February 11, 2025 • 53 mins
Vice President J. D. Vance calls out cancel culture for what it is, emotional blackmail employed by the left to hold the right to a certain standard that they don't hold for themselves. How he was instrumental in the re-hiring of a doxxed DOGE staffer. Plus, President Trump hilariously makes himself the Chair of the Kennedy Performing Arts Center in D.C. so that he can get rid of its drag shows. And finally, supposed NATO ally Turkey is consolidating power with Islamic jihadists in Syria.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm your host, Karen McKinney, and this is tipping point.
Cancel culture is finally being called out for what it is,
(00:20):
emotional blackmail. And that's coming from the second most powerful
man in this whole country, Vice President Jade Vance. The
drama began Thursday with the resignation of a twenty five
year old member of Elon Musk's doge team. Marco Ales,
had been docks by a reporter for The Wall Street Journal,
a woman named Catherine Long. It didn't take long for
(00:40):
friend of the show Mike Ben's and others to figure
out that Long had previously worked for USAID, the State Department,
and the DoD's political military branch. So this wasn't just
curious journalism. This was a political attack through the left's
favorite tool, doxing and reputational destruction. How did she even
find out who this twenty five year old was to
(01:01):
or contacts within the intel community leak out private information
about this young man? Who knows? But the departure of
Valas over past comments he made online immediately stirred outrage
among the online right. Arguments were essentially, this do not
grant the left any moral high ground. The left infamously
uses standards against the right that they do not use
(01:22):
for their own side. By listening to their doc saying,
all it does is he rode the rights trust of
each other because working for Doge means the left will
come at you hard, and if the right isn't there
to back you up, who will. And in this world,
being labeled as an online racist could render you unhirable
and key positions forever. The left never does this to
(01:43):
their own even when they actually deserve it. Now, I'm
not saying to defend everyone on the right, even if
they're a poison pill. Instead, what I'm saying is that
if you have a highly talented person who made jokes
online anonymously, it's really not that big of a deal.
Allow them the respect of being able to apologize for
has mistakes and move on. That's what Elon Musk wrote
on x heading into the weekend after he committed to
(02:05):
bringing the staffer back onto the team. After conducting a
poll on his social media platform to see what people thought,
Musk wrote to Air is human, to forgive is divine.
So one of the things allows is getting negative press for.
Was this use of the term normalized Indian hate? Now,
for those of you who are online, that sounds like
who aren't online, that sounds like straight up racist bigotry,
(02:28):
And it can definitely be used that way, there's no
doubt about that, but not always, and that's what's key. Essentially,
what happens is that since the left argues it's literal
racism to notice anything about any group of people, then
some people will joke that they're engaging in quote unquote
hate by arguing against certain undesirable aspects of mass migration.
So it's a meme, in other words, and not always
(02:49):
an open emission of some undue resentment. That doesn't necessarily
make it better because we shouldn't be talking like that,
even if we're just joking right about other human beings
made in the image and likeness of God, but it
does change the intention, and therefore it lends itself to
being something which can be repented of and moved on from.
So in that vein, I think JD. Vance has the
best response to this. When confronted over this exact phrase
(03:12):
by Democrat Congressman Rocana Kanna asks Vance on x quote,
are you going to tell them to apologize for saying
normalize Indian hate? Before this rehire, just asking for the
sake of both of our kids. End quote. Vance responded
quote for the sake of both of our kids grow up.
Racist trolls on the internet, while offensive, don't threaten my kids.
(03:33):
You know what does a culture that denies grace to
people who make mistakes, A culture that encourages congressmen to
act like whiny children. I cannot overstate how much I
loath this emotional blackmail pretending to be concerned. My kids,
god willing will be risk takers. They won't think constantly
about whether a flippant comment or a wrong viewpoint will
(03:53):
follow them around for the rest of their lives. They
will tell stupid jokes. They will develop views that they
later think are wrong or even grows. I made mistakes
as a kid, and thank god I grew up in
a culture that encouraged me to grow and learn and
feel remorse when I screwed up, and offer grace when
others did. I don't worry about my kids making mistakes
or developing views they later regret. I don't even worry
(04:14):
that much about trolls on the internet. You know what
I do worry about roe that they'll grow up to
be a US congressman who engages in emotional blackmail over
a kid's social media posts. You disgusted me end quote.
And it's hard to put into wordships how incredible this
tone shift is from the Republican Party under Trump advance.
They're telling the left that their favorite tool of subversion
(04:36):
to so discord among the political right is no longer effective.
We will not take cues on supposed racism from the
party that openly despises wide Americans and that's no joke
and uses them as a byword for all things evil.
Just listen to this recent ran from Democrat Congresswoman Ayana
Presley and about how Iowa. She says, it's just too white.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Do you know what percentage of Iowinds are white and
what percentage are black? I don't know the exact percentage
is now we're by far larger percentage of white population.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
That's correct.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Iowa is ninety eight percent white and only four and
a half percent black. So that is drastically different from
the national population. So when Republicans suggest Iowa should be
a national model, they're advocating for a government that doesn't
reflect our country.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
So just the fact of white people existing I guess
it is just evil. We can't look to them for anything. Well,
I'm ninety nine point nine percent sure that those staff
are we were just talking about would never advocate for
the ethnic lensing of Indians from India or even from
where they've settled here in America. Here, though, is a
sitting US congresswoman bemoaning the fact that white Iowans dare
(05:47):
live in the place that their ancestors settled centuries ago,
while she simultaneously pushes for policies that will destroy them
as any distinct entity. So I think that speaks for itself. Now.
Aside from this tone shift in cancel culture They're was
a noticeable tone shift at the Super Bowl over the
weekend as well, joining us not to discuss those updates
as Sean Carney, the president and CEO of Forty Days
(06:08):
for Life, Sean, thanks for being here tonight. It's good
to be back.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Thanks for having me Gray.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
So I'll admit that I didn't watch the Super Bowl
at all, not even the highlights of social me. I
was just way too busy. But I am interested to
know about these pro life and even pro family ads
that you say were running during the commercial breaks. So
what were they about.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Yeah, and just pro America showing a pregnant mom showing
you know, our soldiers fighting in war. JEEP probably had
the best ad with Harrison Ford, which was just a
handover heart, beautiful litany on freedom and what it means
to be an American. But the tone was set very
early with the Brad Pitt video. It's basically an introduction
(06:48):
of the Super Bowl starting.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
It was awesome.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
It was kind of like you watched all these commercials.
Definitely some pro faith messages, definitely pro life messages, but
also I would say just being proud to be an American.
You just kind of had to pinch yourself. There's no
way you could have foreshadowed this, you know, a couple
of months ago before the election. So it definitely shows
how corporate America sort of fell in line with the
(07:13):
fact that Americans aren't insane, we don't want to be woke,
We're not buying that narrative anymore, and we love our
country despite its flaws.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Yeah, you know, it just shows how wokeness really did
come from the top down. It was something enforced on
American people. I mean, as long as the wokeness was
in power, people kind of put their heads down and
buy and large went along with it. Obviously not to everyone,
but you know, those who stood up against it. I'm
thinking parents who fought against LGBTQ curricula in their children's
school and the like. I mean, they unfortunately got a
(07:44):
lot of flat from the left and oftentimes very damaging
to them as well. But most people I think generally
agree as you're saying, with these principles, and now that
the wokeness is being removed, at least from these top levels,
it's not being enforced nearly to the degree it was
before President Trump retook office. Now it's like, like you're saying,
it's like a fresh up breadth there. People can can
(08:05):
start to say, you know what, families aren't so bad. Actually,
you know what, I really do like babies. It's so weird,
but it seems so benign it. But that's kind of
where we are right now. And it makes me remember
from last year, right it was Evolvo versus Jaguar. Jaguar,
they tried to revamp their company's image and it was
it was LGBTQ. It was all of that. It was
(08:27):
just really bizarre abstract art. I guess very strange way
to try and market their cars. I think it kind
of missed their whole demographic. But then Volvo came back
with a pro family ad. Like you're saying, it was
a woman who was pregnant, she tells her husband, and
the husband so overcome, and so it's like four minutes
of them preparing their home for this new baby, this
(08:47):
new arrival, and the car that takes them all over
and really helps to cement those memories for that growing family.
So do you think, like you're saying, this kind of
speaks to a growing change among the electorate that those
and power now are being forced to contend with for
the first time in many years.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
And I think it got back to what corporate America
usually is built on, which is money and getting customers
and getting more money out of more customers. And you know,
the election showed that it just this is not the
direction that we want the country to go in. I
would say the biggest like gut feeling I had, what
you got to watch the super Bowl? You're an American.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
But anyways, the.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Biggest gut feeling I had watching the Super Bowl was
none of it felt forced and in the past, all
the DEI, the were racists, the everything just being forced
down your throat constantly. It just wore people out.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
It wasn't funny.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Some of the commercials were hysterical last night, but none
of them felt forced. The Jeep commercial didn't feel forced.
Even the bud Light as they continue to try to
revamp their product after their dismal failure a couple of
years ago. You know, their commercial was good. It just
none of it felt forced. None of it felt like
agenda driven. It felt product driven, and it felt like
(10:03):
it was based on the assumption that, hey, we watched
the super Bowl every year. It's basically like a national
holiday and we celebrate being an American and we're not
ashamed of that.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
I know. It's so amazing. As we just saw some
of that video, President Trump standing out there, he got applause, right,
some celebrities got some booze. And it's such a change
because for so many years, especially going back to Colin
Kaepernick almost a decade ago, right twenty fifteen or so, Yeah,
it was Remember it was always they had their own
national anthem, the Black national anthem that they would use
(10:34):
at the NFL the end zone saying end racism, which
obviously objectively on its own aside from political fights. Who
wants racism? No one wants racism. But the idea politically
with BLM, with the end racism, the idea was you
were in a person sitting in those scenes, you were
an evil person down to your bones. You were racist,
and you must repent of that by basically taking a
knee to left wing Marxist ideas. That's what we have
(10:56):
a problem with, and it seems so much of that
is being scrub so is I know, baseball's America's past time,
but football's right up there as well. Do you think
we're I know they got rid of the Black National anthem,
they're getting rid of that and racism end zones. Do
you think that we're also seeing the NFL once again
coming back to its roots too, to just be away
for people to come together as Americans and just you know,
(11:18):
play ball.
Speaker 5 (11:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Absolutely. I Mean the NFL did not get a good
reaction from how they handled twenty twenty, the same with
the NBA, and they're just getting back to come and
since they're getting back to sports and sports that are
driven by customers and income, and I think that's why
you see all of these changes. Nobody's for racism. Nobody
(11:41):
wants this stuff, you know, shoved down their throats, and
they want to go to a ball game, or they
want to watch it and not have some agenda shoved
down their throat. And that's why that's what the commercials reflected.
It's certainly what you know, the game reflected. I'm a
Cowboys fan, so I hate Philadelphia, so I'm not glad
that they one, and I love Pat Mahomes. But you know,
(12:02):
it's one of those things where it was still, you know,
simple in that we want to watch football and that's
all we want from the NFL. And I think we
got to get back to that. You know, we've said
a million times how important the election was, and it
was important, but not just politically, but on taking an
accurate pulse of where Americans are and where we're not
(12:26):
and what we want. And I do think these sports
leagues and certainly corporate America is taking notes.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
And again it's mind blowing to show that we went
from Colin Kaepernick to now having players openly thanking God.
Remember Tim Tibo when he would kneel and pray, they
just mocked him mercilessly. And now you. Yeah, yeah, now
you have the eagles. I think you were also saying earlier,
you know, praising God openly. We have open Trump supporters.
We've got I think Bucker right, he was the one
(12:53):
a year or two ago who was making that speech
in defense of traditional marriage and traditional way of life,
and he talked about how much she loved and respected
his wife, right, and then everyone accused him of hating
women and hating his wife, which is so bizarre. But
I mean, it's amazing to see to see those types
of players once again. But also I want to kind
of pivot as well to the political motivation that we
(13:16):
see swelling up, because even during this last election cycle,
and correct me if I'm wrong, you might think I'm
out on a branch here, But it was so bizarre
that Kamala Harris remembers she ran so hard on abortion
she thought that would be her her key to victory,
and it wasn't. But it was weird that it wasn't
just abortion. That she tried to reframe abortion as bizarre
and twisted as it sounds, as something pro family, and
(13:37):
it kind of speaks to this the shift right of
people being pro family in general. She tried She had
that one woman right who aborted her third child over
a diagnosis of a disability, a chromosomal disorder, which I
think is kind of evil. That's eugenic saying, oh, I
love my healthy kids better than my sick kids, but whatever.
And she tried to reframe that woman from Texas is saying, well,
(13:58):
she did it because she wants kids and she wants
to be healthy to have another kid who's healthy. And
again it was all the see, this is really for family.
We're not just all about killing babies for ourselves, but
it's for family that falls flat because abortion is definitely
not that. But I don't know, do you kind of
think it speaks to this general groundswell that we're seeing
that even Democrats tried to reframe something as insane as
(14:20):
abortion as somehow being pro family as well.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Yeah, and it backfired big time. And by the way,
if it wasn't going to backfire, this was the year
to do it. This is the first presidential election after
the fall of Row. The world was ending. Women are
dying in the streets. We don't have abortion. It's awful.
She should have run on it, and she should have
won easily. That didn't happen. It backfired. It also showed
that abortion pro abortion is a political loser. You have
(14:44):
to tolerate it. You have to sit there and do
the talking points. Abortion is healthcare, abortions between a woman
and a doctor, all of those things. People don't want
you to celebrate it. They don't want it in droves.
They don't want a lot of amounts of abortion. I
think people got abortioned out because of her care campaign.
They were doing abortions at the DNC. She just wore
people out, even abortion supporters, and it's like you got
(15:07):
to move on to certain things. She basically ignored the
fact that there was any other issue on people's minds,
whether it be the economy or immigration or anything else.
And she just talked about how great abortion was all
the time. And people don't think that abortion is a negative,
and even those who genuinely support it do so passively.
They think we need access to abortion, but they don't
(15:29):
want to stand outside holding a sign saying how great
abortion is. That's the majority of abortion supporters, and she
found it out the hard way. But the other thing
she did is exposed the left on how insane they
are winning abortion through forty weeks and infanticide, and she
brought a lot of people back to Trump as a result.
Is one of the reasons why Trump increased the amount
(15:49):
of Catholics.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Who voted for him. No, definitely, And just lastly, before
I let you go tonight, does this mean that there's
just more optimism more for you to draw on with
forty Days for Life? Because remember before the election, we
are on the right, we're told shut up about abortion,
that it'll lose and'll it'll be a loser for Republicans
and it's going to be a winner for Democrats. But
as he laid out, that's obviously not true. And as
(16:10):
we're seeing with the Super Bowl, some of this cultural
shift that's happening organically, not from the top down, just woken.
This is being pulled back. People's normal you know, wants
and desires are coming back to the surface. Does that
allow you more fertile ground? I guess to evangelize into bring,
you know, just a pro life message to more Americans.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
And that's happening. The demand for forty Days for Life
is at an all time high and has been since
Roe fell. We have grown, We've added cities, we're not shrinking.
There's more momentum. There's more enthusiasm, and like you said,
there's more willingness to not hide in your house but
to say, you know what, I am pro life. I
base this on facts and science and common sense. And
(16:50):
I'm going to go out and I'm going to offer
hope to a woman who feels she has no other
choice than to have an abortion. And so we are
at record numbers of volunteers and location. And it's a
beautiful thing, and it's a needed thing, and it's something
that you know, America is is is begging to be
more involved in the pro life movement in a post
(17:11):
row America.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Well, Shawan, and keep up the great work and maybe
maybe Sweden to watch it next year. Thanks for joining
us today. You'll enjoy the commercials of nothing else that's true.
That's true. In coming up next, President Trump just in
the funniest thing ever when it comes to the Kennedy
Center in Washington, d C. I'll explain what it is
when we come back into.
Speaker 6 (17:36):
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 1 (17:58):
Welcome back to tip Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.
There's no one quite like President Trump. The John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC has
long been a hotbed for what appears to be the
swamps version of money laundering. Even during COVID, when we
were all told to stay home and to not go
to places like performing arts centers, well, this Performing Arts
(18:19):
Center still received twenty five million dollars from the government,
meeting from you and I the taxpayer, and for what purpose.
I know they like their drag shows, but drag shows
don't cost that much. Well, it's simple. The board is
full of lefties in tight with the establishment in DC.
They get fat paychecks to do nothing except develop propaganda
under the guise of arts, and when it comes time
(18:41):
for election season, they make sure plenty of that money
is paid back to the politicians in the form of
donations who make the whole grift possible. Not only did
President Trump and Doge expose this, but Trump immediately went
to truth Social as we were heading into the weekend
to announce that he was firing a bunch of their
board members, and that he was going to make himself
the chairman. I mean, I don't know, that's hilarious. It
(19:03):
would have been great enough to just pull the plug
on them, but doing it this way is so much better.
The Associated Press notes this about the Center trying to
save face quote and a statement later on its website.
The Kennedy Center said it was aware of Trump's post.
We have received no official communications from the White House
regarding changes to our board of trustees. The statement said,
(19:24):
we are aware that some members of our board have
received termination notices from the administration. The statement continued. Per
the Center's governance, established by Congress in nineteen fifty eight,
the chair of the Board of Trustees is appointed by
the Center's board members. There is nothing in the Center's
statute that would prevent a new administration from replacing board members. However,
(19:46):
this would be the first time such action has been
taken with the Kennedy Center's board end quote. Joining us
now to discuss as Mike Buglesse, a former law enforcement
officer and the founder of the Puglice Law firm. Mike,
thanks for being here tonight, Gareth.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
Thank you for me. Yeah, the boss has arrived. President
Trump is taking on this leftist agenda, woke agenda, and
he's doing exactly what he told his constituency, which is
the popular vote, that he is going to uphol his
promises and in this woke agenda stuff. And you're right
in that statement that the Kennedy Center said. They said
(20:21):
that he's well within his power. He can do this,
he can remove us. It's never been done, but he
can do this. You know, it's fun watching him do this.
He has the left so off balanced that they don't
know how to fight back.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Now.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
They have completely lost their power and their influence and
they don't know how to take him on. You know,
it's not enough anymore to say, hey, he's just a
loose cannon and he's going after vengeance and he's taking
it out on the Kennedy Center. You know, the Kennedy
Center was established Kara as a national cultural center, and
then after JFK's assassination, they graciously honored the center with
(20:56):
his name. And it was supposed to do good. He
was supposed to help row the culture. What did it do?
It served to do what somehow demonize and change culture
to the fact of somewhat brainwashing children with these drag
shows that you see, and that was their agenda, to
use it from a leftist establishment, socialist agenda to take
(21:17):
over our children and to brainwash them with these silly
drag shows and not stop there and use our tax money,
steal our tax money, and use this for their own
propaganda reasons. And Trump says, no, you're not going to
do this. So we're sitting across the board. I mean,
he's a man of his word. He's it's art. I mean,
(21:38):
it's actually art. They will be talking about this and
how a country almost came, a republic almost came to
its collapse and one man, Donald Trump put his team
together through Doese and other Elon Musk and Pam Body,
all of them soon cash Hotel and he's making the
changes he's going to reform America that he is.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
And you know that's the thing, right, It's just how Republicans,
as we've been talking about for weeks now, we're just
such controlled opposition. You know, any Republican who was in
a position of power, who would have even talked about
the Kennedy Arts Center, even though it's just a giant grift.
On the one hand, millions of our taxpayer dollars going there,
and it's not going to what we would like it
to go towards, right, like I was saying earlier, with
(22:21):
all these massive salaries, and then for them to put
on drag shows and to say, yeah, when you and
your family visit DC, come see the Kennedy Center of
Performing Arts and what bring your kids to drag shows
funded by the taxpayer dollar by the government. No, but
that's actually very important. No other Republican would touch something
like that, and not only as President Trump going after it,
(22:41):
but I think it's hilarious firing and replacing the board members,
having them vote in his chair. Again, he's doing it
in a funny way as well. That's why I'm like,
he's a politician we've never seen before, desperately needed at
this time, and it's just it's making the whole cleaning
up DC. It's making it fun to watch as well,
because otherwise we'd I'll be crying seeing everything Dosh has
been coming up with. But I also do want to
(23:03):
ask you because again heading into the weekend, President Trump
making another big announcement on truth social saying, hey, Joe Biden,
remember after twenty twenty when you revoked my security clearances
in my daily press briefings as the not press briefings,
orry security briefings as a former president of the United States. Well,
you said the precedent. It's coming back. Those chickens are
(23:25):
coming back home to rus They're coming for you, Biden.
He also cites the her report saying that Biden was
found to have poor memory even in his prime yet
poor memory, cognitive decline, and so he cannot be trusted
with such sensitive information. And then he said, Joe, you're fired.
So what do you make of this.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
Well, there's a lot to be said there, and yeah,
it's true. On the surface, Biden shouldn't have any security
clearances and receive national security information. He's you know, his
mind is gone. He's the minute. His family is corrupt.
He's in charge of he's the big guy. He's in
charge of a corrupt family organization, and he's just never ending.
So on the surface, yes, but you know Trump is
(24:05):
a master right now. If you watch all the fronts
he's posing, he has you looking at the left hand.
You don't see what the right hand's doing. It's more
to this, he understands the left. Like we said earlier,
Kara has lost their power and their influence. They have
nothing left but one thing. They even lost the legacy
media to an extent, it's not as relevant as it
is anymore. But one thing they have. They still have
(24:27):
leakers and whistle blowers inside the establishment, and that's what
they're looking at. They're setting this up for twenty twenty
six to somehow use these leakers and these whistle blowers
that can gain access from national security information and intelligence
reports and then somewhat, you know, sign us up for
another two and three years of impeachments if they gain
(24:49):
the House. And I truly see that that Trump is
seeing this, He understands that he has to take this access.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
They have.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Their only last defense against him is these insiders, these
filtrators from the inside. You know, we see it with
USAI D. He's cut off resources to a lot of
these situations, a lot of George Sorrows CIA prosecutors that
USAID has financed, and to come after him through these
leakers and these what's so called whistle blowers. You know,
(25:18):
we saw it with the one of the guys that
he took his security clearance from SAE. He was a
key part in representing one of the leak leakers and
whistle blowers that came after Donald Trump with the Ukraine incident,
that somehow he was going to go after Joe Biden
for political gain, you know, But that's what we're seeing.
You know, Trump is a master. There's more to it.
(25:40):
He knows what he's doing. He's methodically just going after
these individuals, surgically just removing it. So it's a different
Donald Trump in twenty sixteen. He's got his own playbook.
Problem is they don't know what it is. They have
no idea how to play them, and they're not used
to multitasking like Donald Trump does and fight on multiple
They just can't take him on head to head.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Now, you're exactly right on all of that, and I
wrote a little list here because it's just it's hard
to keep up right with all the security clearances that
he is revoking. But as you're laying out, it's very
much needed at this point. So they can't keep using
it to leak here damaging information without the full context.
And if the whole context was known, we would see
that there was nothing to it. But they do the
(26:23):
selective leaking right to damage. They try and get impeachments
because of this, so scandal after scandal. We saw this
in the first administration. Like you said, he learned, he
learned quick. Not happening again this time. So I have
a few of the names here. I have noted former
Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln, some of this coming from
the New York Post Saturday reporting. They also have Jack Sullivan,
(26:43):
Lisa Monico of the j six persecutions, Andrew Weissman. He
was known as Mueller's pitbull right during the whole Russia
Gate collusion hoax. I also have Norm Eisen He so
much of the lawfair came from Norm Isaen. But one
of his attempts right was to try and kick Trump
off the back out wholesale in Colorado. We have Eric Charramella,
as you were saying, he was the alleged whistleblower for
(27:05):
the first impeachment scandal. His lawyer as well. Also, I
have here oh state attorneys as well. So we have
the New York Attorney General, Letitia James in Manhattan District
Attorney Alvin Brad. Now, of course they're not federal agents,
but this can help revoke some of their security clearances
(27:26):
and also some of their access to federal buildings. So
as we see President Trump's even shoring himself up when
it comes to the States and what they're able to
do against him as well.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
Right, But what they're trying to do too, following up
on what you're saying, is that they're basically relying now
on the federal judges to block Trump's agenda. What I'm
looking for in all these individuals, Eyesen especially says well,
I'm going to block him on taking revoking security clearances
in court. They're so used to run in court and
getting these left wing activist judges to agree with them
(27:58):
and come up with these phony orders to block Trump.
And we're seeing that, but I think what ultimately you're
going to see. They might be slowing down the process temporarily,
but Trump's gonna win out. He has a plenary powers,
absolute powers, and he's going to be successful on this.
And Trump's already outthought them on this. He's he's ready
to go. He's putting the right people in and Pam
(28:18):
Bondi and Cash would tell to use the DOJ to
actually fight these fights. He has the right people. No
more does he have the establishment figures that aren't prepared
to fight because their heart's not in it because Trump
wasn't their man. But Trump has his own agenda nowt
He's actually has stronger mag of people in power now
than maybe even Donald Trump that they want to fight.
(28:41):
They they're willing to fight their hearts in it. So
I think these federal judges are going to try to
block him, but it's going to be unsuccessful and he's
going to win.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Out that it is. It's so so multi pronged, as
we've been talking about here, you know, Pam Bondi, like
you're saying, going after sanctuary cities and they're federal funding
U does going after using id stgrants, Treasury Department, all
these different agencies and all the money that they're constantly
giving out and then also taking away the security clearances
and the other privileges from these these masterminds of law
(29:12):
fair who have been used to just undermine and to
not go after bad guys, but to go after innocent
patriots and to try and paint them as bad guys
while real terrorists right like the iys saw in New
Orleans around Christmas time, that they can just get off
Scott forre you to go do whatever evil plans that
they have in mind, because the FBI is not looking
at them. They're too busy looking at the opponents of Democrats,
the political opponents, meaning Trump supporters. And so with all
(29:35):
these pieces together, I'm sure you saw once again over
the week and in LA there was more protests. I
guess they're trying to make antariety, but they just were
not getting as you can see right there, they just
aren't getting the amount of people out as we saw
during twenty twenty in those riots. Doesn't mean it's not dangerous, right,
we're I think there was a stabbing there in LA.
We saw this again the past week and when you
(29:57):
and I talked. But again, when they don't have the money,
they don't have the funding, they can't make this into
a color coded revolution against President Trump like they did
in twenty twenty. So again not to say these people
aren't violent. Of course, what they're protesting mass deportations, waving
the Mexican flag. Again not really making a great case saying, yeah,
keep all the illegals here, we hate America. We're going
(30:19):
to stab people if we don't get our way. Not
really selling the point, but do you think it kind
of shows once again that they aren't going to get
the amount of power they have for writing like they
did in twenty twenty. Because Trump he's getting all their
lawyers all the money. He is snipping that and nipping
it at the bud well.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
One thing, we got Tom Holman that has held bent
on deportations of illegals and he means what he says
because Donald Trump is backing them and giving him the power.
But getting back to a point that you said that
is very important is the funding. For so long we
saw that George Soros was funding all these various protesters
and these people activists to get out there and roll
(30:55):
up the crowds, pay them the money to get out
there and protest. Now, what have we learn this UAI
USAID transparency that we're learning, thanks goodness to Elon Musk
and Doze, is that George Sorows was actually getting a
lot of the money from USAID through various grants. That
was what was funding a lot of these protests from BLM,
(31:15):
Tantifa and other programs, and that money has dried up.
George Soros is pretty much regulated to his own twenty
seven billion dollars. But that's a finite number. It sounds
like a lot of money in it is, but it
was finite. USAID had fifty billion a year to dispose
of and finance programs like this. And now we're seeing
(31:36):
that that Trump is going down and he's cutting those
sources out and therefore all this money. So you're right,
these protesters there's heart. Really, there's not out there to
get out there and protests unless there's money to be received.
Now they're worried about hiding from whom Ice. They're worried
about hiding from Ice. And what is Pam BONDI doing? Hey, Ice,
you staffers who are trying to leak information, We're going
(31:56):
to come after you.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Now.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
We have never seen this before. Was certainly didn't see
it in twenty sixteen, and we didn't And you know,
I hate saying this, but if Trump would have won
in twenty twenty, I don't know if we would have
saw it in twenty twenty. This is the right time.
We're right for reformation to save our republic. And Donald
Trump's the man, like you said earlier, and by god,
there's hope. There's hope for America.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Yeah, you know, like you said, twenty twenty, the left
had all the cards. Trump was besieged from every sign
those four years in exile. I guess, if you want
to call it, did in so much wonders to see
everything you know without having to be in the spot itself,
being able to sit back and kind of watch and think,
you know, what's my game plan? Because look how vicious
these people are. They will try and throw me in
prison for the last rest of my life. They're going
(32:40):
to try and get me killed. As we saw the
assassination attempts, and again it made him come back better
and stronger than ever. Mike, Thanks for joining us tonight.
Coming up next, President Trump is completely revamping the NIH.
Details when we come back in two.
Speaker 6 (32:59):
Watch OM 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 (33:23):
Welcome back to Tipping Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.
The NIH under Trump is a completely different agency than
it has been these past four years. As they say,
follow the money. Joining us now to discuss is doctor J. Green.
He is a senior Research fellow at the Center for
Education Policy for the Heritage Foundation, Doctor Green, thanks for
being here tonight.
Speaker 7 (33:44):
Thanks for having me on the show.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Great. So that article of yours we just showed is
from twenty twenty new but it's twenty twenty two. But
now it's coming to fruition under this current administration, in
that the NIH under Trump is cutting the rate you say,
it pays for overhead for universities on research grants from
sixty percent to fifteen percent. So that's a lot of words.
I'm not sure exactly what it all means. So can
(34:06):
you tell us what that means in a way a
lay person like me can understand.
Speaker 7 (34:10):
Sure. So for every dollar that the federal government gives
to universities for research, it gives them another amount of
money for the overhead or the general expenses of running
a university, And currently it gives sixty percent, which means
for every dollar gives for the research, it gives another
sixty cents for overhead for the buildings, for electricity, for plumbing.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
But the question.
Speaker 7 (34:39):
Is is that really the overhead they need or is
that creating a slush fund of excess money that the
universities then use to indulge in other nonsense, including dei
and all sorts of other radical endeavors that are really
not related to the research itself.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Yeah, you know the university researchers, they may say, no, no,
we need every penny. But as you your co author
point out in that piece, though, you know Bill and
Melinda Gates and their foundation and now they're gigantic, you
know groups that they can come in and they pay
I think fifteen percent, or they don't go above that
fifteen percent cap. So does that kind of show that
it is possible to do this research without going all
(35:21):
the way to sixty percent?
Speaker 3 (35:23):
That's right.
Speaker 7 (35:24):
Universities gladly accept money from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation with a fifteen percent overhead, not sixty percent, And
in fact, they sometimes even will accept money with a
zero percent overhead. The Walton Family Foundation, for example, pays zero.
And so if universities are willing to take that money
for research from private foundations at a much lower rate
(35:46):
than they take from taxpayers, maybe taxpayers are significantly overpaying
and could pay less.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
So then why does the US federal government pay or
previously to this change, why did they pay so much
when these other foundations could get away with paying a
lot less is it, Because as the joke goes, uncle
Sam is Uncle Sucker.
Speaker 7 (36:06):
That's exactly right. Uncle Sam is the only one willing
to pay that amount. And Uncle Sam is willing to
pay that amount because it's your money and not their money,
and so they're very happy to hand out money to
their bodies in academia and not think too critically about
whether they're overpaid. And that overpayment is indulging nonsense at university.
(36:28):
So if we cut back on this excess payment, we're
also going to cut back on nonsense.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
And maticallys be nice to see some of that splash
from money, because we're talking about start to, you know,
get smaller and smaller and smaller. I think it's interesting
that article that you co authored that the title of
it was basically that it is welfare for rich foundations.
And I think the first line says, imagine going to
a gas station and paying you know, the regular for
(36:53):
hear us here in California is like what four fifteen
usually sadly still for gas. I know, our way above
that national average, but about four fifty. But like you say,
it would be like these left wing billionaires coming in
paying a nickel for the same gallon of gas that
we pay four p. Fifty four here in California. So
does that kind of help to put it into context
for viewers just how bad this this scam is.
Speaker 7 (37:15):
That's right, taxpayers are paying at least four times as
much as billionaires. So you know the taxpayer is overpaying.
We also know the taxpayers overpaying because historically universities were
able to conduct their research at much lower rates of overhead.
Over time, they've increased that rate of overhead dramatically. Now,
of course, research costs go up and the overhead costs
(37:37):
go up, but there's no reason for the overhead to
go up much faster than the cost of research. It's
not as if the cost of buildings went up four
times faster than the cost of research. And so that's
another sign that we're overpaying, is that they've increased the
share of the total amount that the government funds that
goes to the overhead and decrease the amount that goes
to research. And that makes another important point we should
(38:00):
keep in mind, which is the Trump administration move here
does not cut money for research. They're not cutting the
amount for research, they're cutting the amount for the overhead.
In fact, by cutting the amount for the overhead. They're
freeing up money to give more for the actual research.
So the stuff that we taxpayers actually care about, like
them making advances and fighting cancer, they're going to be
(38:23):
able to devote more resources to that, not less.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
And that's of course what we need moving forward. And
I think you also note in that piece though that
and I have it here, there's empirical and historical evidence
that the innovation and scientific progressing your co author, right,
that improves our lives is not driven by university research.
So does that kind of add to the fact that
maybe they shouldn't be commanding such high overhead prices in
the first place.
Speaker 7 (38:47):
Look, there's research innovation going on all over the place,
including in the private sector. Universities do contribute, but often
they contribute to the benefit of private company. So, for example,
drug breakthroughs that we all appreciate are then monetized by
large pharmaceutical companies. It would be nice if those companies
(39:08):
paid more for the basic research and taxpayers could save
at least some money on the overhead.
Speaker 1 (39:13):
No, that's exactly Ryan, like you're saying that getting rid
of some of this excess that we have in the
slush funds that allows for all sorts of just frivolity,
and maybe that's a poor word for it on these
college campuses that may be getting rid of more that
can remove some of those constraints that have hampered I
would say some of that innovation in that progress these
(39:33):
last couple of years. Do you think, like you were
saying a bit earlier, that it could help make us
more refined, more effective, and more efficient moving forward.
Speaker 7 (39:41):
Sure, we actually find that for every one hundred million
dollars that universities get for overhead, they hire an additional
fifteen and a half DEI staff. So, in other words,
you could see how they're able to indulge their political
agendas when we give them more money for research, because
they siphon some of that off for their other activities.
(40:02):
And so what we need to do is to actually
shrink the amount of overhead that we provide. Make that
which is unpleasant for them, it will force them to innovate,
become more efficient. They're not going to like that. They're
going to squeal how they're never going to do research again.
But the truth is they'll take gladly take the money
from us at fifteen percent overhead just like they gladly
(40:22):
take it from Bill and Will indicates for fifteen percent overhead,
and I assure you that there will be no reduction
in meaningful research going forward. In fact, it benefits the
universities to do the research even if we pay them
no overhead, because after all, that's their mission. That's what
allows them to raise money from private donors, that's what
(40:42):
allows them to attract faculty in students. It's kind of
odd that we don't just pay them money to do
the research. We also pay them overhead and on top.
And then it's a little unseemly if these fund these
universities with billions of dollars then demand that we pay
even more. It seems to me that they should be
quite pleased that we're paying them anything at all.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
And well, I'm glad that what you wrote about three
years ago is now coming to fruition. Doctor Green, thanks
for making time for us tonight. Shutting up next to
the new interim president of Syria has a pass of
the Western media. Would rather you forget details when we
come back.
Speaker 6 (41:18):
Into 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 1 (41:48):
Welcome back to you Tipping Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.
The ISIS and Al Kainda alumni Abu Mohammad al Jalani,
now terror group HTS was welcome to great fanfare by
Turkey over these past few days. Al Jelani, who has
since ditched the nom Dagera, now goes by his name
Ahmed al Sharrah, is currently serving as the interim president
(42:09):
of Syria. After spending decades of his life fighting in
a jihad against the West and even spending years in
the custody of US forces, Al Sharah claims that he
is no longer an enemy of the West and that
his only beef was with the horrors of the now
dethroned Assad regime. In his glowing Western press tour after
coming to power in Syria late last year, the history
of al Sharrah was rewritten. No longer was he a terrorist,
(42:32):
but some of the liberal West could trust because he
was now into diversity. You honestly can't make this stuff up,
but that is what he told them, and the mainstream
media ate it up. Al Hirah is attempting to consolidate
control of a deeply divided country riven by ethnic nationalists
and religious differences, a hot that has spy agencies all
across the globe, especially year in the West, attempting to
(42:55):
manipulate the situation for their own gain, such as the
US running guns and Jahadi is to see for many years,
with Assad escaping to Russia and many of his forces
surrendering without much of a fight, both Turkey and Israel
press their advantages in order to gobble up Syrian territory.
Of the two, Al Sharah appears to be throwing in
with Ankara. He is working with Turkish president and received
(43:16):
type Eradiwan on constructing Turkish military bases in the heart
of Syria and in rebuilding a Syrian army. In return,
Al Sharrah wants Turkey to use its poll in the
international community to help alleviate Western sanctions on Syria now
that Asad is gone, and to push Israel and It's
buffer zone back to align drawn by the UN after
(43:37):
the nineteen seventy three Young Kupur War. So is the
fall of Asad working up the way the West wanted
it to. Turkey now appears to be the real power
behind the Jahadist government currently in charge, and once again
Israel appears to be at the disadvantage in the same
way their desire for the US invasion of a rock
backfired by allowing a run more influence over the country
(43:58):
instead of Western line countries. Does that mean the pressure
will be on behind the scenes for more dirty wars,
CNIA tricks and the like, or will President Trump's new
picks be wise to such concerns and avoid those landmines.
Joining us now to discuss is Dave DeCamp. He is
a news editor for anti war dot com Dave and
he has his own podcast as well for anti War Dave.
(44:19):
Thanks for being here tonight. Great. So, there is so
much going on here, But should the baseline takeaway be
that the US stop engaging in these regime change operations
because it never goes our way, and that it's a
lot of hubris and pride to think we should do
such things in the first place, even if it does
go to plan.
Speaker 5 (44:40):
Yeah, well, exactly. This is a mess of the US's
making here.
Speaker 1 (44:45):
You know.
Speaker 5 (44:45):
US intervention led to essentially al Qaeda taking over Syria.
Now they've of course rebranded, and you mentioned that Jelani
now goes by Alshara and this was a white washing
campaign of his history that's back a few years. You know,
we've seen him get friendly interviews in the Western media,
years before he's actually taken power here in Syria. And
(45:07):
that one interview that you put up, I believe that
was with CNN. He said that, you know, his time
in Isis and Alcada, that was just just a phase.
But we start to see this government that he's put together,
which is supposedly all inclusive, and we see people the
justice minister. There's a videos that surfaced of him overseeing
the execution of women in northwest Syria's id Lib province
(45:29):
when it was ruled by al Qaeda for things like adultery.
And I mean, this is the guy now that that's
in the new government. And you know, we talk about
one thing in Syria is there's so many different factions
and Jilani leads HTS Hyatt Tareer al Sham, which is
an offshoot of Alcada. His original group in Syria was
(45:50):
Al Keada. He's the founder of Al Keda in Syria.
Sorry to say that so many times. But it's a
really important point to stress here. But there is all
these different factstions now, and there is a chance of
this thing turning into a really nasty civil war. We
already see in northern Syria the US's allies, the Kurds,
(46:11):
the SDF, have been fighting against these Turkish backed factions
in some very bloody battles, and you know, you look
at the situation. You know, the overview Turkey is a
NATO ally. The Kurds that they're fighting, they consider to
be terrorists. They're essentially the Syrian wing of the PKK,
which the US also considers to be a terrorist group.
(46:32):
But that's the US's ally. So the whole thing again,
it's just a mess. The US should not be involved.
There's about two thousand American troops there and if things
do really devolve, they're going to be at risk, and
you know, they're like sitting ducks at these bases and
if they get hit, then that means the US could
escalate and the situation could be even more of a mess.
Speaker 1 (46:54):
And then on the.
Speaker 5 (46:54):
Other side in southern Syria, Israel is creeping in. It's
occupying pieces of southern Syria. Now they essentially supported this
regime change effort and now are using it as an
excuse to take Syrian territory. And I still think overall
and that ya who's happy that Iran's ally is out,
even if Turkey has this influence, but they're going to
(47:17):
use this to continue this occupation, which they're saying is
open ended.
Speaker 7 (47:21):
Now.
Speaker 1 (47:22):
Yeah, and you know, there's just so much we could say,
but I guess part of me just wants to just
kind of harp on the morality part of all of this,
because I get the geopolitics going on as you're talking about,
especially because of Syria can act as a conduit for Iran,
especially to help aid in arm Hezbola, and so I
get they're trying to snip that, but I mean, we've
(47:42):
been doing running guns and jahatis through Syria for so
many years at this point, but thankfully now our d
and I nominee. Right, Tulca Gaberschi was talking about Operation
Timber Sycamore right in front of Congress, saying, this is
the dirty tricks you guys are aiding in supplying literal
terrorists in Syria because you think it furthers your goals.
And I just think to my mind, all the innocent
(48:02):
civilians caught in these horrible in these countries, right, and
Gatjahati's running and guns because there's all these machinations of
foreign governments and you just want to live in peace.
I think back to Obama talking about Isis being the
JV team, don't worry, and the reason why they were
saying that is because they're thinking, oh, well, isis Is
marching up to Asad, Maybe they can fight Asad, kick
a Sad out, and we can use all these mac
(48:24):
and nations to our own ends. And then Russia then
comes in saying, well, we don't want Isis being in
charge of Syria, so then Russia gets more involved in
the country. And again I'm just thinking, what right do
we have to even be doing such a thing to say, oh,
we're fighting al Kaida in one country, but we're gonna
arm and supply them in another country. I mean, it
really doesn't give us any kind of moral high ground
in the Middle East as we're talking about trying to
(48:46):
revamp al Jilani's history and his reputation. I mean, we
used to call Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter ride
the muja Hadeen back in the day. We used to
supply Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, help giving
them the chemical weapons that he was using, at least
through the CIA. They don't officially admit it, but that's
what was going on. We're saying Russia as authoritarian and evil,
(49:06):
but at the same time we're in bed with the
Saudis and the Egyptians. It's just a hot mess, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (49:13):
Yeah, it is. And I'm glad that you mentioned Tulsi
Gabbard because it's good to know that someone who hopefully
will be in the administration recognizes the reality of the
situation in Syria. And if you know that history, the
solution is for the US to get out.
Speaker 1 (49:29):
Now.
Speaker 5 (49:29):
We know people are going to use these stories about
you know, isis you know, blending into the new security
forces of Syria and all these Jihatists. People might use this,
you know, in the US, the Hawks might use this
to justify maybe even another regime change effort in Syria,
you know, a few years down the line. And as
you mentioned, it's always important to remember Saddam was an
(49:52):
ally one day and then he was the bad guy
the next day. We've seen this play out over and
over again. And you know, if a US withdrawal and
just not to be involved at all will show, you know,
whoever is in charge in Syria that the US isn't
the enemy, and hopefully the US could you know, Turkey
could exert its influence, and maybe even Russia because they're
(50:14):
talking about keeping bases there to make sure that, you know,
it doesn't become some terrorist haven where an attack might
be launched against the US. I think it's more likely
for that to happen if the US stays and it
gets more destabilized. I think the answer is to get
out and not get involved in another war in Syria.
Speaker 1 (50:32):
That it is, and obviously there's still a lot of
hawks and power. Like you said that they provoke the
regime change and then when it goes a different way
then they're like, okay, well then now that's impetus to
do more regime changes, like you said, using all these
Dahati fighters and they get into power, then that's the
reason why you need to get involved again. And on
and on it goes, and hopefully we're going to be
breaking that cycle. I know the new Secretary of State,
(50:55):
Marco Rubio, a neocon for so many years, and probably
still at his heart, but I mean he's at least
his rhetoric has changing, and it's been great to see
talking about Iran, Russia, China in terms of national interests,
what's their national interest instead of saying, oh, these guys
are just completely evil and therefore just total war all
the time. There's just nothing else we can do. He's
now talking about diplomacy once again, So at least that's
(51:17):
been refreshing to see. And hopefully, like you said, we'll
see what President Trump wants to do in his first
term when the deep state told him no, which was
to start pulling troops out of serious So hopefully we'll
start to see that. But Dave, we're out of time.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight, and when we
come back, it's time to wrap the show. So stay tuned.
Speaker 6 (51:39):
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 (52:02):
Welcome back to Tipping Point. I'm your host, Karen McKinney.
So on Friday I did my first book recommendation segment
and I think it went pretty well, so I'm gonna
start doing those on Fridays. Is a nice way to
cap the week. So thank you to everyone who messaged
me about this. I've read them all, even those I
didn't have time to respond to, and with that, I'm
all out of time for tonight. Hopefully learn something interesting
to take with you into tomorrow. Until then, you can
(52:24):
follow us on x, Instagram, Truth Social, Facebook, and threads
at tipping Point, oa N or on my personal account
at Nefertori Underscore twenty five. You can also watch clips
of 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
(52:45):
for iOS, Android, Apple TV and other devices to watch
Tipping Point wherever you go. And oaan Live features video
on demand so you never have to miss a show.
So as always, thank you, I 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,
I'm your host, Karen McKinney, and this is tipping point.
Cancel culture is finally being called out for what it is,
(00:20):
emotional blackmail. And that's coming from the second most powerful
man in this whole country, Vice President Jade Vance. The
drama began Thursday with the resignation of a twenty five
year old member of Elon Musk's doge team. Marco Ales,
had been docks by a reporter for The Wall Street Journal,
a woman named Catherine Long. It didn't take long for
(00:40):
friend of the show Mike Ben's and others to figure
out that Long had previously worked for USAID, the State Department,
and the DoD's political military branch. So this wasn't just
curious journalism. This was a political attack through the left's
favorite tool, doxing and reputational destruction. How did she even
find out who this twenty five year old was to
(01:01):
or contacts within the intel community leak out private information
about this young man? Who knows? But the departure of
Valas over past comments he made online immediately stirred outrage
among the online right. Arguments were essentially, this do not
grant the left any moral high ground. The left infamously
uses standards against the right that they do not use
(01:22):
for their own side. By listening to their doc saying,
all it does is he rode the rights trust of
each other because working for Doge means the left will
come at you hard, and if the right isn't there
to back you up, who will. And in this world,
being labeled as an online racist could render you unhirable
and key positions forever. The left never does this to
(01:43):
their own even when they actually deserve it. Now, I'm
not saying to defend everyone on the right, even if
they're a poison pill. Instead, what I'm saying is that
if you have a highly talented person who made jokes
online anonymously, it's really not that big of a deal.
Allow them the respect of being able to apologize for
has mistakes and move on. That's what Elon Musk wrote
on x heading into the weekend after he committed to
(02:05):
bringing the staffer back onto the team. After conducting a
poll on his social media platform to see what people thought,
Musk wrote to Air is human, to forgive is divine.
So one of the things allows is getting negative press for.
Was this use of the term normalized Indian hate? Now,
for those of you who are online, that sounds like
who aren't online, that sounds like straight up racist bigotry,
(02:28):
And it can definitely be used that way, there's no
doubt about that, but not always, and that's what's key. Essentially,
what happens is that since the left argues it's literal
racism to notice anything about any group of people, then
some people will joke that they're engaging in quote unquote
hate by arguing against certain undesirable aspects of mass migration.
So it's a meme, in other words, and not always
(02:49):
an open emission of some undue resentment. That doesn't necessarily
make it better because we shouldn't be talking like that,
even if we're just joking right about other human beings
made in the image and likeness of God, but it
does change the intention, and therefore it lends itself to
being something which can be repented of and moved on from.
So in that vein, I think JD. Vance has the
best response to this. When confronted over this exact phrase
(03:12):
by Democrat Congressman Rocana Kanna asks Vance on x quote,
are you going to tell them to apologize for saying
normalize Indian hate? Before this rehire, just asking for the
sake of both of our kids. End quote. Vance responded
quote for the sake of both of our kids grow up.
Racist trolls on the internet, while offensive, don't threaten my kids.
(03:33):
You know what does a culture that denies grace to
people who make mistakes, A culture that encourages congressmen to
act like whiny children. I cannot overstate how much I
loath this emotional blackmail pretending to be concerned. My kids,
god willing will be risk takers. They won't think constantly
about whether a flippant comment or a wrong viewpoint will
(03:53):
follow them around for the rest of their lives. They
will tell stupid jokes. They will develop views that they
later think are wrong or even grows. I made mistakes
as a kid, and thank god I grew up in
a culture that encouraged me to grow and learn and
feel remorse when I screwed up, and offer grace when
others did. I don't worry about my kids making mistakes
or developing views they later regret. I don't even worry
(04:14):
that much about trolls on the internet. You know what
I do worry about roe that they'll grow up to
be a US congressman who engages in emotional blackmail over
a kid's social media posts. You disgusted me end quote.
And it's hard to put into wordships how incredible this
tone shift is from the Republican Party under Trump advance.
They're telling the left that their favorite tool of subversion
(04:36):
to so discord among the political right is no longer effective.
We will not take cues on supposed racism from the
party that openly despises wide Americans and that's no joke
and uses them as a byword for all things evil.
Just listen to this recent ran from Democrat Congresswoman Ayana
Presley and about how Iowa. She says, it's just too white.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Do you know what percentage of Iowinds are white and
what percentage are black? I don't know the exact percentage
is now we're by far larger percentage of white population.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
That's correct.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Iowa is ninety eight percent white and only four and
a half percent black. So that is drastically different from
the national population. So when Republicans suggest Iowa should be
a national model, they're advocating for a government that doesn't
reflect our country.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
So just the fact of white people existing I guess
it is just evil. We can't look to them for anything. Well,
I'm ninety nine point nine percent sure that those staff
are we were just talking about would never advocate for
the ethnic lensing of Indians from India or even from
where they've settled here in America. Here, though, is a
sitting US congresswoman bemoaning the fact that white Iowans dare
(05:47):
live in the place that their ancestors settled centuries ago,
while she simultaneously pushes for policies that will destroy them
as any distinct entity. So I think that speaks for itself. Now.
Aside from this tone shift in cancel culture They're was
a noticeable tone shift at the Super Bowl over the
weekend as well, joining us not to discuss those updates
as Sean Carney, the president and CEO of Forty Days
(06:08):
for Life, Sean, thanks for being here tonight. It's good
to be back.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Thanks for having me Gray.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
So I'll admit that I didn't watch the Super Bowl
at all, not even the highlights of social me. I
was just way too busy. But I am interested to
know about these pro life and even pro family ads
that you say were running during the commercial breaks. So
what were they about.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Yeah, and just pro America showing a pregnant mom showing
you know, our soldiers fighting in war. JEEP probably had
the best ad with Harrison Ford, which was just a
handover heart, beautiful litany on freedom and what it means
to be an American. But the tone was set very
early with the Brad Pitt video. It's basically an introduction
(06:48):
of the Super Bowl starting.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
It was awesome.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
It was kind of like you watched all these commercials.
Definitely some pro faith messages, definitely pro life messages, but
also I would say just being proud to be an American.
You just kind of had to pinch yourself. There's no
way you could have foreshadowed this, you know, a couple
of months ago before the election. So it definitely shows
how corporate America sort of fell in line with the
(07:13):
fact that Americans aren't insane, we don't want to be woke,
We're not buying that narrative anymore, and we love our
country despite its flaws.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Yeah, you know, it just shows how wokeness really did
come from the top down. It was something enforced on
American people. I mean, as long as the wokeness was
in power, people kind of put their heads down and
buy and large went along with it. Obviously not to everyone,
but you know, those who stood up against it. I'm
thinking parents who fought against LGBTQ curricula in their children's
school and the like. I mean, they unfortunately got a
(07:44):
lot of flat from the left and oftentimes very damaging
to them as well. But most people I think generally
agree as you're saying, with these principles, and now that
the wokeness is being removed, at least from these top levels,
it's not being enforced nearly to the degree it was
before President Trump retook office. Now it's like, like you're saying,
it's like a fresh up breadth there. People can can
(08:05):
start to say, you know what, families aren't so bad. Actually,
you know what, I really do like babies. It's so weird,
but it seems so benign it. But that's kind of
where we are right now. And it makes me remember
from last year, right it was Evolvo versus Jaguar. Jaguar,
they tried to revamp their company's image and it was
it was LGBTQ. It was all of that. It was
(08:27):
just really bizarre abstract art. I guess very strange way
to try and market their cars. I think it kind
of missed their whole demographic. But then Volvo came back
with a pro family ad. Like you're saying, it was
a woman who was pregnant, she tells her husband, and
the husband so overcome, and so it's like four minutes
of them preparing their home for this new baby, this
(08:47):
new arrival, and the car that takes them all over
and really helps to cement those memories for that growing family.
So do you think, like you're saying, this kind of
speaks to a growing change among the electorate that those
and power now are being forced to contend with for
the first time in many years.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
And I think it got back to what corporate America
usually is built on, which is money and getting customers
and getting more money out of more customers. And you know,
the election showed that it just this is not the
direction that we want the country to go in. I
would say the biggest like gut feeling I had, what
you got to watch the super Bowl? You're an American.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
But anyways, the.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Biggest gut feeling I had watching the Super Bowl was
none of it felt forced and in the past, all
the DEI, the were racists, the everything just being forced
down your throat constantly. It just wore people out.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
It wasn't funny.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Some of the commercials were hysterical last night, but none
of them felt forced. The Jeep commercial didn't feel forced.
Even the bud Light as they continue to try to
revamp their product after their dismal failure a couple of
years ago. You know, their commercial was good. It just
none of it felt forced. None of it felt like
agenda driven. It felt product driven, and it felt like
(10:03):
it was based on the assumption that, hey, we watched
the super Bowl every year. It's basically like a national
holiday and we celebrate being an American and we're not
ashamed of that.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
I know. It's so amazing. As we just saw some
of that video, President Trump standing out there, he got applause, right,
some celebrities got some booze. And it's such a change
because for so many years, especially going back to Colin
Kaepernick almost a decade ago, right twenty fifteen or so, Yeah,
it was Remember it was always they had their own
national anthem, the Black national anthem that they would use
(10:34):
at the NFL the end zone saying end racism, which
obviously objectively on its own aside from political fights. Who
wants racism? No one wants racism. But the idea politically
with BLM, with the end racism, the idea was you
were in a person sitting in those scenes, you were
an evil person down to your bones. You were racist,
and you must repent of that by basically taking a
knee to left wing Marxist ideas. That's what we have
(10:56):
a problem with, and it seems so much of that
is being scrub so is I know, baseball's America's past time,
but football's right up there as well. Do you think
we're I know they got rid of the Black National anthem,
they're getting rid of that and racism end zones. Do
you think that we're also seeing the NFL once again
coming back to its roots too, to just be away
for people to come together as Americans and just you know,
(11:18):
play ball.
Speaker 5 (11:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Absolutely. I Mean the NFL did not get a good
reaction from how they handled twenty twenty, the same with
the NBA, and they're just getting back to come and
since they're getting back to sports and sports that are
driven by customers and income, and I think that's why
you see all of these changes. Nobody's for racism. Nobody
(11:41):
wants this stuff, you know, shoved down their throats, and
they want to go to a ball game, or they
want to watch it and not have some agenda shoved
down their throat. And that's why that's what the commercials reflected.
It's certainly what you know, the game reflected. I'm a
Cowboys fan, so I hate Philadelphia, so I'm not glad
that they one, and I love Pat Mahomes. But you know,
(12:02):
it's one of those things where it was still, you know,
simple in that we want to watch football and that's
all we want from the NFL. And I think we
got to get back to that. You know, we've said
a million times how important the election was, and it
was important, but not just politically, but on taking an
accurate pulse of where Americans are and where we're not
(12:26):
and what we want. And I do think these sports
leagues and certainly corporate America is taking notes.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
And again it's mind blowing to show that we went
from Colin Kaepernick to now having players openly thanking God.
Remember Tim Tibo when he would kneel and pray, they
just mocked him mercilessly. And now you. Yeah, yeah, now
you have the eagles. I think you were also saying earlier,
you know, praising God openly. We have open Trump supporters.
We've got I think Bucker right, he was the one
(12:53):
a year or two ago who was making that speech
in defense of traditional marriage and traditional way of life,
and he talked about how much she loved and respected
his wife, right, and then everyone accused him of hating
women and hating his wife, which is so bizarre. But
I mean, it's amazing to see to see those types
of players once again. But also I want to kind
of pivot as well to the political motivation that we
(13:16):
see swelling up, because even during this last election cycle,
and correct me if I'm wrong, you might think I'm
out on a branch here, But it was so bizarre
that Kamala Harris remembers she ran so hard on abortion
she thought that would be her her key to victory,
and it wasn't. But it was weird that it wasn't
just abortion. That she tried to reframe abortion as bizarre
and twisted as it sounds, as something pro family, and
(13:37):
it kind of speaks to this the shift right of
people being pro family in general. She tried She had
that one woman right who aborted her third child over
a diagnosis of a disability, a chromosomal disorder, which I
think is kind of evil. That's eugenic saying, oh, I
love my healthy kids better than my sick kids, but whatever.
And she tried to reframe that woman from Texas is saying, well,
(13:58):
she did it because she wants kids and she wants
to be healthy to have another kid who's healthy. And
again it was all the see, this is really for family.
We're not just all about killing babies for ourselves, but
it's for family that falls flat because abortion is definitely
not that. But I don't know, do you kind of
think it speaks to this general groundswell that we're seeing
that even Democrats tried to reframe something as insane as
(14:20):
abortion as somehow being pro family as well.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Yeah, and it backfired big time. And by the way,
if it wasn't going to backfire, this was the year
to do it. This is the first presidential election after
the fall of Row. The world was ending. Women are
dying in the streets. We don't have abortion. It's awful.
She should have run on it, and she should have
won easily. That didn't happen. It backfired. It also showed
that abortion pro abortion is a political loser. You have
(14:44):
to tolerate it. You have to sit there and do
the talking points. Abortion is healthcare, abortions between a woman
and a doctor, all of those things. People don't want
you to celebrate it. They don't want it in droves.
They don't want a lot of amounts of abortion. I
think people got abortioned out because of her care campaign.
They were doing abortions at the DNC. She just wore
people out, even abortion supporters, and it's like you got
(15:07):
to move on to certain things. She basically ignored the
fact that there was any other issue on people's minds,
whether it be the economy or immigration or anything else.
And she just talked about how great abortion was all
the time. And people don't think that abortion is a negative,
and even those who genuinely support it do so passively.
They think we need access to abortion, but they don't
(15:29):
want to stand outside holding a sign saying how great
abortion is. That's the majority of abortion supporters, and she
found it out the hard way. But the other thing
she did is exposed the left on how insane they
are winning abortion through forty weeks and infanticide, and she
brought a lot of people back to Trump as a result.
Is one of the reasons why Trump increased the amount
(15:49):
of Catholics.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Who voted for him. No, definitely, And just lastly, before
I let you go tonight, does this mean that there's
just more optimism more for you to draw on with
forty Days for Life? Because remember before the election, we
are on the right, we're told shut up about abortion,
that it'll lose and'll it'll be a loser for Republicans
and it's going to be a winner for Democrats. But
as he laid out, that's obviously not true. And as
(16:10):
we're seeing with the Super Bowl, some of this cultural
shift that's happening organically, not from the top down, just woken.
This is being pulled back. People's normal you know, wants
and desires are coming back to the surface. Does that
allow you more fertile ground? I guess to evangelize into bring,
you know, just a pro life message to more Americans.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
And that's happening. The demand for forty Days for Life
is at an all time high and has been since
Roe fell. We have grown, We've added cities, we're not shrinking.
There's more momentum. There's more enthusiasm, and like you said,
there's more willingness to not hide in your house but
to say, you know what, I am pro life. I
base this on facts and science and common sense. And
(16:50):
I'm going to go out and I'm going to offer
hope to a woman who feels she has no other
choice than to have an abortion. And so we are
at record numbers of volunteers and location. And it's a
beautiful thing, and it's a needed thing, and it's something
that you know, America is is is begging to be
more involved in the pro life movement in a post
(17:11):
row America.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Well, Shawan, and keep up the great work and maybe
maybe Sweden to watch it next year. Thanks for joining
us today. You'll enjoy the commercials of nothing else that's true.
That's true. In coming up next, President Trump just in
the funniest thing ever when it comes to the Kennedy
Center in Washington, d C. I'll explain what it is
when we come back into.
Speaker 6 (17:36):
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 1 (17:58):
Welcome back to tip Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.
There's no one quite like President Trump. The John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC has
long been a hotbed for what appears to be the
swamps version of money laundering. Even during COVID, when we
were all told to stay home and to not go
to places like performing arts centers, well, this Performing Arts
(18:19):
Center still received twenty five million dollars from the government,
meeting from you and I the taxpayer, and for what purpose.
I know they like their drag shows, but drag shows
don't cost that much. Well, it's simple. The board is
full of lefties in tight with the establishment in DC.
They get fat paychecks to do nothing except develop propaganda
under the guise of arts, and when it comes time
(18:41):
for election season, they make sure plenty of that money
is paid back to the politicians in the form of
donations who make the whole grift possible. Not only did
President Trump and Doge expose this, but Trump immediately went
to truth Social as we were heading into the weekend
to announce that he was firing a bunch of their
board members, and that he was going to make himself
the chairman. I mean, I don't know, that's hilarious. It
(19:03):
would have been great enough to just pull the plug
on them, but doing it this way is so much better.
The Associated Press notes this about the Center trying to
save face quote and a statement later on its website.
The Kennedy Center said it was aware of Trump's post.
We have received no official communications from the White House
regarding changes to our board of trustees. The statement said,
(19:24):
we are aware that some members of our board have
received termination notices from the administration. The statement continued. Per
the Center's governance, established by Congress in nineteen fifty eight,
the chair of the Board of Trustees is appointed by
the Center's board members. There is nothing in the Center's
statute that would prevent a new administration from replacing board members. However,
(19:46):
this would be the first time such action has been
taken with the Kennedy Center's board end quote. Joining us
now to discuss as Mike Buglesse, a former law enforcement
officer and the founder of the Puglice Law firm. Mike,
thanks for being here tonight, Gareth.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
Thank you for me. Yeah, the boss has arrived. President
Trump is taking on this leftist agenda, woke agenda, and
he's doing exactly what he told his constituency, which is
the popular vote, that he is going to uphol his
promises and in this woke agenda stuff. And you're right
in that statement that the Kennedy Center said. They said
(20:21):
that he's well within his power. He can do this,
he can remove us. It's never been done, but he
can do this. You know, it's fun watching him do this.
He has the left so off balanced that they don't
know how to fight back.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Now.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
They have completely lost their power and their influence and
they don't know how to take him on. You know,
it's not enough anymore to say, hey, he's just a
loose cannon and he's going after vengeance and he's taking
it out on the Kennedy Center. You know, the Kennedy
Center was established Kara as a national cultural center, and
then after JFK's assassination, they graciously honored the center with
(20:56):
his name. And it was supposed to do good. He
was supposed to help row the culture. What did it do?
It served to do what somehow demonize and change culture
to the fact of somewhat brainwashing children with these drag
shows that you see, and that was their agenda, to
use it from a leftist establishment, socialist agenda to take
(21:17):
over our children and to brainwash them with these silly
drag shows and not stop there and use our tax money,
steal our tax money, and use this for their own
propaganda reasons. And Trump says, no, you're not going to
do this. So we're sitting across the board. I mean,
he's a man of his word. He's it's art. I mean,
(21:38):
it's actually art. They will be talking about this and
how a country almost came, a republic almost came to
its collapse and one man, Donald Trump put his team
together through Doese and other Elon Musk and Pam Body,
all of them soon cash Hotel and he's making the
changes he's going to reform America that he is.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
And you know that's the thing, right, It's just how Republicans,
as we've been talking about for weeks now, we're just
such controlled opposition. You know, any Republican who was in
a position of power, who would have even talked about
the Kennedy Arts Center, even though it's just a giant grift.
On the one hand, millions of our taxpayer dollars going there,
and it's not going to what we would like it
to go towards, right, like I was saying earlier, with
(22:21):
all these massive salaries, and then for them to put
on drag shows and to say, yeah, when you and
your family visit DC, come see the Kennedy Center of
Performing Arts and what bring your kids to drag shows
funded by the taxpayer dollar by the government. No, but
that's actually very important. No other Republican would touch something
like that, and not only as President Trump going after it,
(22:41):
but I think it's hilarious firing and replacing the board members,
having them vote in his chair. Again, he's doing it
in a funny way as well. That's why I'm like,
he's a politician we've never seen before, desperately needed at
this time, and it's just it's making the whole cleaning
up DC. It's making it fun to watch as well,
because otherwise we'd I'll be crying seeing everything Dosh has
been coming up with. But I also do want to
(23:03):
ask you because again heading into the weekend, President Trump
making another big announcement on truth social saying, hey, Joe Biden,
remember after twenty twenty when you revoked my security clearances
in my daily press briefings as the not press briefings,
orry security briefings as a former president of the United States. Well,
you said the precedent. It's coming back. Those chickens are
(23:25):
coming back home to rus They're coming for you, Biden.
He also cites the her report saying that Biden was
found to have poor memory even in his prime yet
poor memory, cognitive decline, and so he cannot be trusted
with such sensitive information. And then he said, Joe, you're fired.
So what do you make of this.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
Well, there's a lot to be said there, and yeah,
it's true. On the surface, Biden shouldn't have any security
clearances and receive national security information. He's you know, his
mind is gone. He's the minute. His family is corrupt.
He's in charge of he's the big guy. He's in
charge of a corrupt family organization, and he's just never ending.
So on the surface, yes, but you know Trump is
(24:05):
a master right now. If you watch all the fronts
he's posing, he has you looking at the left hand.
You don't see what the right hand's doing. It's more
to this, he understands the left. Like we said earlier,
Kara has lost their power and their influence. They have
nothing left but one thing. They even lost the legacy
media to an extent, it's not as relevant as it
is anymore. But one thing they have. They still have
(24:27):
leakers and whistle blowers inside the establishment, and that's what
they're looking at. They're setting this up for twenty twenty
six to somehow use these leakers and these whistle blowers
that can gain access from national security information and intelligence
reports and then somewhat, you know, sign us up for
another two and three years of impeachments if they gain
(24:49):
the House. And I truly see that that Trump is
seeing this, He understands that he has to take this access.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
They have.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Their only last defense against him is these insiders, these
filtrators from the inside. You know, we see it with
USAI D. He's cut off resources to a lot of
these situations, a lot of George Sorrows CIA prosecutors that
USAID has financed, and to come after him through these
leakers and these what's so called whistle blowers. You know,
(25:18):
we saw it with the one of the guys that
he took his security clearance from SAE. He was a
key part in representing one of the leak leakers and
whistle blowers that came after Donald Trump with the Ukraine incident,
that somehow he was going to go after Joe Biden
for political gain, you know, But that's what we're seeing.
You know, Trump is a master. There's more to it.
(25:40):
He knows what he's doing. He's methodically just going after
these individuals, surgically just removing it. So it's a different
Donald Trump in twenty sixteen. He's got his own playbook.
Problem is they don't know what it is. They have
no idea how to play them, and they're not used
to multitasking like Donald Trump does and fight on multiple
They just can't take him on head to head.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Now, you're exactly right on all of that, and I
wrote a little list here because it's just it's hard
to keep up right with all the security clearances that
he is revoking. But as you're laying out, it's very
much needed at this point. So they can't keep using
it to leak here damaging information without the full context.
And if the whole context was known, we would see
that there was nothing to it. But they do the
(26:23):
selective leaking right to damage. They try and get impeachments
because of this, so scandal after scandal. We saw this
in the first administration. Like you said, he learned, he
learned quick. Not happening again this time. So I have
a few of the names here. I have noted former
Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln, some of this coming from
the New York Post Saturday reporting. They also have Jack Sullivan,
(26:43):
Lisa Monico of the j six persecutions, Andrew Weissman. He
was known as Mueller's pitbull right during the whole Russia
Gate collusion hoax. I also have Norm Eisen He so
much of the lawfair came from Norm Isaen. But one
of his attempts right was to try and kick Trump
off the back out wholesale in Colorado. We have Eric Charramella,
as you were saying, he was the alleged whistleblower for
(27:05):
the first impeachment scandal. His lawyer as well. Also, I
have here oh state attorneys as well. So we have
the New York Attorney General, Letitia James in Manhattan District
Attorney Alvin Brad. Now, of course they're not federal agents,
but this can help revoke some of their security clearances
(27:26):
and also some of their access to federal buildings. So
as we see President Trump's even shoring himself up when
it comes to the States and what they're able to
do against him as well.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
Right, But what they're trying to do too, following up
on what you're saying, is that they're basically relying now
on the federal judges to block Trump's agenda. What I'm
looking for in all these individuals, Eyesen especially says well,
I'm going to block him on taking revoking security clearances
in court. They're so used to run in court and
getting these left wing activist judges to agree with them
(27:58):
and come up with these phony orders to block Trump.
And we're seeing that, but I think what ultimately you're
going to see. They might be slowing down the process temporarily,
but Trump's gonna win out. He has a plenary powers,
absolute powers, and he's going to be successful on this.
And Trump's already outthought them on this. He's he's ready
to go. He's putting the right people in and Pam
(28:18):
Bondi and Cash would tell to use the DOJ to
actually fight these fights. He has the right people. No
more does he have the establishment figures that aren't prepared
to fight because their heart's not in it because Trump
wasn't their man. But Trump has his own agenda nowt
He's actually has stronger mag of people in power now
than maybe even Donald Trump that they want to fight.
(28:41):
They they're willing to fight their hearts in it. So
I think these federal judges are going to try to
block him, but it's going to be unsuccessful and he's
going to win.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Out that it is. It's so so multi pronged, as
we've been talking about here, you know, Pam Bondi, like
you're saying, going after sanctuary cities and they're federal funding
U does going after using id stgrants, Treasury Department, all
these different agencies and all the money that they're constantly
giving out and then also taking away the security clearances
and the other privileges from these these masterminds of law
(29:12):
fair who have been used to just undermine and to
not go after bad guys, but to go after innocent
patriots and to try and paint them as bad guys
while real terrorists right like the iys saw in New
Orleans around Christmas time, that they can just get off
Scott forre you to go do whatever evil plans that
they have in mind, because the FBI is not looking
at them. They're too busy looking at the opponents of Democrats,
the political opponents, meaning Trump supporters. And so with all
(29:35):
these pieces together, I'm sure you saw once again over
the week and in LA there was more protests. I
guess they're trying to make antariety, but they just were
not getting as you can see right there, they just
aren't getting the amount of people out as we saw
during twenty twenty in those riots. Doesn't mean it's not dangerous, right,
we're I think there was a stabbing there in LA.
We saw this again the past week and when you
(29:57):
and I talked. But again, when they don't have the money,
they don't have the funding, they can't make this into
a color coded revolution against President Trump like they did
in twenty twenty. So again not to say these people
aren't violent. Of course, what they're protesting mass deportations, waving
the Mexican flag. Again not really making a great case saying, yeah,
keep all the illegals here, we hate America. We're going
(30:19):
to stab people if we don't get our way. Not
really selling the point, but do you think it kind
of shows once again that they aren't going to get
the amount of power they have for writing like they
did in twenty twenty. Because Trump he's getting all their
lawyers all the money. He is snipping that and nipping
it at the bud well.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
One thing, we got Tom Holman that has held bent
on deportations of illegals and he means what he says
because Donald Trump is backing them and giving him the power.
But getting back to a point that you said that
is very important is the funding. For so long we
saw that George Soros was funding all these various protesters
and these people activists to get out there and roll
(30:55):
up the crowds, pay them the money to get out
there and protest. Now, what have we learn this UAI
USAID transparency that we're learning, thanks goodness to Elon Musk
and Doze, is that George Sorows was actually getting a
lot of the money from USAID through various grants. That
was what was funding a lot of these protests from BLM,
(31:15):
Tantifa and other programs, and that money has dried up.
George Soros is pretty much regulated to his own twenty
seven billion dollars. But that's a finite number. It sounds
like a lot of money in it is, but it
was finite. USAID had fifty billion a year to dispose
of and finance programs like this. And now we're seeing
(31:36):
that that Trump is going down and he's cutting those
sources out and therefore all this money. So you're right,
these protesters there's heart. Really, there's not out there to
get out there and protests unless there's money to be received.
Now they're worried about hiding from whom Ice. They're worried
about hiding from Ice. And what is Pam BONDI doing? Hey, Ice,
you staffers who are trying to leak information, We're going
(31:56):
to come after you.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Now.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
We have never seen this before. Was certainly didn't see
it in twenty sixteen, and we didn't And you know,
I hate saying this, but if Trump would have won
in twenty twenty, I don't know if we would have
saw it in twenty twenty. This is the right time.
We're right for reformation to save our republic. And Donald
Trump's the man, like you said earlier, and by god,
there's hope. There's hope for America.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Yeah, you know, like you said, twenty twenty, the left
had all the cards. Trump was besieged from every sign
those four years in exile. I guess, if you want
to call it, did in so much wonders to see
everything you know without having to be in the spot itself,
being able to sit back and kind of watch and think,
you know, what's my game plan? Because look how vicious
these people are. They will try and throw me in
prison for the last rest of my life. They're going
(32:40):
to try and get me killed. As we saw the
assassination attempts, and again it made him come back better
and stronger than ever. Mike, Thanks for joining us tonight.
Coming up next, President Trump is completely revamping the NIH.
Details when we come back in two.
Speaker 6 (32:59):
Watch OM 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 (33:23):
Welcome back to Tipping Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.
The NIH under Trump is a completely different agency than
it has been these past four years. As they say,
follow the money. Joining us now to discuss is doctor J. Green.
He is a senior Research fellow at the Center for
Education Policy for the Heritage Foundation, Doctor Green, thanks for
being here tonight.
Speaker 7 (33:44):
Thanks for having me on the show.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Great. So that article of yours we just showed is
from twenty twenty new but it's twenty twenty two. But
now it's coming to fruition under this current administration, in
that the NIH under Trump is cutting the rate you say,
it pays for overhead for universities on research grants from
sixty percent to fifteen percent. So that's a lot of words.
I'm not sure exactly what it all means. So can
(34:06):
you tell us what that means in a way a
lay person like me can understand.
Speaker 7 (34:10):
Sure. So for every dollar that the federal government gives
to universities for research, it gives them another amount of
money for the overhead or the general expenses of running
a university, And currently it gives sixty percent, which means
for every dollar gives for the research, it gives another
sixty cents for overhead for the buildings, for electricity, for plumbing.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
But the question.
Speaker 7 (34:39):
Is is that really the overhead they need or is
that creating a slush fund of excess money that the
universities then use to indulge in other nonsense, including dei
and all sorts of other radical endeavors that are really
not related to the research itself.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Yeah, you know the university researchers, they may say, no, no,
we need every penny. But as you your co author
point out in that piece, though, you know Bill and
Melinda Gates and their foundation and now they're gigantic, you
know groups that they can come in and they pay
I think fifteen percent, or they don't go above that
fifteen percent cap. So does that kind of show that
it is possible to do this research without going all
(35:21):
the way to sixty percent?
Speaker 3 (35:23):
That's right.
Speaker 7 (35:24):
Universities gladly accept money from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation with a fifteen percent overhead, not sixty percent, And
in fact, they sometimes even will accept money with a
zero percent overhead. The Walton Family Foundation, for example, pays zero.
And so if universities are willing to take that money
for research from private foundations at a much lower rate
(35:46):
than they take from taxpayers, maybe taxpayers are significantly overpaying
and could pay less.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
So then why does the US federal government pay or
previously to this change, why did they pay so much
when these other foundations could get away with paying a
lot less is it, Because as the joke goes, uncle
Sam is Uncle Sucker.
Speaker 7 (36:06):
That's exactly right. Uncle Sam is the only one willing
to pay that amount. And Uncle Sam is willing to
pay that amount because it's your money and not their money,
and so they're very happy to hand out money to
their bodies in academia and not think too critically about
whether they're overpaid. And that overpayment is indulging nonsense at university.
(36:28):
So if we cut back on this excess payment, we're
also going to cut back on nonsense.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
And maticallys be nice to see some of that splash
from money, because we're talking about start to, you know,
get smaller and smaller and smaller. I think it's interesting
that article that you co authored that the title of
it was basically that it is welfare for rich foundations.
And I think the first line says, imagine going to
a gas station and paying you know, the regular for
(36:53):
hear us here in California is like what four fifteen
usually sadly still for gas. I know, our way above
that national average, but about four fifty. But like you say,
it would be like these left wing billionaires coming in
paying a nickel for the same gallon of gas that
we pay four p. Fifty four here in California. So
does that kind of help to put it into context
for viewers just how bad this this scam is.
Speaker 7 (37:15):
That's right, taxpayers are paying at least four times as
much as billionaires. So you know the taxpayer is overpaying.
We also know the taxpayers overpaying because historically universities were
able to conduct their research at much lower rates of overhead.
Over time, they've increased that rate of overhead dramatically. Now,
of course, research costs go up and the overhead costs
(37:37):
go up, but there's no reason for the overhead to
go up much faster than the cost of research. It's
not as if the cost of buildings went up four
times faster than the cost of research. And so that's
another sign that we're overpaying, is that they've increased the
share of the total amount that the government funds that
goes to the overhead and decrease the amount that goes
to research. And that makes another important point we should
(38:00):
keep in mind, which is the Trump administration move here
does not cut money for research. They're not cutting the
amount for research, they're cutting the amount for the overhead.
In fact, by cutting the amount for the overhead. They're
freeing up money to give more for the actual research.
So the stuff that we taxpayers actually care about, like
them making advances and fighting cancer, they're going to be
(38:23):
able to devote more resources to that, not less.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
And that's of course what we need moving forward. And
I think you also note in that piece though that
and I have it here, there's empirical and historical evidence
that the innovation and scientific progressing your co author, right,
that improves our lives is not driven by university research.
So does that kind of add to the fact that
maybe they shouldn't be commanding such high overhead prices in
the first place.
Speaker 7 (38:47):
Look, there's research innovation going on all over the place,
including in the private sector. Universities do contribute, but often
they contribute to the benefit of private company. So, for example,
drug breakthroughs that we all appreciate are then monetized by
large pharmaceutical companies. It would be nice if those companies
(39:08):
paid more for the basic research and taxpayers could save
at least some money on the overhead.
Speaker 1 (39:13):
No, that's exactly Ryan, like you're saying that getting rid
of some of this excess that we have in the
slush funds that allows for all sorts of just frivolity,
and maybe that's a poor word for it on these
college campuses that may be getting rid of more that
can remove some of those constraints that have hampered I
would say some of that innovation in that progress these
(39:33):
last couple of years. Do you think, like you were
saying a bit earlier, that it could help make us
more refined, more effective, and more efficient moving forward.
Speaker 7 (39:41):
Sure, we actually find that for every one hundred million
dollars that universities get for overhead, they hire an additional
fifteen and a half DEI staff. So, in other words,
you could see how they're able to indulge their political
agendas when we give them more money for research, because
they siphon some of that off for their other activities.
(40:02):
And so what we need to do is to actually
shrink the amount of overhead that we provide. Make that
which is unpleasant for them, it will force them to innovate,
become more efficient. They're not going to like that. They're
going to squeal how they're never going to do research again.
But the truth is they'll take gladly take the money
from us at fifteen percent overhead just like they gladly
(40:22):
take it from Bill and Will indicates for fifteen percent overhead,
and I assure you that there will be no reduction
in meaningful research going forward. In fact, it benefits the
universities to do the research even if we pay them
no overhead, because after all, that's their mission. That's what
allows them to raise money from private donors, that's what
(40:42):
allows them to attract faculty in students. It's kind of
odd that we don't just pay them money to do
the research. We also pay them overhead and on top.
And then it's a little unseemly if these fund these
universities with billions of dollars then demand that we pay
even more. It seems to me that they should be
quite pleased that we're paying them anything at all.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
And well, I'm glad that what you wrote about three
years ago is now coming to fruition. Doctor Green, thanks
for making time for us tonight. Shutting up next to
the new interim president of Syria has a pass of
the Western media. Would rather you forget details when we
come back.
Speaker 6 (41:18):
Into 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 1 (41:48):
Welcome back to you Tipping Point. I'm your host, Kara McKinney.
The ISIS and Al Kainda alumni Abu Mohammad al Jalani,
now terror group HTS was welcome to great fanfare by
Turkey over these past few days. Al Jelani, who has
since ditched the nom Dagera, now goes by his name
Ahmed al Sharrah, is currently serving as the interim president
(42:09):
of Syria. After spending decades of his life fighting in
a jihad against the West and even spending years in
the custody of US forces, Al Sharah claims that he
is no longer an enemy of the West and that
his only beef was with the horrors of the now
dethroned Assad regime. In his glowing Western press tour after
coming to power in Syria late last year, the history
of al Sharrah was rewritten. No longer was he a terrorist,
(42:32):
but some of the liberal West could trust because he
was now into diversity. You honestly can't make this stuff up,
but that is what he told them, and the mainstream
media ate it up. Al Hirah is attempting to consolidate
control of a deeply divided country riven by ethnic nationalists
and religious differences, a hot that has spy agencies all
across the globe, especially year in the West, attempting to
(42:55):
manipulate the situation for their own gain, such as the
US running guns and Jahadi is to see for many years,
with Assad escaping to Russia and many of his forces
surrendering without much of a fight, both Turkey and Israel
press their advantages in order to gobble up Syrian territory.
Of the two, Al Sharah appears to be throwing in
with Ankara. He is working with Turkish president and received
(43:16):
type Eradiwan on constructing Turkish military bases in the heart
of Syria and in rebuilding a Syrian army. In return,
Al Sharrah wants Turkey to use its poll in the
international community to help alleviate Western sanctions on Syria now
that Asad is gone, and to push Israel and It's
buffer zone back to align drawn by the UN after
(43:37):
the nineteen seventy three Young Kupur War. So is the
fall of Asad working up the way the West wanted
it to. Turkey now appears to be the real power
behind the Jahadist government currently in charge, and once again
Israel appears to be at the disadvantage in the same
way their desire for the US invasion of a rock
backfired by allowing a run more influence over the country
(43:58):
instead of Western line countries. Does that mean the pressure
will be on behind the scenes for more dirty wars,
CNIA tricks and the like, or will President Trump's new
picks be wise to such concerns and avoid those landmines.
Joining us now to discuss is Dave DeCamp. He is
a news editor for anti war dot com Dave and
he has his own podcast as well for anti War Dave.
(44:19):
Thanks for being here tonight. Great. So, there is so
much going on here, But should the baseline takeaway be
that the US stop engaging in these regime change operations
because it never goes our way, and that it's a
lot of hubris and pride to think we should do
such things in the first place, even if it does
go to plan.
Speaker 5 (44:40):
Yeah, well, exactly. This is a mess of the US's
making here.
Speaker 1 (44:45):
You know.
Speaker 5 (44:45):
US intervention led to essentially al Qaeda taking over Syria.
Now they've of course rebranded, and you mentioned that Jelani
now goes by Alshara and this was a white washing
campaign of his history that's back a few years. You know,
we've seen him get friendly interviews in the Western media,
years before he's actually taken power here in Syria. And
(45:07):
that one interview that you put up, I believe that
was with CNN. He said that, you know, his time
in Isis and Alcada, that was just just a phase.
But we start to see this government that he's put together,
which is supposedly all inclusive, and we see people the
justice minister. There's a videos that surfaced of him overseeing
the execution of women in northwest Syria's id Lib province
(45:29):
when it was ruled by al Qaeda for things like adultery.
And I mean, this is the guy now that that's
in the new government. And you know, we talk about
one thing in Syria is there's so many different factions
and Jilani leads HTS Hyatt Tareer al Sham, which is
an offshoot of Alcada. His original group in Syria was
(45:50):
Al Keada. He's the founder of Al Keda in Syria.
Sorry to say that so many times. But it's a
really important point to stress here. But there is all
these different factstions now, and there is a chance of
this thing turning into a really nasty civil war. We
already see in northern Syria the US's allies, the Kurds,
(46:11):
the SDF, have been fighting against these Turkish backed factions
in some very bloody battles, and you know, you look
at the situation. You know, the overview Turkey is a
NATO ally. The Kurds that they're fighting, they consider to
be terrorists. They're essentially the Syrian wing of the PKK,
which the US also considers to be a terrorist group.
(46:32):
But that's the US's ally. So the whole thing again,
it's just a mess. The US should not be involved.
There's about two thousand American troops there and if things
do really devolve, they're going to be at risk, and
you know, they're like sitting ducks at these bases and
if they get hit, then that means the US could
escalate and the situation could be even more of a mess.
Speaker 1 (46:54):
And then on the.
Speaker 5 (46:54):
Other side in southern Syria, Israel is creeping in. It's
occupying pieces of southern Syria. Now they essentially supported this
regime change effort and now are using it as an
excuse to take Syrian territory. And I still think overall
and that ya who's happy that Iran's ally is out,
even if Turkey has this influence, but they're going to
(47:17):
use this to continue this occupation, which they're saying is
open ended.
Speaker 7 (47:21):
Now.
Speaker 1 (47:22):
Yeah, and you know, there's just so much we could say,
but I guess part of me just wants to just
kind of harp on the morality part of all of this,
because I get the geopolitics going on as you're talking about,
especially because of Syria can act as a conduit for Iran,
especially to help aid in arm Hezbola, and so I
get they're trying to snip that, but I mean, we've
(47:42):
been doing running guns and jahatis through Syria for so
many years at this point, but thankfully now our d
and I nominee. Right, Tulca Gaberschi was talking about Operation
Timber Sycamore right in front of Congress, saying, this is
the dirty tricks you guys are aiding in supplying literal
terrorists in Syria because you think it furthers your goals.
And I just think to my mind, all the innocent
(48:02):
civilians caught in these horrible in these countries, right, and
Gatjahati's running and guns because there's all these machinations of
foreign governments and you just want to live in peace.
I think back to Obama talking about Isis being the
JV team, don't worry, and the reason why they were
saying that is because they're thinking, oh, well, isis Is
marching up to Asad, Maybe they can fight Asad, kick
a Sad out, and we can use all these mac
(48:24):
and nations to our own ends. And then Russia then
comes in saying, well, we don't want Isis being in
charge of Syria, so then Russia gets more involved in
the country. And again I'm just thinking, what right do
we have to even be doing such a thing to say, oh,
we're fighting al Kaida in one country, but we're gonna
arm and supply them in another country. I mean, it
really doesn't give us any kind of moral high ground
in the Middle East as we're talking about trying to
(48:46):
revamp al Jilani's history and his reputation. I mean, we
used to call Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter ride
the muja Hadeen back in the day. We used to
supply Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, help giving
them the chemical weapons that he was using, at least
through the CIA. They don't officially admit it, but that's
what was going on. We're saying Russia as authoritarian and evil,
(49:06):
but at the same time we're in bed with the
Saudis and the Egyptians. It's just a hot mess, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (49:13):
Yeah, it is. And I'm glad that you mentioned Tulsi
Gabbard because it's good to know that someone who hopefully
will be in the administration recognizes the reality of the
situation in Syria. And if you know that history, the
solution is for the US to get out.
Speaker 1 (49:29):
Now.
Speaker 5 (49:29):
We know people are going to use these stories about
you know, isis you know, blending into the new security
forces of Syria and all these Jihatists. People might use this,
you know, in the US, the Hawks might use this
to justify maybe even another regime change effort in Syria,
you know, a few years down the line. And as
you mentioned, it's always important to remember Saddam was an
(49:52):
ally one day and then he was the bad guy
the next day. We've seen this play out over and
over again. And you know, if a US withdrawal and
just not to be involved at all will show, you know,
whoever is in charge in Syria that the US isn't
the enemy, and hopefully the US could you know, Turkey
could exert its influence, and maybe even Russia because they're
(50:14):
talking about keeping bases there to make sure that, you know,
it doesn't become some terrorist haven where an attack might
be launched against the US. I think it's more likely
for that to happen if the US stays and it
gets more destabilized. I think the answer is to get
out and not get involved in another war in Syria.
Speaker 1 (50:32):
That it is, and obviously there's still a lot of
hawks and power. Like you said that they provoke the
regime change and then when it goes a different way
then they're like, okay, well then now that's impetus to
do more regime changes, like you said, using all these
Dahati fighters and they get into power, then that's the
reason why you need to get involved again. And on
and on it goes, and hopefully we're going to be
breaking that cycle. I know the new Secretary of State,
(50:55):
Marco Rubio, a neocon for so many years, and probably
still at his heart, but I mean he's at least
his rhetoric has changing, and it's been great to see
talking about Iran, Russia, China in terms of national interests,
what's their national interest instead of saying, oh, these guys
are just completely evil and therefore just total war all
the time. There's just nothing else we can do. He's
now talking about diplomacy once again, So at least that's
(51:17):
been refreshing to see. And hopefully, like you said, we'll
see what President Trump wants to do in his first
term when the deep state told him no, which was
to start pulling troops out of serious So hopefully we'll
start to see that. But Dave, we're out of time.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight, and when we
come back, it's time to wrap the show. So stay tuned.
Speaker 6 (51:39):
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 (52:02):
Welcome back to Tipping Point. I'm your host, Karen McKinney.
So on Friday I did my first book recommendation segment
and I think it went pretty well, so I'm gonna
start doing those on Fridays. Is a nice way to
cap the week. So thank you to everyone who messaged
me about this. I've read them all, even those I
didn't have time to respond to, and with that, I'm
all out of time for tonight. Hopefully learn something interesting
to take with you into tomorrow. Until then, you can
(52:24):
follow us on x, Instagram, Truth Social, Facebook, and threads
at tipping Point, oa N or on my personal account
at Nefertori Underscore twenty five. You can also watch clips
of 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
(52:45):
for iOS, Android, Apple TV and other devices to watch
Tipping Point wherever you go. And oaan Live features video
on demand so you never have to miss a show.
So as always, thank you, I 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,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com