you doing? You're coordinating your.

Sam Stone: Coordinating some meetings each year. They have like a monthly meeting and then they have an annual meeting. I'm sure you're coordinating those and you're coordinating messaging and you're recruiting candidates to to come be school leaders. It's not a $200,000 job.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: You know, what's this organization even doing? I mean, beyond just the executive director position.

Sam Stone: Why do they exist?

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Yeah, that's right. There's like a broader question there. Why do they exist? They have been nothing but a thorn in the side of students parents.

Sam Stone: And they're paid for.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: By the legislature.

Sam Stone: They're paid for with tax money. Right.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Because these are this is this is an association and the school boards pay dues.

Sam Stone: Yeah. The schools are all members. The districts are members. The school boards pay dues. So, I mean, these are they work.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Against the interests of students and of parents and of hardworking teachers who just want to, you know, get in the classroom and and teach. Yeah.

Sam Stone: And folks, again, this isn't just Arizona. This is going on. They may not have hired a liar in every other state.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: I don't know.

Sam Stone: Possible in at least a few of them. But I mean, but this is going on everywhere. And why does you ask the right question, Michelle? Why does this organization exist? What is the point?

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Well, when this happens, a lot of times they consolidate, right? And there's just a lot more power and control when you can consolidate the school boards and then have everybody in lockstep, in unison, saying the same thing the same way, and it looks like there's a much bigger support for your message when it's all coordinated by a select few.

Sam Stone: Yeah. So so to your point, the school board associations actually put out and train all the school board members at all the different schools on their approved agenda.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: And the school board should be like, what approved agenda? I'm a school board member. I will approve our agenda for our district, but you have the association wanting to combine all of that and take advantage of the control that you get when everybody's saying the same thing. This is all about propaganda pushing.

Sam Stone: Isn't that even, like entirely the point of having independent school boards?

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: That's right. Exactly.

Sam Stone: Because otherwise, wouldn't you just elect a state school board? That was these people. Basically, why do we have.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: 200 plus districts? Right? Right.

Sam Stone: Yeah. Because otherwise, again, this this throws out the entire notion of local control disappears.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: I mean, this is a one size fits all for education. And that's the exact opposite that those at the local level like to say they support, which is something that's far more connected to the local districts and those that you know are in school.

Sam Stone: It's really amazing what's going on with our public schools. Like I'm not I used to a few years ago and tell me if you agree or disagree, but a few years ago I was like, no, we can turn this around. We can save them. I'm kind of at the point, like just tear it down and start over because they're just such a disaster.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: You know, I have three kids in public school and it's there's there's a lot of great moments. The problem the problem is there's so much fear and there's they've abandoned independence. They've abandoned their teachers, their, you know, teachers can't do what they want in their classroom. There's so everyone's being watched and they're really been exploited. And now this is an area where they can get to your kids before you can. And you know, there's a distrust. You know, that's how I feel as a parent. I dropped my kids off and I am like, I hope you're teaching the basics.

Sam Stone: How much of this do you think? I've always wondered about this, but how much of the hard core left movement in schools, which has gotten way worse in the last decade or two? How much of that has come from a combination of helicopter parents and endemic lawsuits from those parents? Right.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: I think a lot. I mean.

Sam Stone: It's kind of a defense mechanism against that, isn't it? Like the way they're doing it.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Well, I just think that schools have gotten way too outside their scope.

Sam Stone: I'll give you a good example. So the local school district that I live in, they have I think the last time I looked at the numbers, it was like 37,000 students. They deliver 90,000 meals a day.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Yeah. Yeah. Right. So exactly like they're, you know, their you they're they're addressing food and mental well-being and, you know, education and sex and, you know, personal health issues. And they're just getting way too big and they're becoming way too integral into like, your student and your child's life when they just need to be talking about math, science, reading, writing. But this is a way to get to your kids. That's what's so sad.

Sam Stone: You know, I think there's a lot of sometimes good intentions gone wrong in a lot of this stuff, right? But at the end of the day, I think they've just made themselves so vulnerable to this sort of Marxian philosophy where they have just decided we're going to take over the schools and mis educate the children and the way we want, and that's going to change the world and the way we see it, and they may not be wrong, is what worries me.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Well, the good news is, if you have parents who are active in a child's life, then a lot of this stuff can be combated. I find that the problem is when you have schools that have an agenda and are looking to exploit and then, you know, parents and caregivers who aren't, as.

Sam Stone: Some of the narratives, though, seem worse than that, like the anti-police narrative, the anti-Israel one.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: At the school level. Yeah, yeah.

Sam Stone: Like, these things are societally destructive. I mean, you talk to Democrats. You've heard this a lot this week. Israel is an apartheid state. Well, it's empirically not. The people of Gaza are prisoners. They are empirically not. It's an occupation. They hadn't set foot inside Gaza since Israel had not set foot inside Gaza since 2005. The blockade is not a blockade. It's basically a checkpoint where they try to limit the number of weapons that come in via the sea. So they just checking the cargo ships. It's essentially a port control.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Well, I mean, we're talking about something that I don't really know needs to even be discussed in school. I mean, you know, maybe you want to acknowledge it, but in terms of talking about the complexities of the issue, I mean, those are conversations that are probably best for home. It really has no relevancy in your arithmetic class.

Sam Stone: It's also, I think, the age at which you're exposing kids to some of those.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: True. I mean, is it a second grader, you know, or are you talking about high school?

Sam Stone: That was one of my complaints. Do you remember the old La Raza studies issues here in the state? Right. Uh huh. And one of my issues, I read through those books and I was like, you know, this all material is good when you're in college and you can question your teachers, and you don't have to assume they're right about everything, but it doesn't work when you're in high school. And the default for most kids is, well, if the teacher says that, then that's true. Like, as you get older, you learn that that may not really be the case.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: That's such a good point because I had this come up with with my kids. They were given ID badges. You know, they have an ID badge. And this year there was a chip put into it so that when you got off the bus, if you rode the bus, I mean, it would, it would log when you got on and off the bus and I hole punched them out and said, you know, you can have the ID, but not with a tracking chip in there. And my, my kids were like, mom, it's not. I'm like, what do you mean it's not? They're like, well, that's because the principal went on the loudspeaker and said it wasn't. And I'm like, so yeah, tell me why. How when it logs, it's an RFID chip. Yeah, yeah. How it logs where and when you're located. That's not tracking. I go did it measure your weight right. You're like, but it's mom. They said it's not tracking. I'm like, no, honey, I know, but what's the justification to your point? They just took it, right? And we had to spend, you know, I had to spend 45 minutes unwinding that and helping them understand that that's not the case. And let's use logic and let's work backwards from that statement and see if we can justify it. And you can.

Sam Stone: A perfect example we dealt with at the city of Phoenix was around the traffic cameras, the red light cameras and that sort of thing. So the city told us for years that these things only take a still photo. Oh video. When a car goes through illegally. Right. And they told us that over and over and over here. Here's what we get. They even showed us that the videos and the photos, they're like, this is all we have, doesn't show anything else. We get into it and bring someone from that company in and put them up on the on the dais where they're now. They're afraid to perjure themselves. Right, right. Because it goes on public record. And so we start asking them those questions and it's like, well, no. So the camera's always running. It's running 24 over seven facial recognition. It's running 24 over seven license plate recognition. It's running geolocation data and all of that's gathered. But we don't give that to the city.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Right. But you can subpoena it.

Sam Stone: Yeah but but but what do you do with it? Oh, we sell it.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Yeah.

Sam Stone: In. What are they selling data on your kids?

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: That's what I was saying. What was the. What was the purpose of it? Did they tell you the purpose? Well, what's the harm? Well, no. You see, you guys, you're not looking at it at the right way. It's your autonomy. It's your privacy. You shouldn't have to justify why you want to keep it that way. They should have to justify why there's some overarching interest that makes a compelling one, that makes it so they can take it from you. But yeah, but if you just believe everyone at first blush, particularly in the K through 12 world, God only knows what you're going to.

Sam Stone: Yeah, well, they will look.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: To you to come out at.

Sam Stone: They will look you straight in the face, I.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Know and just blatantly.

Sam Stone: Yeah.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Tell you the sky's not blue.

Sam Stone: Yeah, yeah. Like we don't base our curriculum on on CRT.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Really. Right. That's not a tracking device. It's not interesting.

Sam Stone: Folks. Thank you so much for tuning in again today. We really appreciate having you join us on the program. Make sure you share this with your friends. Share the podcast around. That's how we know you're actually interested in things we're yapping about here. And it's worth coming into the studio every week to do this. So again, thank you for joining us for Chuck. This is Sam for Michelle. I'll let you say goodbye to the.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita: Yeah, please share it. And we appreciate the listeners out there. And everyone have a great weekend.

Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe