Democrats Wage Insurrection Against Trump

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm your host, Karen McKinney, and this is tipping point.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
We will not take this.

Speaker 3 (00:20):
We will fight back. And as I calls out because
I've never been out here for a long time, he
shut down the city. We I have war anytime. Anytime
a person can paid two hundred and fifty million dollars
into a campaign and they've been given access for access

(00:44):
to the Department of Treasury of the United States of America,
we are at war.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
For everyone crying about an insurrection for the last four years, well,
I don't know, here's your actual insurrection. Members of Congress
are trying to usurple the power of the executive branch
in direct opposition given to it by its mandate from
the people of the United States. Strange that this is
the issue that Democrats believe is the hill to die
on Politically, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency came after

(01:14):
their left wing patronage network at USAID and is now
reviewing payments issue through the Treasury Department. For end of
the show, Greg Price, the Rapid Response director for President
Trump's twenty twenty four bid, points out that quote I
assumed at the beginning of the Trump administration that the
Democrats would be calling for war in the streets over
the deportation of their voters, But it turns out they

(01:35):
care even more about laundering as much of your money
as possible to foreign countries and Ngosa.

Speaker 4 (01:40):
Quote.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
Democrats have been out protesting for days now and they
aren't showing signs of letting up anytime soon. Here Senator
Ed Markey calling for another twenty twenty style color revolution
for regime change there in DC.

Speaker 5 (01:54):
Is the time when we have to stand up and
to fight, to not stand up on the sidelines to
have people buy them millions people buy them millions, are
gonna have to stand up and protests. When we come
back here the next time, there should be hundreds of
thousands and millions of people descending on Washington, DC.

Speaker 1 (02:17):
Now, obviously he's not going to put it into those
exact terms that I use, but that's what he means.
And since the funding spigots for those movements or what
are directly under threat by Trump and Doge, don't be
surprised if they do astro turf another year of riding
that they try to pretend is completely organic. Joining us
now to discuss as Military Defense Attorney Davis. John's Davis,
thanks for being here tonight.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Good evening, Kara Ray.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
So, sitting Democrat members of Congress say they are at
war with what the American people voted for.

Speaker 4 (02:45):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
I think that's a little insurrection. I know I'm being
a little loose with the term, but hey, they set
that precedent, So what do you think.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
I mean, Listen, this is extremely dangerous rhetoric. But it's
the same kind of rhetoric that we saw during the
camp I mean, you have a sitting member of Congress
openly calling it war and saying we are at war.
How are people supposed to understand that to be, you know,
anything other than dangerous rhetoric. So I think this is

(03:14):
just an example of where they are at. And the
reality is you said it very well. This is the
executive branch. This is the executive branch exercising their authority
over these discretionary acts. And quite frankly, you're looking at
an organization and USAID that is overstepping any authorization it has.
It was created by an executive order, so we shouldn't

(03:34):
be surprised when executive orders are shutting it down and
ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not being spent to further
interests that are not for the benefit of the American people.
We're just beginning to scratch the surface on the level
of fraud, waste, and abuse that's there, and this absolutely
appears to be money laundering organizations. You just have to

(03:54):
watch the news go on X and you'll see repeated
lists of people and organizations that are actively, you know,
campaigning against and trying to undermine the Trump administration that
received money through USAID grants. It is just mind blowing
the level of corruption that we're seeing.

Speaker 4 (04:12):
That it is.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
And it's interesting, as Greg Price, when he pointed that out,
it just all these little lights went on in my
head and I thought, that's so true. I think we
were all bracing for the impact of the deportations being
the big bugaboo for the left, that that was what
they were going to stake everything on, that they were
going to try and geese up some riots over it,
that they were going to try and get some images
of crying people to splash all over the media, and
that that would be what we would have to in

(04:34):
a pr sense, defend against. But I think it shows
how bad the open borders really was for Democrats in
last year's election. Remember how Kamala tried to change up
some of her rhetoric by trying to act like she
and the Democrats were tough on the border, which is laughable, right,
we all know open borders, that's been their mos since
the beginning. But their language tried to change because their

(04:55):
internal polling showed that Democrats were even upset. You could
see in states like New York, they were furious. In
blue cities like Chicago, Democrat voters again were furious over
what was being done with illegal immigration. How is disrupting
welfare benefits, disrupting youth leagues for kids, and of course
the violence and everything else that comes with it. So
that ended up being I think too much of a

(05:17):
tough sell. And so now they're pivoting to what I
think is an even deeper core issue for them, and
it's these this left wing funding patronage network. I talked
about it a little bit last night. Right, We would
always say wokeness who.

Speaker 4 (05:29):
Really believes in that.

Speaker 1 (05:30):
There's not a whole lot of true believers in it,
but all the institutions of power all came out in
full force right to and force it on us, and
then you think, oh, it's all the money, right, and
you start to see the networks and what they were
trying to do with the money. So I mean it's
really no wonder right that this now is going to
be the issue that these democrats you know, live and
die on. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (05:51):
Absolutely, we're the more we learn, the more we're realizing
that these democratic entities and even news media outlets, news
media outlets in other countries like the BBC, see Politico
in our own country, we're getting grants and funding through USAID.
I mean, just imagine what that means. It makes you
almost feel foolish, like why didn't I start a non

(06:11):
governmental organization and get millions of dollars for the federal government.
You know, I wouldn't do that, but it just it's
ridiculous when you start looking at the amount of money
that's here in the corruption and then you peel it
back and you realize, Wow, this is why these people,
these so called you know, religious charities and other organizations
were advocating so hard against a Trump presidency because when

(06:32):
Trump was talking about the deep state, part of what
he was talking about is this, you know, circular funding
of these organizations, and I think as we go deeper
into this, you're going to see more and more layers
of corruption and just be shocked at the millions and
millions billions of dollars that are being wasted of American
taxpayer money to fund things the American people would never support,

(06:55):
even to fund things overseas that those governments in those
other countries don't want to support. It's exporting this woke,
you know, communist Marxist agenda oversees this immorality overseas. It
is shocking. I'm just praising God. We're starting to see
just the tip of the iceberg of what's there, and
I'm glad it's happening to expose this to the light
of day.

Speaker 4 (07:15):
Yeah, and it's amazing records.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
So we would always say that the media, oh, it
acts as an extension or a guard dog of Barking,
guard dog for the Democrat Party. And a lot of that,
I'm sure is ideology within those institutions. A lot of
them tend to be more left wing minded types. But
also we see, as you were saying a moment ago,
with the money, and I think that maybe it should
have been what we're thinking about earlier but as far

(07:37):
as Politico goes, with the millions they were getting, as
far as I've heard, a lot of that was undisclosed,
So that wasn't even being disclosed outwardly. I think the
Associated Press was on the take. I think I'm hearing
there was some HAHS funds as well that were going
to the New York Times. So we start to see
this growing picture. We remember how Big Pharma bought up
all those ads during COVID and how it really skewed

(07:58):
how the coverage of COVID nineteen the vaccines and treatments
for it or lack thereo, since they didn't let us
get too many effective treatments out there. But you start
to see right this this larger picture that's really coming
to fruition, and as you mentioned, with exporting these ideas
abroad once again through journalistic outputs the BBC and others.

(08:18):
When we see with the USAID, Mike Ben's is great.
He used to be in the State Department under Trump
and now he's really exposing.

Speaker 4 (08:23):
A lot of this.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
But he was saying that the USAID money that we're
using to pay for transgender videos.

Speaker 4 (08:30):
I just saw it on Exit.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
Ecuador with all the men with the makeup on doing
all sorts of weird stuff on our dime. But you
see that, right, the abortion, the same sex marriage, and
on and on, all being exported. The interesting thing to
note though, when he was naming these countries and how
it has directly led to instability. It's destabilized those nations,
and that's what our you know, that's what our State
Department usaid and the like. That's what they wanted to

(08:52):
make it easier to get what we wanted out of
those nations. And then I started to think, well, wait
a second, isn't that what China does where they export
all this left wing wokeness, but they would never ever
dare bring it upon themselves because they know how destabilizing
it is. But then I'm thinking our own government they're
doing it abroad to destabilize, but they're doing it here
to destabilize, right, And to me that was a big

(09:13):
alum in my head.

Speaker 4 (09:16):
Right.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
It just goes back to this question of what have
we been doing in our government institutions and why have
we been allowing this government bureaucracy to go unchecked? And
you look at it, our own government is funding the
undermining of our traditional values and our fundamental institutions. Just
like we would do to destabilize countries overseas, just like

(09:37):
China has done to destabilized countries, we're doing it to ourselves.
That's not a conspiracy theory. We're seeing it openly being
disclosed now as we go through this, so that, I mean,
that's the real shock, is that we have lost control
over the executive branch, the government bureaucracy. It is so large,
it has gone so unchecked that we're using strategies to

(09:58):
destabilize our own country, ourselves. And look back at the
last four years, look back at the last six years,
and just see everything that's happened, and it does start
to go, wow, we were naive. We've talked about these things.
We've talked about the problems with these you know, progressive, communist,
woke ideologies infiltrating everything. But we have been reaping, you know,

(10:19):
the consequences of this just on our streets. And now,
of course they're fighting back. Of course, you have a
sitting member of Congress talking about war. This is it
shouldn't be surprising that we're now exposing this and it's
in its death throws. I hope if the Trump administration
can continue to root this stuff out.

Speaker 1 (10:38):
And the fact that they could be putting it into
those death throws, like you're saying, is why they're all
out marching and why this is the thing that makes
them angrier more than anything. And just one last point
on Politico. You know, when they were putting out that
letter of the fifty one Intel agents, you signed the
letter promising that the hundred buying laptop scandal, don't even
look at it. It all has the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, right.

(11:00):
And then I think it was political and other outlets
at the time during the twenty twenty election who said, oh,
we don't even want to touch this store. There's nothing
here to it, you know, avert your eyes, don't look
at the man behind the curtain. And that was a reporting.
And now when we see the funding, it's like, oh,
that makes a lot of sense. So it's not just
the national security agencies that we're trying to interfere in
our elections. Because that letter of the Intel agents was

(11:22):
supposed to be emails that came out right, was supposed
to give I think it was Sullivan who was saying,
would give a talking point to Biden to use in
his debates against then President Trump when he was president
forty five, to use against him on the debate stage
against Joe Biden.

Speaker 4 (11:37):
That is so political.

Speaker 1 (11:38):
They were trying to interfere, and they did, unfortunately in
twenty twenty, successfully interfere in that election. But now we're
finding out there was a lot more federal agencies involved
in all of that. Now, when we talk about cleaning house,
another story I wanted to get to tonight with you
as a headline talking about how the FBI just revealed
that five thousand of their thirteen thousand agents were focused
on January sixth protesters, So that's about almost forty per

(12:00):
sen of the bureau, and that the FBI, now under
President Trump's acting director, has been forced to hand over
about five thousand of their employees who are working on
these j six cases to do political persecution essentially. So
what do you think should happen to some of these agents?

Speaker 4 (12:14):
Should we see a.

Speaker 1 (12:14):
Mass firing, more purgis so, should they be reassigned? Should
President Trump keep taking this giant wrecking ball.

Speaker 4 (12:21):
To these institutions? What are your thoughts?

Speaker 2 (12:24):
Yes, I think all of the above is what we
have to look at. I mean, sadly, I'm not surprised
by this number, both from my clients and even FBI
agents that I've represented and worked with. I knew it
was bad. I knew that they were siphoning resources off
to fight actual crimes to focus on January six ers
and anyone else labeled in extremists. I've had multiple military

(12:45):
clients who just made a combat for example, about women
shouldn't be in combat, and somebody reported them as an extremist,
and then the FBI would come to their house and
interview them. The FBI would come to their house. Another
military member I represent over a meme, and it's just
it doesn't seem real. It seems surreal. But that's just
the level of corruption, the level of political infiltration we're seeing.

(13:07):
So a lot there's still a lot of good FBI
agents in the department. The problem is that any of
those that actually want to do their job, all of
those resources were siphoned off for these January sixth cases.
So imagine at forty percent of the FBI is focused
on grandmothers who walked across the lawn and took a
tour through open doors of the capital. I mean, that

(13:28):
is astounding and it really was political persecution, something like
you would see in a tyrannical communist country. I mean,
this was Soviet style persecution and we're just beginning to
understand it. So, yes, there should be an absolute wrecking
ball taken to the FBI. The lead agents these in
many of the offices were political appointees that need to

(13:51):
be removed and we need to allow to the extent
we need an FBI. We need to go back to
the basics of fighting dangerous criminals and making streets safer
and not using them as an arm of a tyrannical
federal government to implement a political plan.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
Yeah, and it was just the shock and awe, as
they called it under Biden. Bry is to scare Trump's
supporters because anyone who was anywhere within the vicinity of
the Capitol, even those who were you know, stuck their
their pinky toe over the line for two minutes to
take a selfie, or those who didn't even enter the
Capitol building itself, were being brought up on all sorts
of charges. And so the idea was to isolate Trump
supporters for the next four years was don't protest whatsoever,

(14:30):
because you don't know what those FEDS are going to do,
how they're going to try and you know, juice up
some of these protests to then try and get convictions
out of it. It's scary, So then people would stay home,
they wouldn't protest, they were too afraid to even if
they had real issues. They need to get off their chests.
And then it was designed to then isolate because if
no one's protesting, then it seems like everyone loves good
old Joe Biden, and obviously that's manifestly not the case.

(14:51):
So I mean, it's just so political all the way around.
Like you said, we're finally making that institutional change, and
I think that's been the greatest aspect so far President
Trump's way two weeks in office, it's been great.

Speaker 4 (15:02):
Davis. Thanks for joining us tonight.

Speaker 2 (15:04):
Hey, thank you, Take care and.

Speaker 1 (15:06):
Coming up next, President Trump floats the idea of the
US taking over the Gaza Strip.

Speaker 4 (15:10):
Would it be worth it? Details when we come back in.

Speaker 6 (15:12):
Two Watch an live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
one America News Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv
dot com today. That's klowd tv dot com. Today.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
Welcome back to Tipping Point. I'm your host, Karen McKinney.

Speaker 4 (15:46):
Question.

Speaker 1 (15:47):
If President Trump were to build a sunny beachside resort
along the Mediterranean, would he name it Mara Gaza. That's
what crazy liberal comedian Michael Rapaport thinks. And even if
I disagree with Rappaport like ninety nine percent of the time,
that's just plain funny line of what President Trump announced
while holding a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin and Yahoo at the White House. Even now, almost

(16:09):
twenty four hours later, everyone's still wondering is this real?

Speaker 4 (16:12):
Is this a.

Speaker 1 (16:12):
Negotiation tactic or is he trying to break through the
decades of deadly gridlock by entirely reframing the entire conversation
in a way no one has ever dreamed of before.
Who knows, But if you somehow missed his big announcement,
here's what I'm referring to.

Speaker 7 (16:25):
The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we
will do a job with it too. We'll own it
and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded
bombs and other weapons on the site. Level the site,
and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out,
create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of

(16:48):
jobs and housing for the people of the area. A
real job, do something different. Just can't go back. If
you go back, it's going to end up the same
way it has for one hundred years.

Speaker 4 (16:59):
Us now to discuss.

Speaker 1 (17:00):
As Benjamin Wingarten, editor at large for Real Clear Investigations
and a senior contributor for the Federalists. Ben thanks for
beinging back tonight.

Speaker 8 (17:08):
Thanks for having me. That was a pleasure.

Speaker 4 (17:10):
Great.

Speaker 1 (17:10):
So this is divided Republicans. There are somewhere like this
is amazing, Let's do it, others who are saying, well,
let's pump the brakes here. What's your take on what
President Trump just floated there?

Speaker 8 (17:21):
Well, I think that what President Trump has done, and
this is really consistent with the Abraham Accords, is he
has smashed the paradigm that prevailed over our national security
and foreign policy blob for decades and says essentially that
the Palestinian Arab Israeli conflict is not the primary challenge

(17:43):
in the region, and we have to look past it,
and we have to address the facts on the ground
as they are, and if the Palestinian Arabs are going
to be totally intransigent, and they're going to be ruled
by Hamas or Hamas Lighte in the Palestinian authority, and
their entire existence is going to be predicated in genocidal
jihadism and jew hatred. Then we're going to go right

(18:03):
past them, and we're going to look to other partners
in the region to build up Israel as a pillar
really of American stability alongside Sunni Arab partners, where a
strong Israel serves as a burden sharing force and essentially
takes the Middle East off of America's plate. And when
Israel is strong, the Sunni Arab powers respect the strong

(18:26):
course in the region, and consequently then you at peace.
And we were told that the recognition of Jerusalem is
the capital, asserting the sovereignty over the Goal on Heights, etc.
That all of these moves were going to lead to jihadism,
and instead you got the Abraham Accords. And I think
this is keeping in line with that view that we
have to accept the realities on the ground as they are.

(18:47):
What are the realities on the ground as the President's
team have laighed them out. Gaza is uninhabitable at this
point for anyone. Palestinian Arabs are not.

Speaker 9 (18:55):
Let's not forget.

Speaker 8 (18:56):
The Palestinian Arabs were seeded Gaza by Israel with all
manner of infrastructure in place, billions of dollars in aid,
the full backing of the international community so called. And
what did they do. They destroyed the infrastructure they were bequeathed,
They elected Hamas, they took the billions of dollars and
turned it into a terror state. And who could live
alongside that? And then they launched a war. And there

(19:18):
are consequences to wars, and wars used to be decisive.
You had winners and losers. And what the President has
declared here essentially is that they are a loser in
this case. But the loss is not going to lead
to some occupation like we've had historically. Instead, the Arab
powers are going to be responsible for people that they

(19:41):
made refugees in the first place, and they should be
resettled there by the way, under international law, Egypt closed
its borders. Egypt's supposed to have to open up its
borders in a wartime if the Palestinian Arab, if the
Arab world cares about the Palestinian Arabs, then they should
welcome them with open arms.

Speaker 9 (19:59):
Gaza will be re built.

Speaker 8 (20:00):
Obviously, the devil is going to be in the details
of what that rebuide looks like. And so you have
people talking about, well, we don't want to get into
nation building, we don't want US forces on the ground,
all that, and all of those are of course well
taken points, and I'm sure points that the President has
thought through. But the starting point is it's an uninhabitable
area and what happened the status quo anti cannot be

(20:22):
the status quo going forward. And this is a recognition
of that. It's saying what everyone understands as the reality
on the ground. And of course the left is up
in arms. They're going to scream ethnic cleansing, et cetera.
But it couldn't be further from that. What this actually
is is providing an opportunity for a better life for people,
and hopefully they take that opportunity and they don't again

(20:42):
descend into genocidogiantism.

Speaker 1 (20:45):
I know Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, these are more
US aligned right Arab states, and I know they have
to make some noise and some fuss about what's going on.
But as far as I've heard, in the regents, usually
the leadership more or less wants to align with the US,
but their populations of course want to side with the
Palestinians because they see it as a as.

Speaker 4 (21:04):
A Muslim issue.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
Right, So do you think that they may be making
some noise now but that eventually they will work with
President Trump and Israel on some sort of an agreement
to make the area, like you said, habitable. Again with
about a minute or so left on the clock.

Speaker 8 (21:19):
Well, it's worth noting, like you said, the Palistinanerbs themselves
ethnically are typically they were under Egyptian rule, and they're
Jordanian largely as well, So why wouldn't they welcome people
who are of the same ethnicity, language, culture, etc.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
But to your.

Speaker 8 (21:34):
Point, there have been issues with Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon,
in Jordan and beyond because they did the same thing
they did from Gaza. They threatened the leadership there with
their genocide of jihadism. To your point, Sunni Arab leaders
play it to the Arab street. They have to placate
Muslim brotherhood and aligned elements within their countries. Those are
sizeable animus Vitrioholic elements within their countries, so they do

(21:58):
have to say one thing for the Arab street and
then do another thing in their own self interest to
preserve their rule. And you saw this after October seventh,
where publicly they said that Israel was responsible as Gaza,
as the Gazans were responsible, but then reality they said,
we're very happy that Israel is dealing with the Hamas
Thurat because it threatened them as well. And I think

(22:19):
the same sort of thing is playing out here. And
by the way, America has substantial leverage over Egypt and
the stability of its leadership, as well as Jordan for
that matter. And President Trump has flexed as muscles before,
as we've seen in just the opening days of his presidency,
and other nations have come around, and I suspect we're
going to see something similar here.

Speaker 1 (22:38):
I also saw some people floating online that what if
the US is able to get a military base there,
because then it would take the wind out of the
sales And say, Qatar, a nation that we rely on
heavily in the region. But you and I have talked
about at great length the subversive element as well to
Qatar when it comes to Islamism in the Middle East
and other foreign policy issues. But then, thanks so much
for making time for us tonight, thanks for analysis.

Speaker 8 (23:00):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 4 (23:02):
And coming up next.

Speaker 1 (23:03):
We get a little abstract with the political theories behind
US foreign policy, but I promise you it will be
worth it.

Speaker 4 (23:09):
Details when we come back in.

Speaker 6 (23:10):
Two watchn Live on cloudtv dot com and see what
you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch one
America News Network. Wherever you go, visit klowd tv dot
com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
Welcome back to Tipping Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.
President Trump is turning a number of preconceptions about the
liberal consensus post war order upside down. Perhaps the greatest
one is at the unipolar moment from the early nineties
when the Soviet Union collapsed is over. At the time,
America found itself arguably to be the world's greatest and
only superpower nation. Because of that, hubris, many and d

(24:00):
see allow the art of diplomacy to atrophy. Public intellectuals
like Francis Fukuyama argued we had reached the end of history,
that all nations and cultures would eventually look like US
and how they govern themselves in what they want. But
that never happened, and now we live in a multipolar world,
meaning there are several powerful regional hegemonds that we must
engage with diplomatically. That means we need to completely rethink

(24:23):
how we conduct ourselves on the world stage. For example,
what good would it do to rely so heavily on
sanctions when the bricks nations of Brazil, Russia, India, China,
and South Africa are basic constructing parallel economies and global
financial institutions that have nothing to do with the US dollar,
and therefore sanctions will have limited to no effect on
them in the future. So entrepreneur or Node Bertrand has

(24:46):
some thoughts on this, citing how the US under President
Trump is dismantling its foreign interference operations like USAID, how
Trump's Secretary of State Mark Arubio is publicly warning that
we're now living in a multipolar world where the post
war global order, he says, is not just obsolete, it
is now a weapon being used against US. And finally,
Bertrand points to Trump's tariffs and threats of tariffs around

(25:09):
the world. To all this, He observes in part quote
this is the US effectively saying our attempt at running
the world is over to each his own. Were now
just another great power, not the indispensable nation.

Speaker 4 (25:21):
It looks quote unquote.

Speaker 1 (25:22):
Dumb, as the Wall Street Journal just wrote, if you
are still mentally in the old paradigm. But it's always
a mistake to think that what the US or any
country does is dumb. Hegemony was going to end sooner
or later. Now the US is basically choosing to end
it on its own terms. It is the post American
world order, brought to you by America itself. Even the
tariffs on allies viewed under this angle makes sense, as

(25:44):
it redefines the concept of allies they don't want or
maybe rather can't afford vassals anymore, but rather relationships that
evolve based on current interests. You can either view it
as declined because it does unquestionably look like the end
of the American Empire, or as a void further decline
controlled withdrawal from imperial commitments in order to focus resources

(26:05):
on core national interest rather than being forced into an
even messier retreat at a later stage.

Speaker 4 (26:11):
End quote.

Speaker 1 (26:12):
You don't have to agree with Bertrand on everything. To
see that he is onto something here. This also gets
us to another question about soft power and its ability
to project power abroad. I won't deny that soft power,
such as exporting American fashion, language, culture, food, and pop culture,
doesn't have utility, because it does have utility. But the
way USAIDA has been going about it, spending billions on

(26:33):
a left wing patronage network to force other nations into
promoting leftist values like abortion or gay marriage, has only
made us more enemies. The contributing editor for the magazine
I Am seventeen seventy six, who goes by the pen
name Lafayette Lee, gave this excellent response to liberal Zaida Jelaani,
who was arguing that Trump's dismantling of USAID will cripple

(26:54):
the US government's ability to project power.

Speaker 4 (26:56):
In his response, Lee.

Speaker 1 (26:58):
Writes, quote, for years leading up to or inglorious retreat
from the region, USAID poured hundreds of millions of dollars
into West slash Central Africa, well beyond Russia's contribution, with
mirared purposes ranging from mitigating the effects of climate change
to preventing gender based violence. And yet somehow all this
soft power didn't keep us from getting booted from a

(27:19):
once friendly region along with the French in Niger, not
only did we lose a vital strategic relationship and a
one hundred million dollar base, but Russia immediately filled the
void and on a shoe string budget, no less. What
was all this money and goodwill and soft power doing
for our relationships and interests in the region and why
did they fail? It's a legitimate question, but one if

(27:40):
you are able to answer. Instead we get the usual
boilerplate about soft power with scant details. How did fighting
gender based violence in Niger align with our strategic objectives exactly?
How did it further our interests? Why are Russia and
China eating our lunch in the Sahel when we can
provide gender advisors and inclusive economic uppertunities than quote joyus

(28:01):
now to discuss, as William Ruger, the president for the
American Institute for Economic Research will thanks for being here tonight.

Speaker 9 (28:08):
Thanks for having me, Chris.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
There's a lot to get to tonight, but first to
start off with soft power is important, correct? But are
there better ways that we could be approaching it globally
than say, how USAIDEA has done thus far? Yeah?

Speaker 9 (28:22):
I mean again, I think soft power has frequently been
overrated by academics and establishment foreign policy folks, particularly the
type of soft power that emerges from programs like the
ones you've talked about with USAID, right government programs. I mean,
some of the most important aspects of soft power, even
if it is as important as people say it, are
actually those things that are produced by, for example, our

(28:46):
kind of culture are, you know, the kind of great
scientific progress we've made, the kind of things you've seen
from Elon Musk that are kind of the wonder of
the world, the kind of classic brands of America that
have been developed over deck AIDS. You'll think about that
kind of soft powers emerging from outside of the government sector.

(29:06):
So but again I think we can overrate soft power. Instead,
I think we should be really thinking about how states,
what their interests are, what our interests are, and when
those diverge, soft power isn't going to overcome that, and
when they align, that's going to be the strongest glue.
And so one of the things I liked about what
Secretary of Rubio said, for example, this week about this is, look,
if we're going to do AID, it should be AID

(29:27):
that's directly connected to our national interests. There has to
be a plausible theory I think of how it's connected,
not this kind of I think idealistic almost vibe that yes,
if we do good things in this part of the world,
or at least well intended things, that that's going to
lead to victories for the United States in terms of

(29:49):
issue linkages to things that matter a lot to us.
I just think we have to be very skeptical of
some of those latter arguments.

Speaker 4 (29:55):
I think so as well.

Speaker 1 (29:56):
And as you're talking about with Secretary of State Marco Rubio,
he's done a fantastic job thus far in his role,
and like you're explaining this, because he speaks a more
realistic language, right talking about national interest. When he talks
about Russia, China, Iran, all these other nations, he talks
about them again in terms of what their national interest is.
And that is such a break with what we've seen

(30:17):
for the last few years. Just taking Russia as an example,
how often would we hear our heads of state saying, oh, Putin,
he's just a mad man. He just went crazy one day.
You can't negotiate with someone like that. You can't ever
try and negotiate any kind of peace or have diplomacy
with that, you just have to fight them in a
dirty proxy war for many years, and you know, unfortunately
get hundreds of thousands of people in Ukraine and Russia

(30:38):
killed for and completely destroy Ukraine in its economy and
the like.

Speaker 4 (30:41):
When that's not exactly true.

Speaker 1 (30:43):
You know, Vladimir Putin, despite all the bad things you
can say about him, he is someone who has a
logical brain and he's trying to do what he believes
is in Russia's best interest. Whether or not that's in
America's best interest obviously is a separate story. But again,
dealing with different states on that bay level instead of
riding them all off as crazy and there's nothing else
you can do about it. I mean, that's how you

(31:05):
just lead everyone down into war and all sorts of
negative tensions when you could perhaps get closer to some
level of a piece, even if it's uneasy with say
Rubio strategy, right, yeah, I.

Speaker 9 (31:18):
Mean, diplomacy isn't required when there is a harmony of interest.
Diplomacy is required and when you have to build cooperative
measures when there's disagreement, right, cooperation is going to occur
when you have some level of discord and you're able
to use diplomacy to get the two sides together in
a way that meets their needs, you know. And I

(31:42):
think sometimes there's too much of this emphasis in our
foreign policy that we have to have harmony, right, There
have to be a harmony of interest and so the
idea is that we have to export the kind of
approach that the United States, or rather the approach of
the United States e leads believes will lead to that
harm So, for example, you've seen a lot of work
done by the US government under President Biden, former President

(32:05):
Biden to try to spread progressive values. And the notion
I think is that if we're progressives and they're progressives,
that will be a harmony of interests, and then that
will allow us to kind of move forward together. Well,
that's not necessarily good for us, because those of us
who disagree with those progressive values here at home certainly
don't want to export them, and others may not appreciate

(32:25):
them either, and so it can lead to discord where
you're actually trying to achieve cooperation. So again, I think
basing our foreign policy on our interests and on this
notion that all states have interests, we have to work
with that knowledge and that reality is the most important way.
And again going back to Secretary of Rubio, and I
think this expresses well President Trump's view what he said

(32:45):
in his hearings. Right, we need to focus on what
makes us more secure, what makes us stronger, and what
makes us more prosperous. And I don't think we have
to rely on these idealistic views about spreading certain types
of progressive values to lead to this harmony of interests.

Speaker 4 (33:00):
And I think that's a brilliant point that you bring
up here.

Speaker 1 (33:03):
And even if all these nations did agree on progressive values,
there's still you know, the bedrock foundational issues of geography
and how that can create tensions, natural resources, how that
can create tensions. You know, economic gains in one nation
can make other great powers in another region say hey,
maybe that country for there needs to be checked in
case they start to convert that economic power into military

(33:25):
power and attempt to use it in ways we don't like.
So even if everyone was progressive, which causes its own
set of issues, it wouldn't get rid of those fundamental
issues again, which is why we need level headed diplomats.
You can see these things a little more clearly and
be able to weigh interest. So also I talked about
a multipolar world. That is something Senator Rubio has talked about.
He said, it's not the unipolar world that everyone thought

(33:47):
it was thirty years ago. Were in a multipolar world.
So can I gave a brief explanation earlier, but could
you explain that concept a little more for the audience
and what Rubio means when he says that now that
old order is used against this, especially when it comes
to China.

Speaker 9 (34:03):
Yeah, I mean again, the idea of there being a
multipolar world is that there are three or more great powers,
or at least near peer powers. And the question is,
have we moved from what has been called a unipolar
world in which the United States is a kind of
global hedge of honor, at least is the superior power
by orders of magnitude, such that the other states don't

(34:23):
matter as much. Is whether we're moving from that world
of unipolarity to multipolarity. Now, what I would say about
this is that we're certainly moving away from where we
were in nineteen ninety one. That was a very artificial
type of international order in which we just basically have
the United States, the Soviet Union had fallen and broken apart,
and there were no other near peer competitors, it was

(34:44):
inevitable that that was going to move. And the question
is is would the United States handle that movement in
a better or worse way? And unfortunately, I think American
foreign policy over the last thirty years has squandered a
lot of those advantages. And so what I think that
the President Trump and the administration is doing Secretary Rubia
is trying to manage some of these aspects of the

(35:04):
world that are just happening, sometimes naturally in other parts
through our own mistakes, in a way that allows us
to i think, extend our global power and security, because
I'm not sure we're yet in a multipolar world, but
we need to try to maintain as much as possible
those areas where we dominate, and again to try to

(35:25):
be to maintain our security, our prosperity, and our safety
and our strength. And I think recalibrating our foreign policy,
focusing on our national interests, stop making self errors right
own goals like the Iraq War or Libya, or even
even keeping troops in Syria far beyond where they need
to be and spending those dollars abroad. Right, that's a

(35:46):
way in which we can maintain the kind of dominance
that I think is valuable to us, whether it's it's
in a kind of unbalanced unipolarity which we're like still
the top dog, but things are we're less, you know, dominant,
but still dominant, or if we're moving into a multipolar world,
which we want to make sure that among them those
multipolar states, we still meet our interests, we're still safe,

(36:07):
secure and prosperous.

Speaker 1 (36:09):
And I think one of the biggest issues when we
don't talk in terms of national interest and we talk
in these ideals that just mean whatever the person speaking
them wants them to mean. It's almost like words like
democracy these days don't have an objective meaning anymore. It
almost just means whatever the current person in power means
by democracy. But that has allowed us to stretch ourselves
so thin. It's allowed us to stretch, as you were saying,

(36:31):
with bases and men and putting them everywhere. And there
is a need for that to a degree. But we
need to reassess where our strings are and to basically
get rid of what has become dead weight to us,
and to go back to some of our roots and say, well,
you know, I think Europe is an important theater for us.
Northeast Asia is an important theater for us, The goal

(36:51):
the Persian Gulf is an important theater for us. Maybe
we shouldn't be spending stretching ourselves so thin in other
areas that are not as vital to the US interest.
So do you think talking in terms of the national
interest will help to get us away from stretching ourselves
tooth in, Because you know that's how other empires, the
Roman Empire and others, that was one of their main
factors is stretching themselves tooth in, over extending, and then

(37:13):
the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Speaker 9 (37:16):
Yeah, I think there's some truth to that. And one
way I like to think of it is that America
is reloading. Right. It's not that we don't want to
be the most powerful country on the earth. It's that
we want to reload and maintain the strengths so that
we can engage when we need to. But that we're
smart about about how we use, say, our military power,
We're smart about how we spend taxpayer dollars because we

(37:39):
know that the economy is the is the kind of
foundation of our of our strength, both our military strength
and in other ways. And so I think that's why
the administration is focusing a lot on economics. How can
we make sure that our relationships with others, our trade
relationships are supportive of American interests, about how we can
be careful about about over extension, especially when it's not

(38:01):
for a goal that's so vital to us. Right, So,
something like the Panama Canal is clearly more important to
us than say the status of democracy in Hellman Province Afghanistan.
And I think President Trump in the first administration was
wise to withdraw from that conflict, and then I think
is wise to be focusing on things that are much
more near to our hearts and more important for our
security and prosperity, like the Canal, for example. So again

(38:24):
I think this is reloading American power, and I wouldn't
say that it's declinist. I don't think we should approach
it that way. It's about reloading and making sure we're
powerful so that we can choose our future as opposed
to the future being chosen for us, which is what's
going to happen if we do engage in a kind
of a kind of irrational or untended decline due to

(38:46):
mistake after mistake after mistake that we've seen from the
foreign policy establishment over the last thirty years.

Speaker 4 (38:51):
And I think that's important.

Speaker 1 (38:52):
Like you said, not to use bertrand again he brought
up some good points, but again not correct on everything.
And like you said, it's not declined, but I would
say it's more the idea of shaking off dead weight
so that we can continue to grow and be prosperous.
But will William, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
I appreciate your analysis, thanks for having me, And coming
up next, a Sorrows back to radio station in California's

(39:14):
coming under FCC investigation for allegedly outing the whereabouts of
undercover federal immigration agents.

Speaker 4 (39:20):
Details when we come back into.

Speaker 6 (39:28):
Watch o An live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv
dot com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.

Speaker 4 (39:52):
Welcome back to you, Tipping Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.

Speaker 1 (39:55):
The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, headed by Brenton Carr.
He is now investigating a Soros backed radio station out
in California. The agency's Enforcement Bureau has already sent a
formal letter of inquiry to begin to determine whether or
not the radio station violated the terms of its FCC
license by acting against the public interests. It's like the

(40:17):
years of lawfare against innocent people was really just a
bad dream, as now these federal agencies are finally going after.

Speaker 4 (40:24):
The real villains.

Speaker 1 (40:25):
Remember the pre dawn raids and secretive government surveillance of
pro lifers, parentactivists, against the LGBTQ school curricula, anti lockdown
and anti maskers, Latin mass attending Catholics, JA six political prisoners,
and of course of President Trump and of his associates.
But finally, finally, it's bad actors who have to be
on defense instead of them being able to fund ways

(40:46):
to silence their opponents us or even as you'll hear
about just a moment with this case, nearly getting them killed.
So case in point, the San Francisco based KCBS seven
forty am radio station, the one that we're poortably, gave
out specific information regarding ICE agents operating in the area
on January twenty sixth.

Speaker 10 (41:05):
Listen first, So I'm Brett Burkhard and here's what's happening.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mayhon and councilmember Peter Ortiz confirmed
today that US Immigration and Customs enforcement agents are currently
carrying out an operation on the east side of town.
The Santa Clara County Rapid Response Network, which is a
community defence projecting system for immigrant communities against deportation threats.

(41:28):
It first reported the activity on its platforms in a
statement at ACBS Radio. Mayor Mayhon says the city's police
department does not assist with or participate in these operations
in any way. The country's Counties Response Networks says agents
in San Jose were in unmarked vehicles, including a black
Dodge Durango, a gray nie On Maxima, and white Nissan truck.

(41:52):
Ice agents were also reported outside of residence on South
White and Totally Roads, and officers were reportedly at the
target on care in Story Roads. Stay with KCBS, we'll
be tracking them for you.

Speaker 1 (42:03):
They could have gotten those agents killed as they were
operating in an area known for violent gang activity, and
they could have gone random people killed too if they
happened to match the description of those federal undercover agents.
If we were still living under Biden, though, anyone speaking
out against Soros in this radio station would have been
accused of misinformation or of supporting modern day Nazis and
soon into oblivion while having their online presence censored. Now,

(42:26):
the way Soro's factors into this is that he bought
a large take in Odyssey Radio Stations last year, which
this specific station is a part of. Odyssey is the
second largest radio station network inside the US, with over
two hundred stations, right behind iHeartMedia. Sorrow Spot about four
hundred million dollars worth of their debt early last year,
and move some ward was a way to influence the

(42:48):
outcome of the twenty twenty four presidential election by controlling
what voters heard on their local news. Thankfully, the plan
didn't work, because well, four years of near absolute Democrat
rule was real just that bad. Joining us now to
discuss is Ari Hoffman, host of the Ari Hoffman Show.

Speaker 4 (43:04):
Ari, thanks for being here tonight.

Speaker 11 (43:07):
Always a pleasure. My station's not owned by George Sorow,
So you're good talking to me.

Speaker 1 (43:11):
Oh yeah, so I feel completely safe talking to you.
So going back to this story, though, how important is
it for the FCC to be investigating what we.

Speaker 11 (43:19):
Just heard in that sound by it, it's huge because
this is something that's only going to happen more often.
So I live in Seattle, Washington, and you see these
kind of posts all the time from radical organizations that say,
if you see ice operating in your area, report them
and then we'll report it for you. And they're docks
and these guys all over social media. Now half the
time they're wrong. For example, the other day, something got

(43:40):
picked up by the local media they said, are ice
trucks operating in the area. They were TSA vehicles. They
just see anything with a government logo on it and
they assume it's ice, just like what happened in Chicago
when you have the Secret Service go into a school
and the school there was convinced it was ice even
though it had nothing to do with it. But that
didn't stop JB. Pritzker and every other Democrat politician in

(44:02):
cal in Chicago from freaking out in Illinois from losing
their minds. So this is something that's going to keep
happening if the FCC doesn't make an example of these
guys right now that other stations are going to start
doing the same thing, because these activist groups are going
to keep docsing whoever they think is an Ice agent,
right or wrong.

Speaker 4 (44:20):
And it's just so dangerous.

Speaker 1 (44:22):
And so of course you're in radio, You've been in
radio for many years. Do you think what the station
did by airing that piece was in violation of the
FCC license they have?

Speaker 11 (44:32):
There's definitely questions about it. Plus then there's also ethical
questions where did you know for a fact they were
there or were you just going off these left wing websites.
I see those all the time, and I never use
them as news because they're not verified. So you've got
journalistic ethics questions about whether or not these are accurate sources,
and then you put it out there as news. Look,

(44:54):
I've gotten a talking to sometimes when I put out
my opinions sometimes as more newsy sounding, and you got
to make a clear distinction between those two. Here's my opinion,
here's actual facts. Otherwise bad things can happen. So that
was a lesson I learned very very early on in journalism.
But are these reports even accurate about where these guys were?

(45:14):
And it's a step of below swatting when you just say, oh,
go to this location, you're gonna find these guys, and
then you might have an issue. What if a whole
bunch of people decide to riot at a location and
there's not even people there. Look what's happening in California
right now, when you have people shutting down freeways blocking
emergency vehicles. What if somebody gets caught in that traffic
or in that blockage and there's not even any ice

(45:36):
agents there. During the Autonomos Zone of twenty twenty, due
to an erroneous report that somebody had broken into a
business from the rioters and that the business owner was
holding them hostage, none of which ever happened, a whole
bunch of riders showed up and trashed an auto mechanic shop.
I mean, this is how bad news spreads.

Speaker 1 (45:56):
You know, someone in a position of power has to
take that very seriously, whether it be radio stations or
what I do. And I'm glad, of course, you do
your due diligence, and I do to the best of
my ability. I also try and fulfill that as well.
Do you think the FCC, now that President Trump is
back in charge, is acting completely different than the way
it did while Biden was still in the White House.

Speaker 11 (46:15):
You know, it's crazy to me that all these federal agencies,
they're doing what they're designed to do, enforce the law,
make sure people are following the law. It's not that hard.
They're all written down anyway. It's not a matter of
adding new laws. It's a matter of enforcing what we
have on the books. And that common sense is what
is running through the Trump administration of the FBI should

(46:37):
not be investigating parents who are complaining about the curriculum
at their kids' schools. They should be investigating terrorists in country,
you know, like people walking down the street waving the
flags of terrorist organizations or attacking police officers or riots.
Maybe we should be going after those people and not
parents who are upset about the hyper sexualized education that
their kids are getting in public schools.

Speaker 1 (46:58):
I know, just just a thought, right, But as you're
talking about, and as we were mentioning a moment earlier
with George Sorow's buying up Odyssey right and has over
two hundred I think about two hundred and twenty radio
stations within the network overall. Has that had a tangible
impact at all that you've noticed? I know, like you said,
your station's not affected by this. But when you look

(47:18):
at the radio state, the radio landscape across this nation,
have you noticed any difference.

Speaker 11 (47:24):
I haven't really seen it yet. The question is already
going to see in the next election cycle where they're
running a whole bunch of content trying to influence their
listeners one way.

Speaker 4 (47:32):
Or the other.

Speaker 11 (47:33):
Because don't forget, people still watch CNN, people still watch MSNBC,
and they believe what is said on those networks because
that's what they've watched, that's what they always watch. Now
that population is getting older and the younger generations are
of course going to alternate media, new media to get
their news. Of course they're watching networks like OAAN, But

(47:54):
I don't see an effect right now. And I wonder
if George Soros just got them too late and we're
going to see it in the new election cycle.

Speaker 4 (48:01):
Now.

Speaker 1 (48:01):
That is definitely very important to think about as well.
And I think back to the Russia Gate hoax of
twenty sixteen and how part of the plan with that
right was the seed the same disinformation all over. So
it seemed like, wow, everyone's saying the same thing. The
intel community is coming up with this independent of the media.
Who's coming up with this independent of politicians, and on
and on when really was the same source right that

(48:23):
was informing everybody. But again it creates that echo chamber
and for you know, just the regular populace, it seems like, wow,
everyone's coming to the same conclusion Trump is a Russian agent.
Of course that was all false and that was all lies.
But then bringing that same scenario home to with sorrow
spying up radio stations, also with local newspapers as well
that are starting to go under. I think the same

(48:43):
issue will play out as well in the fact that
if you're just you know, a regular old Joe, maybe
you don't pay too much attention to politics. You catch
the headlines here and there, but you're busy with your
normal everyday life. But then you're driving to work and
your local radio station is pumping and stuff that would
be better suited for NPR or CNN's audience, but you
don't realize because it's your local radio station. And then
you open up your local newspaper and it's saying the

(49:05):
same information, and you start to think, wow, all these
people are independently coming to the same position that who
knows what they're going to run within a few years,
probably that Trump is Hitler because they always use that,
but whatever it is, right, that's how they start to
create the love creates these echo chambers where it's the
same source, but they're able to see that information in
all these various outlets. So then the regular people who

(49:26):
don't keep up with this as much, they think, wow,
everyone's saying the same thing. I should get on board
with this. So is that part of what we should
be looking out for, like you said, especially with the
next election.

Speaker 11 (49:36):
Well, actually, what I think the FCC should be looking
out for, and you're one hundred percent right and everything
you said what the FCC should be looking out for
is there are very strict rules about what you can
air in terms of political content that's paid for. So
the question is is a lot of stuff going to
be hidden as news? Is it going to be hidden
as opinion? Is it gonna be hidden as broadcast stuff?
But it's not actually that it's actually something that their

(49:57):
ownership is forcing them to put in, or something that's
bought in paid for. That's what the FCC should really
be investigating when it comes to all this. Because we
do have the freedom of speech. We have the First Amendment,
and you have to like the First Amendment that it
allows people to say what they want on both sides
of the aisle. But we do have laws regarding what
goes on the public airways, and the FCC needs to

(50:17):
be keeping a sharp eye to make sure they're followed
at these radio stations that they do.

Speaker 1 (50:20):
That's why I appreciate AX and some other platforms right
where they have the little way to delineate what's coming
from a government source, what's coming from a new source,
what's coming from opinion source, and on and on it goes.
It does help people to understand where their information is
coming from, because not everything CNN reports is wrong, right,
but you want to.

Speaker 4 (50:39):
Understand this.

Speaker 1 (50:42):
Way, they influence the opinion that comes with what they're reporting,
the lens through which they're reporting information, and then you
can go, Okay, maybe they're omitting some stuff, maybe they're
stretching some facts, so let me check another new source
from a different political persuasion to try and fill in
some of those gaps. And that helps everyone to become
more informed themselves. Are It's always a pleasure. Thanks so
much for joining us tonight.

Speaker 11 (51:03):
Always a pleasure and great to see you back concept
I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (51:07):
When we come back, I'll fill you in on everything
you need to know about how to contact us, So
stick around you want to make your voices heard on
what we should replace our Tipping Point poll with.

Speaker 6 (51:16):
After the break, watch an live on cloudtv dot com
and see what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app
and watch one America News Network wherever you go. Visit
klowd tv dot com today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.

Speaker 1 (51:45):
Welcome back to Tipping Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.
So I floated the idea of using this last bit
of time together each night to give you all my
book recommendations, and already I'm hearing back some positive feedback
on it. So if you're interested in that too, please
let me know when I read out how to contact us.
I wish I had more time to return to the
historical spot Spotlight segments like I used to do, but

(52:06):
since I do all my own writing and research, it's
just not feasible to keep up long term, especially now
that I have a baby. So with that, I'm all
out of time for tonight. Hopefully you learn something interesting
to take with you into tomorrow. Until then, you can
follow us on x, Instagram, Truth, Social, Facebook and threads
at tipping Point Oan or on my personal account at
Nefertari Underscore twenty five. You can also watch clips of

(52:29):
the show on Oaan's YouTube and Rumble accounts, and listen
to full episodes on Spotify and Apple podcasts. If you
like the show, please send us feedback at Tipping Point
at oa and N dot com and make sure to
subscribe to oa and Live and download the app for iOS, Android,
Apple TV and for other devices to watch Tipping Point
wherever you go and oaan Life because video on demand
so you never have to miss a show.

Speaker 4 (52:50):
So as always, thank you. Now have a great night.

Speaker 6 (53:00):
Watch o an Live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network wherever you go. Visit k l
o w d tv dot com today. That's k l
o w d tv dot com today.